The cyclical behaviour of sector and regional diversification benefits: 1987-2002

This paper investigates the time series behaviour of the relative benefits of sector and regional diversification strategies, using the notion of cross-sectional dispersion introduced by Solnik and Roulet (2000). Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12, four sector and four regional classifications are examined in the UK. The results indicate that sector and regional dispersion indices are highly time varying and so dwarf any lower frequency cyclical components that may be present. Nonetheless, periods of high dispersion are closely followed by periods of low dispersion, suggestive of cyclical behaviour of sector and regional diversification benefits. Then, using the HP-filter we isolated the cyclical component of the various dispersion indices and found that the sector dispersion indices are generally above the regional dispersion indices. This implies that a sector diversification strategy is likely to offer greater risk reduction benefits than a regional diversification approach. Nonetheless, we find that in some periods, certain regional diversification strategies are of equal or greater benefit than certain sector approaches. The results also appear to be quite sensitive to the classifications of sectors and regions. Hence, the appropriate definition of sectors and regions can have important implications for sector and regional diversification strategies

Country, sector and regional factors in European property returns

For those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to fund management when they are trying to develop a pan-European investment strategy they need to know which are the most important factors affecting property returns, so as to concentrate their management and research efforts accordingly. In order to examine this issue this paper examines the relative importance of country, sector and regional effects in determining property returns across Europe using the largest database of individual property returns currently available. Using annual data over the period 1996 to 2002 for a sample of over 25,000 properties the results show that the country-specific effects dominate sector-specific factors, which in turn dominate the regional-specific factors. This is true even for different sub-sets of countries and sectors. In other words, real estate returns are mainly determined by local (country specific) conditions and are only mildly affected by general European factors. Thus, for those institutional investors contemplating investment into Europe the first level of analysis must be an examination of the individual countries, followed by the prospects of the property sectors within the country and then an assessment of the differences in expected performance between the main city and the rest of the country

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12 for a sample of over 1000 properties the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy

Real estate portfolio size and risk reduction

The reduction of portfolio risk is important to all investors but is particularly important to real estate investors as most property portfolios are generally small. As a consequence, portfolios are vulnerable to a significant risk of under-performing the market, or a target rate of return and so investors may be exposing themselves to greater risk than necessary. Given the potentially higher risk of underperformance from owning only a few properties, we follow the approach of Vassal (2001) and examine the benefits of holding more properties in a real estate portfolio. Using Monte Carlo simulation and the returns from 1,728 properties in the IPD database, held over the 10-year period from 1995 to 2004, the results show that increases in portfolio size offers the possibility of a more stable and less volatile return pattern over time, i.e. down-side risk is diminished with increasing portfolio size. Nonetheless, increasing portfolio size has the disadvantage of restricting the probability of out-performing the benchmark index by a significant amount. In other words, although increasing portfolio size reduces the down-side risk in a portfolio, it also decreases its up-side potential. Be that as it may, the results provide further evidence that portfolios with large numbers of properties are always preferable to portfolios of a smaller size

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional Factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. We find the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy

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 effect

Iterated smoothed bootstrap confidence intervals for population quantiles

This paper investigates the effects of smoothed bootstrap iterations on coverage probabilities of smoothed bootstrap and bootstrap-t confidence intervals for population quantiles, and establishes the optimal kernel bandwidths at various stages of the smoothing procedures. The conventional smoothed bootstrap and bootstrap-t methods have been known to yield one-sided coverage errors of orders O(n^{-1/2}) and o(n^{-2/3}), respectively, for intervals based on the sample quantile of a random sample of size n. We sharpen the latter result to O(n^{-5/6}) with proper choices of bandwidths at the bootstrapping and Studentization steps. We show further that calibration of the nominal coverage level by means of the iterated bootstrap succeeds in reducing the coverage error of the smoothed bootstrap percentile interval to the order O(n^{-2/3}) and that of the smoothed bootstrap-t interval to O(n^{-58/57}), provided that bandwidths are selected of appropriate orders. Simulation results confirm our asymptotic findings, suggesting that the iterated smoothed bootstrap-t method yields the most accurate coverage. On the other hand, the iterated smoothed bootstrap percentile method interval has the advantage of being shorter and more stable than the bootstrap-t intervals.Comment: Published at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/009053604000000878 in the Annals of Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aos/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

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