Depreciation and its impact on the total return of UK commercial real estate, 1994-2003

Depreciation is a key element of understanding the returns from and price of commercial real estate. Understanding its impact is important for asset allocation models and asset management decisions. It is a key input into well-constructed pricing models and its impact on indices of commercial real estate prices needs to be recognised. There have been a number of previous studies of the impact of depreciation on real estate, particularly in the UK. Law (2004) analysed all of these studies and found that the seemingly consistent results were an illusion as they all used a variety of measurement methods and data. In addition, none of these studies examined impact on total returns; they examined either rental value depreciation alone or rental and capital value depreciation. This study seeks to rectify this omission, adopting the best practice measurement framework set out by Law (2004). Using individual property data from the UK Investment Property Databank for the 10-year period between 1994 and 2003, rental and capital depreciation, capital expenditure rates, and total return series for the data sample and for a benchmark are calculated for 10 market segments. The results are complicated by the period of analysis which started in the aftermath of the major UK real estate recession of the early 1990s, but they give important insights into the impact of depreciation in different segments of the UK real estate investment market.

The impact of country risk on international real estate returns

Commercial real estate investors have well-established methods to assess the risks of a property investment in their home country. However, when the investment decision is overseas another dimension of uncertainty overlays the analysis. This additional dimension, typically called country risk, encompasses the uncertainty of achieving expected financial results solely due to factors relating to the investment’s location in another country. However, very little has been done to examine the effects of country risk on international real estate returns, even though in international investment decisions considerations of country risk dominate asset investment decisions. This study extends the literature on international real estate diversification by empirically estimating the impact of country risk, as measured by Euromoney, on the direct real estate returns of 15 countries over the period 1998-2004, using a pooled regression analysis approach. The results suggest that country risk data may help investor’s in their international real estate decisions since the country risk data shows a significant and consistent impact on real estate return performance.

How often does direct real estate increase the risk-adjusted performance of the US mixed-asset portfolio?

The “case for real estate” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. The argument is typically made by comparing efficient frontiers of portfolio with real estate to those that exclude real estate. However, most investors will have held inefficient portfolios. Thus, when analysing the real estate’s place in the mixed-asset portfolio it seems illogical to do so by comparing the difference in risk-adjusted performance between efficient portfolios, which few if any investor would have held. The approach adopted here, therefore, is to compare the risk-adjusted performance of a number of mixed-asset portfolios without real estate (which may or not be efficient) with a very large number of mixed-asset portfolios that include real estate (which again may or may not be efficient), to see the proportion of the time when there is an increase in risk-adjusted performance, significant or otherwise using appraisal-based and de-smoothed annual data from 1952-2003. So to the question how often does the addition of private real estate lead to increases the risk-adjusted performance compared with mixed-asset portfolios without real estate the answer is almost all the time. However, significant increases are harder to find. Additionally, a significant increase in risk-adjusted performance can come from either reductions in portfolio risk or increases in return depending on the investors’ initial portfolio structure. In other words, simply adding real estate to a mixed-asset portfolio is not enough to ensure significant increases in performance as the results are dependent on the percentage added and the proper reallocation of the initial portfolio mix in the expanded portfolio.

Data dilemmas in forecasting European office market rents

This paper uses data provided by three major real estate advisory firms to investigate the level and pattern of variation in the measurement of historic real estate rental values for the main European office centres. The paper assesses the extent to which the data providing organizations agree on historic market performance in terms of returns, risk and timing and examines the relationship between market maturity and agreement. The analysis suggests that at the aggregate level and for many markets, there is substantial agreement on direction, quantity and timing of market change. However, there is substantial variability in the level of agreement among cities. The paper also assesses whether the different data sets produce different explanatory models and market forecast. It is concluded that, although disagreement on the direction of market change is high for many market, the different data sets often produce similar explanatory models and predict similar relative performance.

The impact of real estate on the terminal wealth of the UK mixed-asset portfolio

The argument for the inclusion of real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio has concentrated on examining its effect in reducing the portfolio risk - the time series standard deviation (TSSD), mainly using ex-post time series data. However, the past as such is not really relevant to the long-term institutional investors, such as the insurance companies and pension funds, who are more concerned the terminal wealth (TW) of their investments and the variability of this wealth, the terminal wealth standard deviation (TWSD), since it is from the TW of their investment portfolio that policyholders and pensioners will derive their benefits. These kinds of investors with particular holding period requirements will be less concerned about the within period volatility of their portfolios and more by the possibility that their portfolio returns will fail to finance their liabilities. This variability in TW will be closely linked to the risk of shortfall in the quantity of assets needed to match the institution’s liabilities. The question remains therefore can real estate enhance the TW of the mixed-asset portfolio and/or reduce the variability of the TW. This paper uses annual data from the United Kingdom (UK) for the period 1972-2001 to test whether real estate is an asset class that not only reduces ex-post portfolio risk but also enhances portfolio TW and/or reduces the variability of TW.

