REIT and Commercial Real Estate Returns: A Postmortem of the Financial Crisis

In the years surrounding the financial crisis, the share prices of equity Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) were much more volatile than the underlying commercial real estate prices. To better understand this phenomenon we examine the cross‐sectional dispersion of REIT returns during this time period with a particular focus on the influence of their capital structures. By looking at both the debt ratio and the maturity structure of the debt, we separate the pure leverage effect from the effect of financial distress. Consistent with leverage and financial distress costs amplifying the price decline, we find that the share prices of REITs with higher debt‐to‐asset ratios and shorter maturity debt fell more during the 2007 to early‐2009 crisis period. Although REIT prices rebounded with the bounce back in commercial real estate prices, financial distress costs had a permanent effect on REIT values. In particular, we find that REITs with more debt due during the crisis period tended to sell more property and issue more equity in 2009, when prices were depressed.     

An Analysis of REIT Security Issuance Decisions

This article tests the ability of traditional capital structure theories to explain the issuance decisions of real estate investment trusts (REITs). For issuances made between 1997 and 2006, we find strong support for the market timing theory of capital structure. Controlling for past returns and growth, a REIT is more likely to issue equity when its price-to–net asset value ratio is high. This suggests that REITs issue equity in public markets when the cost of equity capital is lower in the public market than in the private market. Consistent with traditional market timing, REITs are more likely to issue equity after experiencing large price increases. We also find some support for REITs following the trade-off theory of capital structure. REITs are less likely to issue debt when proxies for expected bankruptcy costs are high.     

REIT Capital Budgeting and Equity Marginal q

Equity marginal  q  is the change in the market value of a company's equity in response to a one-unit unexpected change in its asset base. Hence, it is a profitability index that evaluates a firm's capital budgeting decisions at the margin. We estimate the equity marginal  q  for real estate–managing public corporations, namely, real estate investment trusts (REITs), in an attempt to understand how the various costs and benefits of being a public corporation play a role in managing this important asset class. Using the universe of equity REITs for the period from 1993 to 2005, we find that REITs with greater idiosyncratic volatility, higher stock turnover and smaller bid-ask spread have a higher equity marginal  q . In addition, both the holdings of institutional investors and their investment horizons are respectively positively related to equity marginal  q.  With these firm characteristics taken into account, firm size is found to be negatively related to equity marginal  q . Our findings are economically important as well, because the equity marginal  q  ratio alone accounts for approximately one-third of the total REIT shareholder wealth change during the study period.     

Corporate Transparency and Firm Growth: Evidence from Real Estate Investment Trusts

Using a panel data set of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), we find corporate transparency to be positively associated with REIT growth. These results suggest that greater transparency facilitates firm growth by relaxing information‐based constraints on external financing. The magnitude of this effect is larger in the equity market than in the debt market. Moreover, the sensitivity of investment to cash flows is decreasing in transparency, evidence that transparency relaxes liquidity constraints. Finally, we find more transparent REITs are less likely to crash.     

Returns and Information Transmission Dynamics in Public and Private Real Estate Markets

This paper examines U.S. public and private commercial real estate returns at the aggregate level and by the four major property types over the 1994–2012 time period. Returns are carefully adjusted for differences between public and private markets in financial leverage, property type focus and management fees. Unconditionally, we find that passive portfolios of unlevered core real estate investment trusts (REITs) outperformed their private market benchmark by 49 basis points (annualized) over the 1994–2012 sample period. Our baseline vector autoregression results suggest that REIT returns do not embed additional commercial real‐estate‐specific information useful in predicting private market returns. These results strongly suggest that equity REIT returns react to fundamental (latent) asset pricing information more quickly than private market returns given their greater liquidity and price revelation. REITs therefore serve as a fundamental information transmission channel to private market returns when asset pricing variables are omitted.     

Financial Flexibility and Investment: Evidence from REIT At‐the‐Market (ATM) Equity Offerings

This article examines changes in real estate investment around the establishment of at‐the‐market (ATM) equity programs by equity REITs. We document a significant increase in the rate of investment following an ATM program announcement and its subsequent use. However, we find that ATM access has a differential impact on the investment activity of REITs facing more significant financial constraints. We also provide further evidence that REITs with ATM programs generate positive long‐run returns in excess of that of similarly timed SEOs.     

A Comparison of the Recent Performance of Publicly Traded Real Property Portfolios and Common Stock

In this study we compare the returns earned by investments in publicly traded limited partnerships (PTLPs), finite life equity REITs, and traditional equity REITs with those resulting from investing in common stocks (proxied by closed-end mutual funds). Performance comparisons are made using generalized stochastic dominance (GSD). This tool avoids the joint hypothesis problem that arises when an asset pricing model is used as a performance benchmark. The results of the analysis indicate that the performance of the closed-end mutual funds was preferred to that of the individual equity REITs (both traditional and finite life) and PTLP securities by a wide array of risk-averse investors. This result was most pronounced following the passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which severely restricted the tax deductibility of real estate losses. When the equity REITs were combined into portfolios, their performance dominated the mutual funds during the 1980–85 period. Further, the PTLP portfolio returns were preferred to several of the mutual funds even in the post-1985 period. These findings reflect the fact that the securitized real property portfolios studied are not as well diversified as mutual funds. However, the mutual funds remained the dominant investment alternative in the post-1986 period.     

