Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the UK

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD UK database over the period 1981 to 2003 than normally distributed risk models. This finding mirrors results in the US and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroskedastic, but the characteristic exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time – yet it may vary by property type. Asset diversification is far less effective at reducing the impact of non‐systematic investment risk on real estate portfolios than in the case of assets with normally distributed investment risk. The results, therefore, indicate that multi‐risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite‐variance statistics are ineffective in the real estate context

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.

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the U.K.

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD database over the period 1981 to 2003 than Normally distributed risk models, which mirrors results in the U.S. and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroscedastic, but the Characteristic Exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time yet may vary by property type. Asset diversification is far less effective at reducing the impact of non-systematic investment risk on real estate portfolios than in the case of assets with Normally distributed investment risk. Multi-risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite-variance statistics are ineffectual in the real estate context.

When does direct real estate improve portfolio performance?

For over twenty years researchers have been recommending that investors diversify their portfolios by adding direct real estate. Based on the tenets of modern portfolio theory (MPT) investors are told that the primary reason they should include direct real estate is that they will enjoy decreased volatility (risk) through increased diversification. However, the MPT methodology hides where this reduction in risk originates. To over come this deficiency we use a four-quadrant approach to break down the co-movement between direct real estate and equities and bonds into negative and positive periods. Then using data for the last 25-years we show that for about 70% of the time a holding in direct real estate would have hurt portfolio returns, i.e. when the other assets showed positive performance. In other words, for only about 30% of the time would a holding in direct real estate lead to improvements in portfolio returns. However, this increase in performance occurs when the alternative asset showed negative returns. In addition, adding direct real estate always leads to reductions in portfolio risk, especially on the downside. In other words, although adding direct real estate helps the investor to avoid large losses it also reduces the potential for large gains. Thus, if the goal of the investor is offsetting losses, then the results show that direct real estate would have been of some benefit. So in answer to the question when does direct real estate improve portfolio performance the answer is on the downside, i.e. when it is most needed.

Serial persistence in individual real estate returns in the UK

Persistence of property returns is a topic of perennial interest to fund managers as it suggests that choosing those properties that will perform well in the future is as simple as looking at those that performed well in the past. Consequently, much effort has been expended to determine if such a rule exists in the real estate market. This paper extends earlier studies in US, Australian, and UK markets in two ways. First, this study applies the same methodology originally used in Young and Graff (1996) making the results directly comparable with those in the US and Australian property markets. Second, this study uses a much longer and larger database covering all commercial property data available from the Investment Property Databank (IPD), for the years 1981 to 2002 for as many as 216,758 individual property returns. While the performance results of this study mimic the US and Australian results of greater persistence in the extreme first and fourth quartiles, they also evidence persistence in the moderate second and third quartiles, a notable departure from previous studies. Likewise patterns across property type, location, time, and holding period are remarkably similar leading to the conjecture that behaviors in the practice of commercial real estate investment management are themselves deeply rooted and persistent and perhaps influenced for good or ill by agency effects

Forecasting UK real estate cycle phases with leading indicators: a probit approach

This paper examines the significance of widely used leading indicators of the UK economy for predicting the cyclical pattern of commercial real estate performance. The analysis uses monthly capital value data for UK industrials, offices and retail from the Investment Property Databank (IPD). Prospective economic indicators are drawn from three sources namely, the series used by the US Conference Board to construct their UK leading indicator and the series deployed by two private organisations, Lombard Street Research and NTC Research, to predict UK economic activity. We first identify turning points in the capital value series adopting techniques employed in the classical business cycle literature. We then estimate probit models using the leading economic indicators as independent variables and forecast the probability of different phases of capital values, that is, periods of declining and rising capital values. The forecast performance of the models is tested and found to be satisfactory. The predictability of lasting directional changes in property performance represents a useful tool for real estate investment decision-making.

The cyclical behaviour of sector and regional diversification benefits: 1987-2002

This paper investigates the time series behaviour of the relative benefits of sector and regional diversification strategies, using the notion of cross-sectional dispersion introduced by Solnik and Roulet (2000). Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12, four sector and four regional classifications are examined in the UK. The results indicate that sector and regional dispersion indices are highly time varying and so dwarf any lower frequency cyclical components that may be present. Nonetheless, periods of high dispersion are closely followed by periods of low dispersion, suggestive of cyclical behaviour of sector and regional diversification benefits. Then, using the HP-filter we isolated the cyclical component of the various dispersion indices and found that the sector dispersion indices are generally above the regional dispersion indices. This implies that a sector diversification strategy is likely to offer greater risk reduction benefits than a regional diversification approach. Nonetheless, we find that in some periods, certain regional diversification strategies are of equal or greater benefit than certain sector approaches. The results also appear to be quite sensitive to the classifications of sectors and regions. Hence, the appropriate definition of sectors and regions can have important implications for sector and regional diversification strategies.

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12 for a sample of over 1000 properties the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy.

Is ESG commitment linked to investment performance in the real estate sector?

The linkage between corporate commitment to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and investment performance has generated a substantial body of research outside the real estate sector. Nevertheless, the relationship between the environmental performance and financial performance of companies is still not well understood as studies have found mixed and contradicting results. Drawing upon the KLD database which contains ratings on seven ESG dimensions from 2003-2009, this paper investigates the relationship between the ESG rating and the financial performance of a sample of US real estate firms. Since the primary transmission channel from ESG activities to financial performance may be better reflected by a firm's intangible assets, we model both Tobin's q and the total annual return in a panel framework with time and sector specific fixed effects. Our results are largely consistent with the existing literature finding a positive relationship between CFP and CSP. Further, the time scale of the lagged effects seems plausible.

Re-thinking commercial real estate market segmentation

Investments in direct real estate are inherently difficult to segment compared to other asset classes due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of the asset. The most common segmentation in real estate investment analysis relies on property sector and geographical region. In this paper, we compare the predictive power of existing industry classifications with a new type of segmentation using cluster analysis on a number of relevant property attributes including the equivalent yield and size of the property as well as information on lease terms, number of tenants and tenant concentration. The new segments are shown to be distinct and relatively stable over time. In a second stage of the analysis, we test whether the newly generated segments are able to better predict the resulting financial performance of the assets than the old dichotomous segments. Applying both discriminant and neural network analysis we find mixed evidence for this hypothesis. Overall, we conclude from our analysis that each of the two approaches to segmenting the market has its strengths and weaknesses so that both might be applied gainfully in real estate investment analysis and fund management.