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.

The case for property in the long run: a cointegration test

The benefits of property in the mixed asset portfolio has been the subject of a number of studies both in the UK and around the world. The traditional way of investigating this issue is to use MPT with the results suggesting that Property should play a significant role in the mixed asset portfolio. These results are not without criticism and generally revolve around quality and quantity of the property data series. To overcome these deficiencies this paper uses cointegration methodology which examines the longer term time series behaviour of various asset markets using a very long run desmoothed data series. Using a number of different cointegration tests, both pair-wise and multivariate, the results show, in unambiguous terms, that there is no contemporous cointegration between the major asset classes Property, Equities and Bonds. The implications of which are that Property does indeed have a risk reducing place to play in the long-run strategic mixed-asset portfolio. A result of particular relevance to institutions such as pension funds and life insurance companies who would wish to hold investments for the long-term.

The conditional performance of UK property funds

The evaluation of investment fund performance has been one of the main developments of modern portfolio theory. Most studies employ the technique developed by Jensen (1968) that compares a particular fund's returns to a benchmark portfolio of equal risk. However, the standard measures of fund manager performance are known to suffer from a number of problems in practice. In particular previous studies implicitly assume that the risk level of the portfolio is stationary through the evaluation period. That is unconditional measures of performance do not account for the fact that risk and expected returns may vary with the state of the economy. Therefore many of the problems encountered in previous performance studies reflect the inability of traditional measures to handle the dynamic behaviour of returns. As a consequence Ferson and Schadt (1996) suggest an approach to performance evaluation called conditional performance evaluation which is designed to address this problem. This paper utilises such a conditional measure of performance on a sample of 27 UK property funds, over the period 1987-1998. The results of which suggest that once the time varying nature of the funds beta is corrected for, by the addition of the market indicators, the average fund performance show an improvement over that of the traditional methods of analysis.

The initial return performance of UK property company IPOs

This paper presents empirical evidence for a sample of 48 UK property company initial public offerings over the period 1986 to 1995. From which a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, property companies in general show positive average first day returns. Second, the average first day return by property trading companies is significantly higher than that for property investment companies

Asset allocation, cross-class correlation and the structure of property returns

Practical applications of portfolio optimisation tend to proceed on a “top down” basis where funds are allocated first at asset class level (between, say, bonds, cash, equities and real estate) and then, progressively, at sub-class level (within property to sectors, office, retail, industrial for example). While there are organisational benefits from such an approach, it can potentially lead to sub-optimal allocations when compared to a “global” or “side-by-side” optimisation. This will occur where there are correlations between sub-classes across the asset divide that are masked in aggregation – between, for instance, City offices and the performance of financial services stocks. This paper explores such sub-class linkages using UK monthly stock and property data. Exploratory analysis using clustering procedures and factor analysis suggests that property performance and equity performance are distinctive: there is little persuasive evidence of contemporaneous or lagged sub-class linkages. Formal tests of the equivalence of optimised portfolios using top-down and global approaches failed to demonstrate significant differences, whether or not allocations were constrained. While the results may be a function of measurement of market returns, it is those returns that are used to assess fund performance. Accordingly, the treatment of real estate as a distinct asset class with diversification potential seems justified.

The timing and selection ability of UK property funds: an empirical investigation

This paper examines the selectivity and market timing performance of a sample of 21 UK property funds over the period Q3 1977 through to Q2 1987. The main finding of which that there is evidence of some superior selectivity performance on the part of UK property funds but that there are few funds who are able to successfully time the market.

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.

Identifying antimicrobial resistance genes of human clinical relevance within Salmonella isolated from food animals in Great Britain

To investigate the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance genes of human clinical relevance in Salmonella isolated from livestock in Great Britain. Two hundred and twenty-five Salmonella enterica isolates were characterized using an antimicrobial resistance gene chip and disc diffusion assays. Plasmid profiling, conjugation experiments and identification of Salmonella genomic island 1 (SGI1) were performed for selected isolates. Approximately 43% of Salmonella harboured single or multiple antimicrobial resistance genes with pig isolates showing the highest numbers where 96% of Salmonella Typhimurium harboured one or more resistance genes. Isolates harbouring multiple resistances divided into three groups. Group 1 isolates harboured ampicillin/streptomycin/sulphonamide/tetracycline resistance and similar phenotypes. This group contained isolates from pigs, cattle and poultry that were from several serovars including Typhimurium, 4,[5],12:i:-, Derby, Ohio and Indiana. All Group 2 isolates were from pigs and were Salmonella Typhimurium. They contained a non-sul-type class 1 integron and up to 13 transferrable resistances. All Group 3 isolates harboured a class 1 integron and were isolated from all animal species included in the study. Most isolates were Salmonella Typhimurium and harboured SGI1. Salmonella isolated from livestock was shown to harbour antimicrobial resistance genes although no or little resistance to third-generation cephalosporins or ciprofloxacin, respectively, was detected. The preponderance in pigs of multidrug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium makes it important to introduce control measures such as improved biosecurity to ensure that they do not pass through the food chain and limit human therapeutic options.