Another look at the relative importance of sectors and regions in determining property returns

This paper re-examines the relative importance of sector and regional effects in determining property returns. Using the largest property database currently available in the world, we decompose the returns on individual properties into a national effect, common to all properties, and a number of sector and regional factors. However, unlike previous studies, we categorise the individual property data into an ever-increasing number of property-types and regions, from a simple 3-by-3 classification, up to a 10 by 63 sector/region classification. In this way we can test the impact that a finer classification has on the sector and regional effects. We confirm the earlier findings of previous studies that sector-specific effects have a greater influence on property returns than regional effects. We also find that the impact of the sector effect is robust across different classifications of sectors and regions. Nonetheless, the more refined sector and regional partitions uncover some interesting sector and regional differences, which were obscured in previous studies. All of which has important implications for property portfolio construction and analysis.

The core-periphery model with three regions and more

We determine the properties of the core-periphery model with three regions and compare our results with those of the standard 2-region model. The conditions for the stability of dispersion and concentration are established. As in the 2-region model, dispersion and concentration can be simultaneously stable. We show that the 3-region (2-region) model favours the concentration (dispersion) of economic activity. Furthermore, we provide some results for the n-region model. We show that the stability of concentration of the 2-region model implies that of any model with an even number of regions.

Technological change and the challenges for regional development: building social capital in less-favoured regions

The relevance of regional policy for less favoured regions (LFRs) reveals itself when policy-makers must reconcile competitiveness with social cohesion through the adaptation of competition or innovation policies. The vast literature in this area generally builds on an overarching concept of ‘social capital’ as the necessary relational infrastructure for collective action diversification and policy integration, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of industrial change and a necessary balance between the creation and diffusion of ‘knowledge’ through learning. This relational infrastructure or ‘social capital’ is centred on people’s willingness to cooperate and ‘envision’ futures as a result of “social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993: 35). Advocates of this interpretation of ‘social capital’ have adopted the ‘new growth’ thinking behind ‘systems of innovation’ and ‘competence building’, arguing that networks have the potential to make both public administration and markets more effective as well as ‘learning’ trajectories more inclusive of the development of society as a whole. This essay aims to better understand the role of ‘social capital’ in the production and reproduction of uneven regional development patterns, and to critically assess the limits of a ‘systems concept’ and an institution-centred approach to comparative studies of regional innovation. These aims are discussed in light of the following two assertions: i) learning behaviour, from an economic point of view, has its determinants, and ii) the positive economic outcomes of ‘social capital’ cannot be taken as a given. It is suggested that an agent-centred approach to comparative research best addresses the ‘learning’ determinants and the consequences of social networks on regional development patterns. A brief discussion of the current debate on innovation surveys has been provided to illustrate this point.

Does regional infrastructure investment stimulate extra housing and commercial building supply? Long-run evidence across the English regions

This paper uses long-term regional construction data to investigate whether increases infrastructure investment in the English regions leads to subsequent rises in housebuilding and new commercial property, using time series modeling. Both physical (roads and harbours) and social infrastructure (education and health) impacts are investigated across nine regions in England. Significant effects for physical infrastructure are found across most regions and, also, some evidence of a social infrastructure effect. The results are not consistent across regions, which may be due to geographical differences and to network and diversionary effects. However, the results do suggest that infrastructure does have some impact but follows differential lag structures. These results provide a test of the hypothesis of the economic benefits of infrastructure investment in an approach that has not been used before.

Style analysis in real estate markets: beyond the sectors and regions dichotomy

While style analysis has been studied extensively in equity markets, applications of this valuable tool for measuring and benchmarking performance and risk in a real estate context are still relatively new. Most previous real estate studies on this topic have identified three investment categories (rather than styles): sectors, administrative regions and economic regions. However, the low explanatory power reveals the need to extend this analysis to other investment styles. We identify four main real estate investment styles and apply a multivariate model to randomly generated portfolios to test the significance of each style in explaining portfolio returns. Results show that significant alpha performance is significantly reduced when we account for the new investment styles, with small vs. big properties being the dominant one. Secondly, we find that the probability of obtaining alpha performance is dependent upon the actual exposure of funds to style factors. Finally we obtain that both alpha and systematic risk levels are linked to the actual characteristics of portfolios. Our overall results suggest that it would be beneficial for real estate fund managers to use these style factors to set benchmarks and to analyze portfolio returns.

The relative importance of sectors v's regions in determining property returns

A number of studies have investigated the benefits of sector versus regional diversification within a real estate portfolio without explicitly quantify the relative benefits of one against the other. This paper corrects this omission by adopting the approach of Heston and Rouwenhorst (1994) and Beckers, Connor and Curds (1996) on a sample of 187 property data points using annual data over the period 1981-1995. The general conclusion of which is the sector diversification explains on average 22% of the variability of property returns compared with 8% for administratively defined regions. A result in line with previous work. Implying that sector diversification should be the first level of analysis in constructing and managing the real estate portfolio. However, unlike previous work functionally defined regions provide less of an explanation of regional diversification than administrative regions. Which may be down to the weak definition of economic regions employed in this study.