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 Investment Funds: Performance and Portfolio Considerations

This paper presents the results of a study dealing with a number of issues regarding real estate investment. Utilizing a data set consisting of returns from two of the oldest, continuously operating commingled real estate funds (CREFs), questions relative to investment performance, inflation hedging attributes and diversification benefits are addressed. The methodology used in exploring these issues are variants of the traditional capital asset pricing model (CAPM), extended to consider uncertain inflation (CAPMUI) and an arbitrage pricing model in which real estate performance is judged relative to a more inclusive market index representing larger numbers of substitute investments. Finally, issues relative to portfolio performance are considered by constructing portfolios containing all possible combinations of real estate, stocks and bonds to assess the potential for diversification benefits and portfolio performance.     

Another Take on Real Estate's Role in Mixed‐Asset Portfolio Allocations

This article examines real estate's role in institutional mixed‐asset portfolios using both private‐ and public‐real estate indices, as a means of examining varying real estate‐related risk/return opportunities. In so doing, this article also examines the effects of: (1) increasing the investment horizon, (2) placing constraints on the maximum allocation to any one asset class, and (3) varying the risk preferences of investors. The empirical results suggest—using infinite‐horizon returns and all of the caveats that accompany such a perspective—that real estate allocations of approximately 10–15% of the mixed‐asset portfolio represent an upper bound for most investors. For those investors preferring low‐risk portfolios, (unlevered) private real estate is the vehicle serving this allocation preference; for those investors preferring high‐risk portfolios, public real estate (with its embedded leverage of 40–50%) is the vehicle serving this allocation preference—with such vehicles serving as substitutes for a variety of noncore real estate strategies. In some sense, the distinction between private and public real estate is more about the use of leverage. For those investors preferring moderate‐risk portfolios, an intermediate‐leverage approach seems optimal.     

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.     

Currency Swaps and International Real Estate Investment

This paper examines the efficacy of currency swaps as a hedging mechanism for the exchange rate risk associated with foreign investment in real estate. Earlier studies have concentrated on short-term hedging instruments such as options and forward contracts. Currency swaps are better suited for use on investments with long-term holding periods such as real estate. The findings indicate that, although hedging United States real estate investments with currency swaps suppresses most of the risk induced by currency instability, the improvements are insufficient to produce diversification gains for foreign investors in the context of mean-variance portfolio performance.     

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.     

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.     

Real Estate Investment Acquisition Rules for Life Insurance Companies and Pension Funds: A Survey

Real estate comprises the major wealth of the United States as well as the world. Life insurance companies and pension funds are rapidly becoming major investors in real estate due to their large portfolios and annual cash inflows. Aggregate inflows of life insurance companies and pension funds are estimated to be about 150 billion dollars per year. Increasing amounts of these funds are believed to be going into real estate investments. This study surveys life insurance companies and pension managers on all facets of their real estate investments. The survey covers real estate portfolio size and type, portfolio composition, investment by property type, international investments, before-tax analysis, after-tax analysis, diversification strategies, computer usage, holding period assumptions and criteria for obtaining mortgages, equity positions and construction loans. The results of this study are then compared and contrasted with previous studies.     

On the Time-Series Properties of Real Estate Investment Trust Betas

The relation between real estate investment trust (REIT) returns and stock market returns is of significant importance to investors, practitioners and academics. The temporal properties of this relationship have a critical impact on the usefulness of REIT risk estimates and portfolio allocations to this asset class. Recent studies have suggested a decline in the market betas of equity real estate investment trusts (EREITs). This study applies a rigorous statistical test of the hypothesis that the market betas of EREITs have remained unchanged during the 1972 through 2002 time period. There is weak evidence of a downward trend in EREIT betas using a single-factor model; however, the hypothesis is not rejected when using a three-factor model.     

Pension-Plan Real Estate Investment in an Asset–Liability Framework

This study explores the role of pension-plan real estate investment in an asset–liability framework. By assuming that the pension-plan manager wishes to have assets of at least equal value to the liabilities at all points in time, an asset selection process is derived which depends on both the asset's covariance with other assets and its covariance with the liability stream. We generally find real estate not to be highly correlated with pension-plan liabilities. This finding is of general interest, since it helps to explain why pension-plan real estate investment is extremely limited and much smaller than one would expect if pension-plan investors cared only about the mean and variance of the real return to their invested wealth.     

