Is there a place for property in the multi-asset portfolio?

The case for property has typically rested on the application of modern portfolio theory (MPT), in that property has been shown to offer increased diversification benefits within a multi asset portfolio without hurting portfolio returns especially for lower risk portfolios. However this view is based upon the use of historic, usually appraisal based, data for property. Recent research suggests strongly that such data significantly underestimates the risk characteristics of property, because appraisals explicitly or implicitly smooth out much of the real volatility in property returns. This paper examines the portfolio diversification effects of including property in a multi-asset portfolio, using UK appraisal based (smoothed) data and several derived de-smoothed series. Having considered the effects of de-smoothing, we then consider the inclusion of a further low risk asset (cash) in order to investigate further whether property's place in a low risk portfolio is maintained. The conclusions of this study are that the previous supposed benefits of including property have been overstated. Although property may still have a place in a 'balanced' institutional portfolio, the case for property needs to be reassessed and not be based simplistically on the application of MPT.

The future returns for property required by UK pension funds

In the 1970s Real Estate represented over 17% of the average pension funds total assets. Today such funds hold less than 4%, a figure not seen since the 1960s. This reduction in Real Estate holdings is mainly attributable to the relatively poor performance of Real Estate against other asset classes since the 1980s. Whether pension funds will increase their holding at any point in the future depends therefore on the expected return of Real Estate by comparison with that required to justify a particular asset holding. Using the technique of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), this paper assesses the required return that Real Estate would have to offer to justify a 15% holding in a mixed asset portfolio. This figure and the risk/return characteristics of the major asset classes is taken from survey data. Under a number of scenarios it is found that Real Estate can play a part in a mixed asset portfolio at the 15% level. In some cases however, the expected returns of Real Estate are not sufficient to justify a weight of 15% in this asset.

The future returns for property required by UK pension funds: the BHS data

Previous studies of the place of Property in the multi-asset portfolio have generally relied on historical data, and have been concerned with the supposed risk reduction effects that Property would have on such portfolios. In this paper a different approach has been taken. Not only are expectations data used, but we have also concentrated upon the required return that Property would have to offer to achieve a holding of 15% in typical UK pension fund portfolios. Using two benchmark portfolios for pension funds, we have shown that Property's required return is less than that expected, and therefore it could justify a 15% holding.

Property company performance and real interest rates: a regime-switching approach

Linear models of property market performance may be misspecified if there exist distinct states where the market drivers behave in different ways. This paper examines the applicability of non-linear regime-based models. A Self Exciting Threshold Autoregressive (SETAR) model is applied to property company share data, using the real rate of interest to define regimes. Distinct regimes appear exhibiting markedly different market behaviour. The model both casts doubt on the specification of conventional linear models and offers the possibility of developing effective trading rules for real estate equities.

The challenge of self-regulation in commercial property leasing: a study of lease codes in the UK.

Purpose – UK Government policy to address perceived market failure in commercial property leasing has largely been pursued through industry self-regulation. Yet, it is proving difficult to assess whether self-regulation on leasing has been a “success”, or even to determine how to evaluate this. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for this and a clearer understanding of self-regulation in commercial leasing. Design/methodology/approach – A literature review suggests key criteria to explain the (in)effectiveness of self-regulation. UK lease codes are analysed in the light of this literature, drawing on previous research carried out by the authors on the operation of these codes. Findings – Lease codes appear to be failing as an effective system of self-regulation. While there are influential market actors championing them, the fragmentation of the leasing process lessens this influence. The structures are not there to ensure implementation, monitor compliance and record views of affected stakeholders. Research limitations/implications – This work adds to the literature on self-regulation in general, and provides an insight into its operation in a previously unexplored industry. Research is needed into the experience of other countries in regulating the property industry by voluntary means. Social implications – There are institutional limitations to self-regulation within the property industry. This has implications for policy makers in considering the advantages and limitation of using a voluntary solution to achieve policy aims within the commercial leasing market. Originality/value – This paper provides a first step in considering the lease codes in the wider context of industry self-regulation and is relevant to policy makers and industry bodies.

Building communities: reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property

Reducing energy use in tenanted commercial property requires a greater understanding of ‘buildings as communities’. Tenanted commercial properties represent: (1) the divergent communities that share specific buildings; and (2) the organizational communities represented by multi-site landlord and tenant companies. In any particular tenanted space the opportunity for environmental change is mediated (hindered or enabled) through the lease. This discussion draws on theoretical and practical understandings of (1) the socio-legal relationships of landlords, tenants and their advisors; (2) the real performance of engineering building services strategies to improve energy efficiency; (3) how organizational cultures affect the ability of the sector to engage with energy-efficiency strategies; and (4) the financial and economic basis of the relationship between owners and occupiers. The transformational complexity stems from: (1) the variety of commercial building stock; (2) the number of stakeholders (solicitors, investors, developers, agents, owners, tenants and facilities managers); (3) the fragmentation within the communities of practice; and (4) leasehold structures and language. An agenda is proposed for truly interdisciplinary research that brings together both the physical and the social sciences of energy use in buildings so that technological solutions are made effective by an understanding of the way that buildings are used and communities behave.

