German open ended funds: was there a valuation problem?

In late 2005, a number of German open ended funds suffered significant withdrawals by unit holders. The crisis was precipitated by a long term bear market in German property investment and the fact that these funds offered short term liquidity to unit holders but had low levels of liquidity in the fund. A more controversial suggestion was that the crisis was exacerbated by a perception that the valuations of the fund were too infrequent and inaccurate. As units are priced by reference to these valuations with no secondary market, the valuation process is central to the process. There is no direct evidence that these funds were over-valued but there is circumstantial evidence and this paper examines the indirect evidence of the process to see whether the hypothesis that valuation is an issue for the German funds holds any credibility. It also discusses whether there is a wider issue for other funds of this nature or whether it is a parochial problem confined to Germany. The conclusions are that there is reason to believe that German valuation processes make over-valuation in a recession more likely than in other countries and that more direct research into the German valuation system is required to identify the issues which need to be addressed to make the valuation system more trusted.

The growth of private property vehicles in the UK: causes and conditions

The UK private indirect real estate market has seen a rapid growth in the last seven years. The gross asset value (GAV) of the private property vehicle (PPV) market has about tripled from a GAV of £22.6bn in 1998 to a GAV of £67.1 billion at the end of 2005 (OPC, 2006). Although this trend of growing syndication of real estate is not only a UK phenomenon, the rate of growth has been significantly faster in the UK. For example the German open-ended funds have grown over the same period from €50.4bn to €85.1bn (BVI, 2006). In the US the market capitalization of equity real estate investment trusts (REIT) has grown 155% since 1999 to US$ 301bn (NAREIT, 2006). Each jurisdiction is offering different formats to invest indirectly into real estate but at the core all these vehicles are the same in that they provide a different route for investors to access real estate. In the UK, although the range of ‘products’ is now quite diverse, all structures have in common the ‘wrapping’ of property assets into a multi-investor vehicle. This paper examines the nature, pattern and process of market growth in PPVs and constructs a series of associations between causes and effects to explain this market shift.

Property funds: how much diversification is enough?

t is well known that when assets are randomly-selected and combined in equal proportions in a portfolio, the risk of the portfolio declines as the number of different assets increases without affecting returns. In other words, increasing portfolio size should improve the risk/return trade-off compared with a portfolio of asset size one. Therefore, diversifying among several property funds may be a better alternative for investors compared to holding only one property fund. Nonetheless, it also well known that with naïve diversification although risk always decreases with portfolio size, it does so at a decreasing rate so that at some point the reduction in portfolio risk, from adding another fund, becomes negligible. Based on this fact, a reasonable question to ask is how much diversification is enough, or in other words, how many property funds should be included in a portfolio to minimise return volatility.