The impact of real estate on the mixed-asset portfolio in periods of financial stress

The case for holding real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio is typically made on its stabilising effect as a result of its diversification benefits. However, portfolio diversification often fails when it is most needed, i.e. during periods of financial stress. In these periods, the variability of returns for most asset classes increases thus reducing the stabilising effect of a diversified portfolio. This paper applies the approach of Chow et al (1999) to the US domestic mixed-asset portfolio to establish whether real estate, represented by REITs, is especially useful in times of financial stress. To this end monthly returns data on five assets classes: large cap stocks, small cap stocks, long dated government bonds, cash (T-Bills) and real estate (REITs) are evaluated over the period January 1972 to December 2001. The results indicate that the inclusion of REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio can lead to increases or decreases in returns depending on the asset class replaced and whether the period is one of calm or stress. However, the inclusion of REITs invariably leads to reductions in portfolio risk that are greater than any loss in return, especially in periods of financial stress. In other words, REITs acts as a stabilising force on the mixed-asset portfolio when it is most needed, i.e. in periods of financial stress.

The persistence of real estate fund performance

This paper examines the short and long-term persistence of tax-exempt real estate funds in the UK through the use of winner-loser contingency table methodology. The persistence tests are applied to a database of varying numbers of funds from a low of 16 to a high of 27 using quarterly returns over the 12 years from 1990 Q1 to 2001 Q4. The overall conclusion is that the real estate funds in the UK show little evidence of persistence in the short-term (quarterly and semi-annual data) or for data over a considerable length of time (bi-annual to six yearly intervals). In contrast, the results are better for annual data with evidence of significant performance persistence. Thus at this stage, it seems that an annual evaluation period, provides the best discrimination of the winner and loser phenomenon in the real estate market. This result is different from equity and bond studies, where it seems that the repeat winner phenomenon is stronger over shorter periods of evaluation. These results require careful interpretation, however, as the results show that when only small samples are used significant adjustments must be made to correct for small sample bias and second the conclusions are sensitive to the length of the evaluation period and specific test used. Nonetheless, it seems that persistence in performance of real estate funds in the UK does exist, at least for the annual data, and it appears to be a guide to beating the pack in the long run. Furthermore, although the evidence of persistence in performance for the overall sample of funds is limited, we have found evidence that two funds were consistent winners over this period, whereas no one fund could be said to be a consistent loser.

The return due to diversification of real estate to the US mixed-asset portfolio

Booth and Fama (1992) observe that the compound return and so the terminal wealth of a portfolio is greater than the weighted average of the compound returns of the individual investments, a difference referred to as the return due to diversification (RDD). Thus assets that offer high RDD should be particularly attractive investments. This paper test the proposition that US direct real estate is such an asset class using annual data over the period 1951-2001. The results show that adding real estate to an existing mixed-asset portfolio increases the compound return and so the terminal wealth of the fund. However, the results are dependent on the percentage allocation to real estate and the asset class replaced.

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.

An ECOOP web portal for visualising and comparing distributed coastal oceanography model and in situ data

As part of a large European coastal operational oceanography project (ECOOP), we have developed a web portal for the display and comparison of model and in situ marine data. The distributed model and in situ datasets are accessed via an Open Geospatial Consortium Web Map Service (WMS) and Web Feature Service (WFS) respectively. These services were developed independently and readily integrated for the purposes of the ECOOP project, illustrating the ease of interoperability resulting from adherence to international standards. The key feature of the portal is the ability to display co-plotted timeseries of the in situ and model data and the quantification of misfits between the two. By using standards-based web technology we allow the user to quickly and easily explore over twenty model data feeds and compare these with dozens of in situ data feeds without being concerned with the low level details of differing file formats or the physical location of the data. Scientific and operational benefits to this work include model validation, quality control of observations, data assimilation and decision support in near real time. In these areas it is essential to be able to bring different data streams together from often disparate locations.