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.

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.

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.

Gauging the investment potential of international real estate markets

Investing in real estate markets overseas means venturing into the unknown, where you meet unfamiliar political and economic environments, unstable currencies, strange cultures and languages, and so although the advantages of international diversification might appear attractive, the risks of international investment must not be overlooked. However, capital markets are becoming global markets, and commercial real estate markets are no exception, accordingly despite the difficulties posed by venturing overseas no investor can overlook the potential international investment holds out. Thus, what strategies are appropriate for capitalising on this potential? Three issues must be considered: (1) the potential of the countries real estate market in general; (2) the potential of the individual market sectors; and (3) the investment process itself. Although each step in foreign real estate investment is critical, the initial assessment of opportunities is especially important. Various methods can be used to achieve this but a formal and systematic analysis of aggregate market potential should prove particularly fruitful. The work reported here, therefore, develops and illustrates such a methodology for the over 50 international real estate markets.

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.

The case for REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio in the short and long run

The poor performance of the Stock Market in the US up to the middle of 2003 has meant that REITs are increasingly been seen as an attractive addition to the mixed-asset portfolio. However, there is little evidence to indicate the consistency of the role REITs should play a role in the mixed-asset portfolio over different investment horizons. The results highlight that REITs do play a significant role over both different time horizons and holding periods. The findings show that REITs attractiveness as a diversification asset increase as the holding period increases. In addition, their diversification qualities span the entire efficient frontier, providing return enhancement properties at the lower end, switching to risk reduction qualities at the top end of the frontier.

Correlation shifts and real estate portfolio management

The success of any diversification strategy depends upon the quality of the estimated correlation between assets. It is well known, however, that there is a tendency for the average correlation among assets to increase when the market falls and vice-versa. Thus, assuming that the correlation between assets is a constant over time seems unrealistic. Nonetheless, these changes in the correlation structure as a consequence of changes in the market’s return suggests that correlation shifts can be modelled as a function of the market return. This is the idea behind the model of Spurgin et al (2000), which models the beta or systematic risk, of the asset as a function of the returns in the market. This is an approach that offers particular attractions to fund managers as it suggest ways by which they can adjust their portfolios to benefit from changes in overall market conditions. In this paper the Spurgin et al (2000) model is applied to 31 real estate market segments in the UK using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2000:12. The results show that a number of market segments display significant negative correlation shifts, while others show significantly positive correlation shifts. Using this information fund managers can make strategic and tactical portfolio allocation decisions based on expectations of market volatility alone and so help them achieve greater portfolio performance overall and especially during different phases of the real estate cycle.

Portfolio size and the reduction of dispersion: the case of the United Kingdom commercial real estate market

This paper investigates the potential benefits and limitations of equal and value-weighted diversification using as the example the UK institutional property market. To achieve this it uses the largest sample (392) of actual property returns that is currently available, over the period 1981 to 1996. To evaluate these issues two approaches are adopted; first, an analysis of the correlations within the sectors and regions and secondly simulations of property portfolios of increasing size constructed both naively and with value-weighting. Using these methods it is shown that the extent of possible risk reduction is limited because of the high positive correlations between assets in any portfolio, even when naively diversified. It is also shown that portfolios exhibit high levels of variability around the average risk, suggesting that previous work seriously understates the number of properties needed to achieve a satisfactory level of diversification. The results have implications for the development and maintenance of a property portfolio because they indicate that the achievable level of risk reduction depends upon the availability of assets, the weighting system used and the investor’s risk tolerance.