Geographical concentration in the institutional market for office property in England and Wales

This paper examines the regional investment practices of institutional investors in the commercial real estate office market in 1998 and 2003 in England and Wales. Consistent with previous studies in the US the findings show that investors concentrate their holdings in a few (urban) areas and that this concentration has become more pronounced as investors have rationalised their portfolio holdings. The findings also indicate that office investment does not fully correlate with the UK urban hierarchy, as measured by population, but is focused on urban areas with high service sector employment. Finally, the pre-eminence of the City of London and and West End office markets as the key focus of institutional investment is confirmed.

Spatial concentration in institutional investment in the UK: some comparisons between the retail and office sectors

Geographic diversity is a fundamental tenet in portfolio management. Yet there is evidence from the US that institutional investors prefer to concentrate their real estate investments in favoured and specific areas as primary locations for the properties that occupy their portfolios. The little work done in the UK draws similar conclusions, but has so far focused only on the office sector; no work has examined this issue for the retail sector. This paper therefore examines the extent of real estate investment concentration in institutional Retail portfolios in the UK at two points in time; 1998 and 2003, and presents some comparisons with equivalent concentrations in the office sector. The findings indicate that retail investment correlates more closely with the UK urban hierarchy than that for offices when measured against employment, and is focused on urban areas with high populations and large population densities which have larger numbers of retail units in which to invest.

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.

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

Individual assets, market structure and the drivers of return

Much prior research on the structure and performance of UK real estate portfolios has relied on aggregated measures for sector and region. For these groupings to have validity, the performance of individual properties within each group should be similar. This paper analyses a sample of 1,200 properties using multiple discriminant analysis and cluster analysis techniques. It is shown that conventional property type and spatial classifications do not capture the variation in return behaviour at the individual building level. The major feature is heterogeneity - but there may be distinctions between growth and income properties and between single and multi-let properties that could help refine portfolio structures.

Judgments, forecasts and decisions: an analysis of fund managers over time

Decision theory is the study of models of judgement involved in, and leading to, deliberate and (usually) rational choice. In real estate investment there are normative models for the allocation of assets. These asset allocation models suggest an optimum allocation between the respective asset classes based on the investors’ judgements of performance and risk. Real estate is selected, as other assets, on the basis of some criteria, e.g. commonly its marginal contribution to the production of a mean variance efficient multi asset portfolio, subject to the investor’s objectives and capital rationing constraints. However, decisions are made relative to current expectations and current business constraints. Whilst a decision maker may believe in the required optimum exposure levels as dictated by an asset allocation model, the final decision may/will be influenced by factors outside the parameters of the mathematical model. This paper discusses investors' perceptions and attitudes toward real estate and highlights the important difference between theoretical exposure levels and pragmatic business considerations. It develops a model to identify “soft” parameters in decision making which will influence the optimal allocation for that asset class. This “soft” information may relate to behavioural issues such as the tendency to mirror competitors; a desire to meet weight of money objectives; a desire to retain the status quo and many other non-financial considerations. The paper aims to establish the place of property in multi asset portfolios in the UK and examine the asset allocation process in practice, with a view to understanding the decision making process and to look at investors’ perceptions based on an historic analysis of market expectation; a comparison with historic data and an analysis of actual performance.

Hedging private international real estate

The performance of an international real estate investment can be critically affected by currency fluctuations. While survey work suggests large international investors with multi-asset portfolios tend to hedge their overall currency exposure at portfolio level, smaller and specialist investors are more likely to hedge individual investments and face considerable specific risk. This presents particular problems in direct real estate investment due to the lengthy holding period. Prior research investigating the issue relies on ex post portfolio measure, understating the risk faced. This paper examines individual risk using a forward-looking simulation approach to model uncertain cashflow. The results suggest that a US investor can greatly reduce the downside currency risk inherent in UK real estate by using a swap structure – but at the expense of dampening upside potential.

Diversification when it hurts? The joint distributions of real estate and equity markets

Much of the literature on the construction of mixed asset portfolios and the case for property as a risk diversifier rests on correlations measured over the whole of a given time series. Recent developments in finance, however, focuses on dependence in the tails of the distribution. Does property offer diversification from equity markets when it is most needed - when equity returns are poor. The paper uses an empirical copula approach to test tail dependence between property and equity for the UK and for a global portfolio. Results show strong tail dependence: in the UK, the dependence in the lower tail is stronger than in the upper tail, casting doubt on the defensive properties of real estate stocks.

The marginal benefit of diversification in commercial real estate portfolios

The number of properties to hold to achieve a well-diversified real estate property portfolio presents a puzzle, as the estimated number is considerably higher than that seen in actual portfolios. However, Statman (1987) argues that investors should only increase the number of holdings as long as the marginal benefits of diversification exceed their costs. Using this idea we find that the marginal benefits of diversification in real estate portfolios are so small that investors are probably rational in holding small portfolios, at least as far as the reduction in standard deviation is concerned.

The relative importance sector and regional factors in Italy

The benefits of sector and regional diversification have been well documented in the literature but have not previously been investigated in Italy. In addition, previous studies have used geographically defined regions, rather than economically functional areas, when performing the analysis even though most would argue that it is the economic structure of the area that will lead to differences in demand and hence property performance. This study therefore uses economically defined regions of Italy to test the relative benefits of regional diversification versus sector diversification within the Italian real estate portfolio. To examine this issue we use constrained cross-section regressions the on the sector and regional affiliation of 14 cities in Italy to extract the “pure” return effects of the different factors using annual data over the period 1989 to 2003. In contrast, to previous studies we find that regional factors effects in Italy have a much greater influence on property returns than sector-specific effects, which is probably a direct result of using the extremely diverse economic regions of Italy rather than arbitrary geographically locations. Be that as it may, the results strongly suggest that that diversification across the regions of Italy used here is likely to offer larger risk reduction benefits than a sector diversification strategy within a region. In other words, fund managers in Italy must monitor the regional composition of their portfolios more closely than its sector allocation. Additionally, the results supports that contemporary position that ‘regional areas’ based on economic function, provide greater diversification benefits rather than areas defined by geographical location.

The consistency of private and public real estate within mixed-asset portfolios

This study considers the consistency of the role of both the private and public real estate markets within a mixed-asset context. While a vast literature has developed that has examined the potential role of both the private and public real estate markets, most studies have largely relied on both single time horizons and single sample periods. This paper builds upon the analysis of Lee and Stevenson (2005) who examined the consistency of REITs in a US capital market portfolio. The current paper extends that by also analyzing the role of the private market. To address the question, the allocation of both the private and traded markets is evaluated over different holding periods varying from 5- to 20-years. In general the results show that optimum mixed-asset portfolios already containing private real estate have little place for public real estate securities, especially in low risk portfolios and for longer investment horizons. Additionally, mixed-asset portfolios with public real estate either see the allocations to REITs diminished or eliminated if private real estate is also considered. The results demonstrate that there is a still a strong case for private real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio on the basis of an increase in risk-adjusted performance, even if the investor is already holding REITs, but that the reverse is not always the case.

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.