Dividend Policies and Dividend Announcement Effects for Real Estate Investment Trusts

Previous research on real estate investment trusts (REITs) assumes that their dividend policies are determined solely by tax regulations. We observe, however, that REITs often pay out more dividends than are required by tax rules. This paper examines the dividend policies of REITs by drawing inferences from agency-cost theory and tests for the determinants of REIT dividend payout ratios. The study also considers whether the stock market responds differently to the dividend announcement effects of equity and mortgage REITs based on asymmetric information. Our results support agency-cost explanations for dividend policy and suggest a differential announcement effect.     

REIT Stock Price Volatility and the Effects of Leverage

This article sheds light on several puzzling empirical observations. We examine the volatility implications of equity Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) stock returns over the sample period from January 1985 through October 2012. We find a negative “leverage effect” in the pre‐ and post‐Greenspan era, but not during the Greenspan era (circa 1994–2006). We argue that the positive elasticity of variance with respect to the value of equity during the Greenspan era can be explained by a decline in the spread between the yield on commercial mortgages and 10‐year Treasuries, which triggered a wealth transfer from REIT equity holders to REIT debt holders. We also argue that the declining commercial‐mortgage‐10‐year‐Treasury yield spread during the Greenspan era allowed REITs to take on far more risk than most people realized. We then document that average REIT stock return volatility increased significantly in the 2007–2010 period in the midst of a historic decline in REIT stock prices. The results have significant implications for the good deal of interest and debate in the media over the status of REITs and whether equity REITs have become excessively risky relative to the returns they generate.     

Real Estate Investment Trusts, Small Stocks and Bid-ask Spreads

This study examines the liquidity of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), as measured by their bid-ask spread. We find that REIT spreads have increased over the period 1986–1990, are inversely related to market capitalization, and are similar in magnitude to spreads on other stocks of comparable size. Analysis of variance tests indicate that REIT spreads are similar across equity, mortgage and hybrid asset types. Multivariate regression results indicate that market capitalization is the primary determinant of REIT bid-ask spreads, and spreads are larger for National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) REITs than for New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) REITs. The regression results also indicate that spreads are lower for equity REITs than for mortgage or hybrid REITs, and are inversely related to the fraction of the REIT's shares held by institutional investors. The similarity between REIT spreads and those of other common stocks holds in both bull and bear real estate markets and suggests that, from a liquidity perspective, REITs are similar to other common stocks.     

Real Estate and Economies of Scale: The Case of REITs

Building on past research in the economies-of-scale debate, we test for scale economies in real estate investment trusts (REITs) by examining growth prospects, revenue and expense measures, profitability ratios, systematic risk and capital costs. Overall, we find that large REITs are increasing growth prospects while succeeding at lowering costs, leading to a direct relationship between firm profitability and firm size. Additionally, we find an inverse relationship between equity betas and firm size, and for all cost of capital measures we find significant scale economies. Further evidence from the stochastic frontier analysis suggests efficiency opportunities appear possible through continued growth and consolidation in REITs.     

Inside Ownership, Risk Sharing and Tobin's q-Ratios: Evidence from REITs

We investigate relations among inside ownership, managerial expenses, risk sharing and equity valuations. Our engine of analysis—Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)—provides a unique and rich framework for analysis since we can calculate extremely accurate measures of asset replacement costs, and hence relative valuation (Tobin's q ). Further, the nature of the financial statements allows us to examine the impact of insider ownership on agency costs since we can accurately measure the costs of the entire management team. Our results show that firms with greater insider holdings tend to invest in assets with lower systematic risk and use less debt in their capital structure. At the same time, managerial expenses are lower as inside ownership increases. Finally, higher levels of insider ownership are associated with higher relative valuation as measured by both higher premiums to net asset value and higher multiples of cash flows. The results have implications for the design of optimal management contracts for both REITs and firms in general.     

The Geography of Real Property Information and Investment: Firm Location,Asset Location and Institutional Ownership

Using a sample of Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), we show that institutional investors exploit location‐based information asymmetries by overweighting firms headquartered locally and those with greater economic interests in the investor's home metropolitan statistical area (MSA). This asset allocation strategy is associated with superior portfolio performance. In a difference‐in‐difference‐in‐differences analysis of investor headquarters relocations, we find that investors tend to increase their ownership of REITs that have property holdings in the market to which the investor relocates. Our findings highlight the importance of understanding the relation between information advantages and the geography of firm's operations, as well as the implications on ownership patterns and portfolio construction.     

