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

Comovement in UK real estate sector returns

Engle et al. (1990) distinguish between 'heat waves' and 'meteor showers' in an analogy which tries to differentiate between particular effects, not transmitted among markets, and general effects, which tend to affect all the markets, although different markets can be affected to different degrees. This paper applies this approach to the study of the monthly returns of four real estate market sectors: Office, Retail, Industrial and Retail Warehouses in the UK over the period 1979:2 to 1997:12. A VAR methodology used with the aim of detecting the causal relations and dynamic interactions among sector returns, as well as the transmission mechanisms of their information flows. The results obtained permit us to conclude that there is a good deal of integration between the monthly return time series for all the sectors. Therefore, diversification across real estate market sectors does not allow for the reduction of risk without sacrificing expected returns

Sector and regional factors in real estate returns

This paper presents a simple method to measure the effect of sector and regional factors in real estate returns, and thus provides a quantitative framework for analysing the relative impact of these two diversification categories to real estate portfolio selection. Using data on Retail, Office and Industrial properties spread across 326 real estate locations in the UK, over the period 1981 to 1995, the results show that the performance of real estate is largely sector-driven. A result in line with previous work. Which implies that the sector composition of the real estate fund should be the first level of analysis in constructing and managing the real estate portfolio. As a consequence real estate fund managers need to pay more attention to the sector allocation of their portfolios than the regional spread

The risks of investing in the real estate markets of the asian region

The Asian region has become a focus of attention for investors in recent years. Due to the strong economic performance of the region, the higher expected returns in the area compared with Europe and the USA and the additional diversification benefits investment in the region would offer. Nonetheless many investors have doubts about the prudence of investing in such areas. In particular it may be felt that the expected returns offered in the countries of the Asian region are not sufficient to compensate investors for the increased risks of investing in such markets. These risks can be categorised into under four headings: investment risk, currency risk, political risk, and institutional risk. This paper analyses each of these risks in turn to see if they are sufficiently large to deter real estate investment in the region in general or in a particular country

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 inter-temporal stability of real estate returns: an empirical investigation

This paper examines one of the central issues in the formulation of a sector/regional real estate portfolio strategy, i.e. whether the means, standard deviations and correlations between the returns are sufficiently stable over time to justify using ex-post measures as proxies of the ex-ante portfolio inputs required for MPT. To investigate these issues this study conducts a number of tests of the inter-temporal stability of the total returns of the 19 sector/regions in the UK of the IPDMI. The results of the analysis reveal that the theoretical gains in sector and or regional diversification, found in previous work, could not have been readily achieved in practice without almost perfect foresight on the part of an investor as means, standard deviations and correlations, varied markedly from period to period

Is there a “case for property” all the time?

The “case for property” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. Such an analysis typically is performed over a fixed period of time and the optimum allocation to property inferred from the weight assigned to property through the use of mean-variance analysis. It is well known, however, that the parameters used in the portfolio analysis problem are unstable through time. Thus, the weight proposed for property in one period is unlikely to be that found in another. Consequently, in order to assess the case for property more thoroughly, the impact of property in the mixed-asset portfolio is evaluated on a rolling basis over a long period of time. In this way we test whether the inclusion of property significantly improves the performance of an existing equity/bond portfolio all of the time. The main findings are that the inclusion of direct property into an existing equity/bond portfolio leads to increase or decreases in return, depending on the relative performance of property compared with the other asset classes. However, including property in the mixed-asset portfolio always leads to reductions in portfolio risk. Consequently, adding property into an equity/bond portfolio can lead to significant increases in risk-adjusted performance. Thus, if the decision to include direct property in the mixed-asset portfolio is based upon its diversification benefits the answer is yes, there is a “case for property” all the time

Time weighted portfolio optimisation

In estimating the inputs into the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) portfolio optimisation problem, it is usual to use equal weighted historic data. Equal weighting of the data, however, does not take account of the current state of the market. Consequently this approach is unlikely to perform well in any subsequent period as the data is still reflecting market conditions that are no longer valid. The need for some return-weighting scheme that gives greater weight to the most recent data would seem desirable. Therefore, this study uses returns data which are weighted to give greater weight to the most recent observations to see if such a weighting scheme can offer improved ex-ante performance over that based on un-weighted data

Volatility persistence and time-varying betas in the UK real estate market

This paper investigates the degree of return volatility persistence and the time-varying behaviour of systematic risk (beta) for 31 market segments in the UK real estate market. The findings suggest that different property types exhibit differences in volatility persistence and time variability. There is also evidence that the volatility persistence of each market segment and its systematic risk are significantly positively related. Thus, the systematic risks of different property types tend to move in different directions during periods of increased market volatility. Finally, the market segments with systematic risks less than one tend to show negative time variability, while market segments with systematic risk greater than one generally show positive time variability, indicating a positive relationship between the volatility of the market and the systematic risk of individual market segments. Consequently safer and riskier market segments are affected differently by increases in market volatility

Testing the statistical significance of sector & regional diversification

The question as to whether it is better to diversify a real estate portfolio within a property type across the regions or within a region across the property types is one of continuing interest for academics and practitioners alike. The current study, however, is somewhat different from the usual sector/regional analysis taking account of the fact that holdings in the UK real estate market are heavily concentrated in a single region, London. As a result this study is designed to investigate whether a real estate fund manager can obtain a statistically significant improvement in risk/return performance from extending out of a London based portfolio into firstly the rest of the South East of England and then into the remainder of the UK, or whether the manger would be better off staying within London and diversifying across the various property types. The results indicating that staying within London and diversifying across the various property types may offer performance comparable with regional diversification, although this conclusion largely depends on the time period and the fund manager’s ability to diversify efficiently