Real Estate in a Mixed‐Asset Portfolio: The Role of the Investment Horizon

In this article, three oft‐mentioned special characteristics of the real estate asset market—high transaction costs, marketing period risk and return predictability—are addressed in analyzing the role of U.K. commercial real estate investments in a mixed‐asset portfolio. Due to favorable horizon effects in risk and return, the allocation to real estate in a portfolio with stocks, bonds and cash increases strongly with the investment horizon. Examining the relative importance of return predictability, transaction costs and marketing period risk for the optimal allocation to real estate, the article finds that the consideration of return predictability is very important, except for short‐term horizons. Accounting for transaction costs is crucial for short‐ and medium‐term investors. Marketing period risk appears to be negligible. Traditional mean‐variance analysis—that is, ignoring return predictability, transaction costs and marketing period risk—can be very misleading.     

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.     

Real Estate Fund Openings and Cannibalization

This article examines the trade‐offs in launching new real estate funds, specifically open‐end, direct‐property funds. This investment vehicle, which is designed to provide the risk‐return benefits of private market real estate, is available to retail investors in a number of countries. At the same time, these funds are also subject to liquidity risk, because they hold an inherently illiquid asset in an open‐end structure. This format presents fund‐family managers with unique challenges, particularly with the decision to open new funds. The data consist of 2,127 German fund openings across 76 fund families in 12 asset classes over the 1992–2010 period. Including a wide range of asset classes allows for a comparison between real estate and other investment objectives. We find a substantial cannibalization effect across the existing real estate funds of a family, while we note the opposite effect—i.e., flows into existing funds increase following a fund opening within the same objective—for all other asset classes. Our analysis of fund opening determinants shows that inflows mitigate the cannibalization risk for new real estate funds. Additional evidence highlights the role of scale and scope economies in real estate fund openings. Overall, the results provide new insights into the relatively large size and small number of real estate funds when compared to mutual funds dedicated to other investment objectives.     

Real Estate for the Long Term: The Effect of Return Predictability on Long-Horizon Allocations

We examine how the predictability of real estate returns affects the risk of, and optimal allocations to, real estate for investors of differing investment horizons. Returns to direct real estate are mean reverting, and risk decreases with horizon. This is driven by a tendency for property transaction prices to overshoot inflation. Mean reversion in real estate returns is weaker than that of equities, resulting in real estate having similar risk to equities for long-term investors. However, optimal portfolios have large allocations to direct real estate at all horizons, and the allocation increases with horizon. Finally, we find that real estate investment trusts are a redundant asset class for investors with access to direct real estate as an asset class, but they do have a role in optimal allocations when direct property investment is not feasible.     

Real Estate in an ALM Framework: The Case of Fair Value Accounting

This study examines the liability hedging characteristics of both direct and indirect real estate with the advent of fair value accounting obligations for pension funds. We explicitly model pension obligations as being subject to interest and inflation risk to analyze the ability of real estate investments in hedging the fair value of pension liabilities and to quantify its role in an asset liability management (ALM) portfolio. We find that the portfolio composition differs depending on the definition of liability return. When liability returns solely follow actuarial changes, the mean‐variance efficient portfolio allocations toward direct real estate and fixed income decrease compared to the asset‐only optimization. When accounting for nominal liability obligations, real estate offers hedging benefits against interest rates for short holding periods but not for long‐term institutional portfolios. The inclusion of inflation risk renders a limited role for direct real estate in an ALM portfolio, while indirect real estate obtains no allocation. Inflation is at the heart of the discrepancy between reported and predicted pension plan allocations. Once accounting for inflation, the projected allocations come close to reported ones.     

Continental Factors in International Real Estate Returns

This paper examines the extent to which real estate returns are driven by continental factors. This subject is relevant for determining the country allocation of international real estate portfolios. If returns are driven by a continental factor, investors should look for diversification opportunities outside their own continent. This paper finds strong continental factors in North America and especially in the United States. For the Asia–Pacific region, real estate returns are not driven by a continental factor. The results suggest that, for European, North American and Asia—Pacific real estate portfolio managers, the Asia—Pacific region provides attractive international diversification opportunities.     