Institutional common ownership and firm value: Evidence from real estate investment trusts

This paper contributes to the ongoing debate about whether and how institutional common ownership (ICO) affects firm behavior. Using a sample of equity real estate investment trusts (REITs), which provide significant advantages for isolating a monitoring channel, we find a robust and positive relation between ICO and REIT firm value. The positive relation between ICO and firm value is driven mainly by motivated investors and becomes stronger when we construct our ICO measures using blockholdings. Our difference‐in‐differences analysis, using mergers between institutional investors, suggests a causal relation exists between ICO and firm value. After investigating various channels through which ICO could affect firm behavior, we conclude that asset allocation decisions and performance are the most plausible explanations. Our finding that the monitoring associated with ICO aids managers in their portfolio disposition strategies further supports this conclusion. This enhanced monitoring leads to increased property portfolio returns, as well as more geographic diversification.     

Can Fund Managers Select Outperforming REITs? Examining Fund Holdings and Trades

Despite at least six empirical studies published since 2000 designed to assess fund managers’ Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)‐selection ability, their skill remains in question. Unlike previous studies, we examine fund holdings and trades of REITs to answer this question. This approach allows us to explicitly account for portfolio rebalancing that alters REIT‐characteristic weights of fund portfolios. Results show that fund managers, after controlling for property type, size and momentum, generated significant positive alpha with their securities‐selection ability. To understand the sources of such ability, we examine whether fund managers who followed certain trading strategies outperformed relative to other managers. The potential trading strategies are based on public information related to geographic concentration, net‐asset‐value‐to‐price ratios, income and appreciation styles and leverage of the underlying REITs. Comparative and regression analyses show that none of the strategies fully explains why fund managers were able to select REITs that outperformed. We surmise that the outperformance mainly derives from the endemic abilities of managers to uniquely process REIT‐specific information and generate private valuation beliefs that lead to profitable investment decisions.     

A Comparative Anatomy of Residential REITs and Private Real Estate Markets: Returns,Risks and Distributional Characteristics

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are the only truly liquid assets related to residential real estate investments. We study the behavior of U.S. Residential REITs over the past three decades and document their return characteristics. REITs have somewhat less market risk than equity; their betas against a broad market index average about 0.58. Decomposing their covariances into principal components reveals several strong factors. Residential REIT characteristics differ to some extent from those of the S&P/Case‐Shiller (SCS) private real estate markets. This is partly attributable to methods of index construction. Our examination of REITs suggests that investment in residential real estate is far more risky than what might be inferred from the widely followed SCS series. Although the SCS and REITs indicate little support for being able to predict each other, there is strong evidence of self‐predictability for the series.     

The Pricing of Seasoned Equity Offerings: Evidence from REITs

Real estate investment trusts (REITs) have been a very active sector in the capital market over the last few years. This paper examines the pricing of seasoned equity offers by equity REITs during 1991–1996. Consistent with Parsons and Raviv's model, we find that SEOs by REITs are underpriced with respect to both the closing price on the day before and the closing price on the day of the offer. Underpricing depends on the institutional ownership of the firm's common stock. Issues by firms with higher institutional ownership are more underpriced for post-1990 REITs. Further, consistent with the notion that theories of IPO pricing apply to SEOs as well, the underpricing of SEOs is a function of the issue size and of the underwriter's reputation.     

Risk and Return on Real Estate: Evidence from Equity REITs

We analyze monthly returns on an equally weighted index of eighteen to twenty-three equity (real property) real estate investment trusts (REITs) that were traded on major stock exchanges over the 1973–87 period. We employ a multifactor Arbitrage Pricing Model using prespecified macroeconomic factors. We also test whether equity REIT returns are related to changes in the discount on closed-end stock funds, which seems plausible given the closed-end nature of REITs.
Three factors, and the percentage change in the discount on closed-end stock funds, consistently drive equity REIT returns: unexpected inflation and changes in the risk and term structures of interest rates. The impacts of these variables on equity REIT returns is around 60% of the impacts on corporate stock returns generally. As expected, the impacts are greater for more heavily levered REITs than for less levered REITs. Real estate, at least as measured by the return performance of equity REITs, is less risky than stocks generally, but does not offer a superior risk-adjusted return and is not a hedge against unexpected inflation.     

Systematic Risk and Diversification in the Equity REIT Market

This paper employs stock market-based data to examine the systematic risk and diversification properties of publicly traded equity real estate investment trusts (REITs). A unique data sample is created by combining firm return data with information on their property type holdings and the location of their investments. The systematic risk of equity REITs appears to vary by the type of property in which they invest, with beta being significantly higher for retail-oriented REITs than for REITs owning industrial and warehouse properties. In addition, the stock market data provides no evidence that REIT diversification across property types or broad geographic regions actually results in meaningful diversification as reflected in a standard market-based measure—the R ² from a simple market model regression.     

Does A Firm's Entry or Exit Affect Competitors’ Value? Evidence from the REIT Industry

We analyze 483 entry and 439 exit events of publicly traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) and find that changes in the number of REITs in the market affect rival REITs’ stock performance. We also partition the sample by the modes of entries and exits as well as by REIT asset type in order to disentangle alternative explanations. Overall, our evidence indicates that the supply effect still matters for stock prices even after considering signaling and price pressure explanations.