Facing the future: energy performance certificates and commercial property

Purpose – The paper aims to present the findings of a “situation review” of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), focusing on energy performance certificates (EPCs) to highlight areas of specific importance for the UK property investment community. The paper is based on research commissioned by the Investment Property Forum (IPF) and funded through the IPF Research Programme (2006-2009). Design/methodology/approach – Interviews were undertaken with experts from the fields of property investment and building engineering. The interviews were undertaken with to identify: the current knowledge of EPCs in the property investment sector; key issues with practical implementation of the legislation; and perceptions of the potential impacts of legislation, particularly in relation to value stakeholder and behaviour. Findings – The paper finds that, although the regulations have been published, there is still a need for clarification in the marketplace with regard to some of the detail of regulations and the certification process. The following areas are of most concern to property investors: costs of surveys; potential difficulties with the process; and a shortage of assessors. With respect to these impacts it is becoming clear that investors who have not yet started considering the EPBD and its requirements within their strategy are likely to face difficulties in the short term. The most significant value-related impacts of EPBD are expected to be value differentiation of properties and “price chipping” against the rental or capital value of the property, where an occupier or potential purchaser will use the recommendations contained within an EPC to force a reduction in value. The latter is expected to emerge in the short term, whereas the former is expected to be realised over the medium to long term. Both these impacts have potentially significant implications for property investment holdings and also future investment behaviour.

The property development industry and sustainable urban brownfield regeneration in England: an analysis of case studies in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester

The property development industry is a key actor in UK brownfield regeneration projects. UK policy has attempted to interlink ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable brownfield’ policy agendas, which have found an additional focus through the UK government’s ‘Sustainable Communities Plan’, part of a growing international emphasis on sustainable development. This paper examines the emergence of these agendas and related policies, and the role of the property development industry in the regeneration of six differing brownfield sites, based in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester. Using a conceptual framework, the paper investigates aspects of the sustainability of these projects and highlights key lessons from them for both the UK and overseas. The research is based on structured interviews with a variety of stakeholders, including developers, planners, consultants and community representatives to highlight emerging best practice and related policy implications.

Urban land and property ownership patterns in the UK: trends and forces for change

The first part of this review examines what is meant by ‘urban land and property��� (ULP) and looks at the background of ULP in the light of trends in UK urban areas over the past 50 years. Key conceptual approaches to the ULP ‘ownership issue’ are identified, together with the constraints to empirical analysis, which include a lack of data and patchy and inconsistent datasets. Three main components of ULP ownership in the UK are then examined using published data on commercial property, residential property and urban land, including ‘previously developed land’ (PDL) and ‘development land, covering both the private and public sectors. The review examines past trends in ULP ownership patterns in these sectors within the UK, and the key drivers which have created the present day patterns of ULP ownership. It concludes by identifying possible future trends in ULP ownership over the next 50 years to 2060 in the three main ULP sectors.

Performance drivers of UK unlisted property funds

An unlisted property fund is a private investment vehicle which aims to provide direct property total returns and may also employ financial leverage which will accentuate performance. They have become a far more prevalent institutional property investment conduit since the early 2000’s. Investors have been primarily attracted to them due to the ease of executing a property exposure, both domestically and internationally, and for their diversification benefits given the capital intensive nature of constructing a well diversified commercial property investment portfolio. However, despite their greater prominence there has been little academic research conducted on the performance and risks of unlisted property fund investments. This can be attributed to a paucity of available data and limited time series where it exists. In this study we have made use of a unique dataset of institutional UK unlisted non-listed property funds over the period 2003Q4 to 2011Q4, using a panel modelling framework in order to determine the key factors which impact on fund performance. The sample provided a rich set of unlisted property fund factors including market exposures, direct property characteristics and the level of financial leverage employed. The findings from the panel regression analysis show that a small number of variables are able to account for the performance of unlisted property funds. These variables should be considered by investors when assessing the risk and return of these vehicles. The impact of financial leverage upon the performance of these vehicles through the recent global financial crisis and subsequent UK commercial property market downturn was also studied. The findings indicate a significant asymmetric effect of employing debt finance within unlisted property funds.

Risk reduction and diversification in UK commercial property portfolios

The issue of diversification in direct real estate investment portfolios has been widely studied in academic and practitioner literature. Most work, however, has been done using either partially aggregated data or data for small samples of individual properties. This paper reports results from tests of both risk reduction and diversification that use the records of 10,000+ UK properties tracked by Investment Property Databank. It provides, for the first time, robust estimates of the diversification gains attainable given the returns, risks and cross‐correlations across the individual properties available to fund managers. The results quantify the number of assets and amount of money needed to construct both ‘balanced’ and ‘specialist’ property portfolios by direct investment. Target numbers will vary according to the objectives of investors and the degree to which tracking error is tolerated. The top‐level results are consistent with previous work, showing that a large measure of risk reduction can be achieved with portfolios of 30–50 properties, but full diversification of specific risk can only be achieved in very large portfolios. However, the paper extends previous work by demonstrating on a single, large dataset the implications of different methods of calculating risk reduction, and also by showing more disaggregated results relevant to the construction of specialist, sector‐focussed funds.