Heterogeneous Investor Sentiment and Institutional Real Estate Investments

Commercial real estate investors differ in their sentiment due to factors such as market expertise, investment strategies and expectations about future market conditions. Focusing on the office market, we investigate whether investors with a multiasset investment focus such as pension funds or insurance companies rely on the sentiment of specialized real estate investors such as public REITs or private developers/owners as source of information in their investment decision‐making. Using disaggregated sentiment measures and vector autoregression (VAR) we find evidence that changes in REIT and private real estate investor sentiment lead to changes in institutional investor sentiment in the suburban office and office REIT market. Our findings suggest that institutional investors rely on the sentiment of specialized real estate investors to make real estate investment decisions. Our study contributes to the existing literature on sentiment in commercial real estate markets by emphasizing the heterogeneity of investor sentiment and introducing a disaggregated sentiment measure. We also contribute to the institutional herding literature.     

On the Portfolio Properties of Real Estate in Good Times and Bad Times1

Motivated by the theoretical results on strategic asset allocation, we examine the gains in portfolio performance when investors diversify into different asset classes, with particular focus on the timeliness of such gains. Although the various asset classes we analyze yield significant gains in portfolio performance, even in the presence of short‐sales constraints, the timeliness of the gains differs considerably across the asset classes. Our key result is that real estate and commodities and precious metals are the two asset classes that deliver portfolio gains when consumption growth is low and/or volatile, that is, when investors really care for such benefits. Our analysis highlights an important metric by which to judge the attractiveness of an asset class in a portfolio context, namely the timeliness of the gains in portfolio performance. Further, our results on the performance of real estate in both good times and bad times suggest that the typical institutional allocation to real estate may underweight the role of the asset class in a diversified portfolio context.     

Institutional Investment,Asset Illiquidity and Post‐Crash Housing Market Dynamics

We examine institutional investors’ entry into the equity side of the single‐family detached housing market using an asset illiquidity framework. We find that institutional investors purchased owner‐occupied houses after the real estate crisis for approximately 6.3–11.8% less than owner‐occupiers. The large discount was in addition to distressed sale and cash purchase discounts which, when combined, highlight the low liquidation value for owner‐occupied housing. The results suggest that asset illiquidity is an important cost of leverage in the owner‐occupied housing market.     

A Different Look at Commercial Real Estate Returns

Commercial real estate makes up a relatively small percentage of most institutional portfolios, even though the existing literature has consistently reported attractive risk-return characteristics that would suggest much larger allocations. This discrepancy has been explained by a perceived lack of comparability between return series calculated for real estate and those calculated for other asset classes. Just as investors actively involved in the futures markets do not consider individual common stocks to be traded continuously, those active in the stock market do not consider real estate to be traded continuously. In both cases, adjustments to reported returns are necessary to achieve a degree of comparability. This study makes such adjustments, using sales data from properties that help comprise the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries / Frank Russell Company (NCREIF/FRC) Index to generate a "transaction-driven" commercial real estate return series. Examination of the risk-return characteristics of this series shows that it is quite different from traditionally reported real estate return series and far more consistent with risk-return characteristics that have been reported for other asset classes.     

Value Creation in REIT Property Sell-Offs

We examine major sales of real property by public U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) 1992–2002. We find that abnormal shareholder returns are significantly positive, a result that is consistent with findings for conventional firms that sell off real estate. Because REITs do not pay taxes, this finding supports the view that abnormal returns in real estate sell-offs by all types of firms are derived largely from asset allocation efficiencies and do not result exclusively from tax benefits. Shareholder returns are lower in sell-offs motivated by a desire to reduce long-term debt, as is consistent with financial theory regarding the information content of leverage decisions. Returns are inversely related to the firm's operating performance prior to the sell-off announcement, further supporting the case that improved asset efficiencies create value in real estate sell-offs.     

Real Estate Returns and Risk with Heterogeneous Investors

This article develops a theoretical framework and formulates a unified risk metric that integrates both real estate price risk and uncertainty of time on market (TOM). We demonstrate that real estate sellers with different degrees of financial distress face not only different marketing period risks, but also receive different return distributions upon successful sales. The major findings of this article can be summarized as follows. First, we show that real estate return and risk, which account for both price and TOM risk, are investor specific, varying over investors with different financial circumstances and holding periods. Second, the traditional valuation of real estate return and risk, which is based solely on the return distribution of a successful sale without considering the uncertainty of TOM and the investor's financial circumstances, underestimates real estate risk and exaggerates real estate return. Third, our empirical applications in both residential and commercial real estate markets show that the Sharpe ratio estimated by the traditional approach is seriously overstated—to the largest extent for investors with high financial distress. In addition, we find that, given the typical 5‐ to 7‐year holding period for real estate, the Sharpe ratios estimated by integrating both price and TOM risk are much in line with the performance of financial assets. These findings can help to explain the apparent “risk‐premium puzzle” in real estate.     

Geographic Portfolio Allocations,Property Selection and Performance Attribution in Public and Private Real Estate Markets

This article examines the effects of geographic portfolio concentrations on the return performance of U.S. public real estate investment trusts versus private commercial real estate over the 1996–2013 time period. Adjusting private market returns for differences in geographic concentrations with public markets, we find that core private market performance falls. Using return performance attribution analysis, we find that the geographic allocation effect constitutes only a small portion of the total return difference between listed and private market returns, whereas individual property selection within geographic locations explains, in part, the documented outperformance of listed versus private real estate market returns.     

Investor Sentiment,Limits to Arbitrage and Private Market Returns

This article examines the relation between investor sentiment and returns in private markets. Relative to more liquid public markets, private investment markets exhibit significant limits to arbitrage that restrict an investor's ability to counteract mispricing. Using vector autoregressive models, we find a positive and economically significant relation between investor sentiment and subsequent private market returns. We provide further long‐horizon regression evidence suggesting that private commercial real estate markets are susceptible to prolonged periods of sentiment‐induced mispricing as the inability to short‐sell in periods of overvaluation and restricted access to credit in periods of undervaluation prevents arbitrageurs from entering the market.     

Public Versus Private Real Estate Equities: A More Refined, Long-Term Comparison

In this article we compare public and private real estate equities. In so doing, we control for three of the main differences between these investment alternatives: property-type mix, leverage and appraisal smoothing. With these two restated indices, we then run tests to determine in a statistical sense whether the restated means and volatilities of the two series were different from one another. The clear answer is that they were not. The results of the statistical tests combined with the fact that the average difference between the two (restated) return series has substantially narrowed (to approximately 60 basis points) in the more recent (1993–2001) period jointly suggest a seamless real estate market in which public- and private-market vehicles display a long-run synchronicity. This has important implications for portfolio management. First, public- and private-market vehicles ought to be viewed as offering investors a risk/return continuum of real estate investment opportunities. Second, while the "platform" did not matter in terms of observed return characteristics, the platform may matter with regard to liquidity, governance, transparency, control, executive compensation and so forth; an apparent clientele effect hints at these issues being valued differently by large and small investors.     

Time and Risk Diversification in Real Estate Investments: Assessing the Ex Post Economic Value

Welfare gains to long-horizon investors may derive from time diversification that exploits nonzero intertemporal return correlations associated with predictable returns. Real estate may thus become more desirable if its returns are negatively serially correlated. While it could be important for long-horizon investors, time diversification has been mostly investigated in asset menus without real estate and focusing on in-sample experiments. This article evaluates, ex post, the out-of-sample gains from diversification when equity real estate investment trusts (REITs) belong to the investment opportunity set. We find that diversification into REITs increases both the Sharpe ratio and the certainty equivalent of wealth for all investment horizons and for both classical and Bayesian (who account for parameter uncertainty) investors. The increases in Sharpe ratios are often statistically significant. However, the out-of-sample average Sharpe ratio and realized expected utility of long-horizon portfolios are frequently lower than that of a one-period portfolio, which casts doubt on the value of time diversification.     

Portfolio Considerations in the Valuation of Real Estate

When a real asset rises in price faster than inflation (as real estate did in the late 1970s) and rises significantly in price over an extended period (as real estate has done for the last decade and one-half), it concerns valuation and investment professionals who fear about it being over-valued. One of the reasons for such price performance may be an increase in demand due to the portfolio characteristics of the asset during the period of time in question. For real estate this means the proportion included in optimal portfolios should be significant and increasing as individual tax rates increase in an environment of increasing average tax rates.
This study uses six tax brackets (0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%) and portfolios consisting of three traditional assets (NYSE common stocks, corporate bonds and small stocks) plus three types of real estate (residential, business and farmland) to demonstrate that this is what has transpired in the real estate markets. Optimal portfolio weights are derived for each asset for after-tax portfolios. Real estate in general and residential real estate especially increased as a proportion of the optimal after-tax portfolio as individual tax rates increased. Other studies are used to demonstrate an environment of increasing average tax rates.     

Using a Bootstrap to Measure Optimum Mixed-Asset Portfolio Composition:

Liang, Myer and Webb (1996) have offered bootstrap simulation as a tool for quantifying the uncertainty in the optimum composition of portfolios. Unfortunately, the confidence intervals produced were so large, they were unable to provide any new insight to the question, “How Much in Real Estate?”. In this comment, adjustments have been made to the methodology they proposed and as a result have produced findings which lead to very different conclusions. More specifically, the results suggest that investors with a low risk preference should hold very little real estate.     

Diversification Benefits of REIT Preferred and Common Stock: New Evidence from a Utility‐based Framework

We study the diversification benefits of REIT preferred and common stock using a utility‐based framework in which investors segment based on risk aversion. We examine optimal mean‐variance portfolios of investors with different levels of risk aversion given access to different classes of assets and establish three main results. First, REIT common stock helps low risk aversion investors attain portfolios with higher returns, while REIT preferred stock helps high risk aversion investors by providing a venue for risk reduction. Second, REIT preferred stock has a risk‐return profile not easily replicated by other asset classes. Finally, conclusions drawn from the empirical analysis are markedly different under these constraints compared to the classical unconstrained setting.     

The Role of Public and Private Protection in Disruptive Innovation: The Automotive Industry and the Emergence of Low‐Emission Vehicles

In the automotive industry, the need to move toward more sustainable trajectories of innovation has received much attention. Car manufacturers have started to develop lower emission alternatives for the internal combustion engine, particularly electric, hybrid, and fuel‐cell vehicles. They face the challenge, however, of how to make a potentially disruptive, systemic, and societally embedded technology such as a low‐emission vehicle attractive to mainstream customers. While literature has suggested that companies can empower the initial stages of disruptive innovation by creating protected spaces themselves and/or by taking advantage of such spaces created by public actors, the specific role of these different types of protection levers—private and/or public—has remained unclear. This article therefore investigates to what extent and how private and public protection levers affect firm‐level strategies to increase the attractiveness of disruptive and systemic innovations to mainstream customers. This is explored empirically through a multiple case study of the emergence of low‐emission vehicles within three car manufacturers—Daimler, General Motors, and Toyota—in the context of European, Japanese, and U.S. policies. The empirical analysis is conducted on a data set consisting of more than 9000 articles from two trade magazines, a car magazine and a financial newspaper for the period of 1997–2010. As main findings, the article identifies regulation, tax incentives, and public–private partnerships as the public protection levers that impose or stimulate “new” performance metrics such as fuel economy and vehicle emissions. It also finds that resource allocation, niche occupation, and collaboration‐integration act as the main private protection levers. In addition, two protection levers emerge from the data that are rather prominent in this context: the use of regulation imposing large‐scale commercialization of low‐emission vehicles and dumping of products in the market below cost price. The article concludes with two different protection trajectories—a public protection trajectory and a private protection trajectory—which explain how car manufacturers leverage the various protection levers to deal with disruptive technology. The main implication of the two trajectories is that while the public protection trajectory stalled due to the systemic, socially embedded technological impediments of electric vehicles and fuel‐cell vehicles, the private protection trajectory picked up the remains of the public protection trajectory and has gained momentum, continuing until today.