Privately Versus Publicly Held Asset Investment Performance

Classic asset pricing is problematic as a method to assess privately held asset investment performance. We propose an alternative approach that involves adjusting the characteristics of assets constituting an index or portfolio to match the asset characteristics of a reference index or portfolio. This approach is applied to commercial real estate, where we create an index of REIT returns to compare to the NCREIF index. To enhance comparability, return indices are adjusted for partial-year financial data, leverage, asset mix and fees. Adjusted results over a 1980–1998 sample period show general convergence between the indices, although an annual return difference of over three percentage points remains in favor of public market asset ownership. Possible causes of the investment performance gap include liquidity and geography as missing risk factor adjustments, an unrepresentative sample period, and the form in which commercial real estate assets are held.     

Transactions-Driven Commercial Real Estate Returns: The Panacea to Asset Allocation Models?

A transactions-driven commercial real estate return series is generated in this study to determine whether the reliance on appraised values in the estimation of real estate returns is the source of the reported underpricing of real estate relative to stocks, bonds, and bills when analyzed in a traditional mean-variance setting. The reported underpricing of commercial real estate would be rational if transactions-driven returns exhibit more variance than appraisal-driven returns. While we find that transactions-driven real estate returns have greater variance than appraisal-driven returns for individual properties, most of the individual property risk is idiosyncratic and diversified away at the portfolio level. Real estate continues to be a dominate asset class in mean-variance allocation models even when represented with transactions-driven indices.¹     

Household Interest Rate Risk Management

I investigate household interest rate risk management by solving a life‐cycle asset allocation model that includes mortgage and bond portfolio choice. I find that most investors prefer an adjustable‐rate mortgage and thereby save on the bond risk premium that is contained in fixed‐rate mortgage payments. Only older, risk‐averse investors hold some fixed‐rate mortgage debt. Together with a position in short‐term bonds this enables them to hedge against changes in the real interest rate, while the inflation exposure of the debt and bond positions cancel out. Hedging house price changes with bonds only occurs at the end of the life cycle. Early in the life cycle short‐sale constraints prevent an effective hedge.     

Real Estate Returns and Inflation

The ability of assets to protect an investor from purchasing power risk due to inflation has received a good deal of attention in the literature recently. The focus of much of this research has been on the properties of common stocks as inflation hedges. Bodie [1976] finds that the real return on equity is negatively related to both anticipated and unanticipated inflation; a similar result is obtained by Fama and Schwert [1977] . Bernard and Frecka [1983] examine individual common stock returns and find that the majority exhibit this negative relationship. This paper uses similar logic to examine the ability of a well-diversified portfolio of real estate to hedge against anticipated and unanticipated inflation.     

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 Returns: A Comparison with Other Investments

Real estate returns, measured unleveraged, have been between those of stocks and bonds over 1960–1982. Due to appraisal smoothing and imperfect marketability, one must be careful about directly comparing measured real estate returns with those on other assets. It is likely, however, that low correlations with stocks and bonds make real estate a diversification opportunity for traditional portfolio managers. In addition, the issue of how various assets are priced is addressed. While stocks are priced primarily on market or beta risk, and bonds are priced primarily on interest rate and default risk, the real estate pricing mechanism includes residual risk and non-risk factors such as taxes, marketability costs and information costs.     

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.     

Asset Allocation and the Performance of Real Estate Mutual Funds

We examine the performance of real estate mutual funds during January 1991–December 1997. As a group, the sampled funds outperformed the Wilshire Real Estate Securities Index on a risk-adjusted basis by more than 5 percentage points annually. We attempt to explain these surprising findings by examining the fund's asset allocations across stocks, bonds and real estate property types using Sharpe's (1992) effective-mix test. We find that all of the superior performance is attributable to fund managers' decisions to overweight outperforming property types (apartments and health care) relative to the Wilshire Real Estate Securities Index weights. Performance of the funds matches a multiple-property-type benchmark that takes account of the fund's exposure to each property type. Therefore, real estate funds demonstrated superior allocation across property types, but neither superior nor inferior selection within property type, during 1991–1997. Our findings emphasize the importance of asset allocation for real estate mutual-fund performance.     

The Integration of Commercial Real Estate Markets and Stock Markets

This paper tests whether commercial real estate markets (both exchange-traded and non-exchange-traded) are integrated with stock markets using multifactor asset pricing models. The results support the hypothesis that the market for exchange-traded real estate companies, including REITs, is integrated with the market for exchange-traded (non-real-estate) stocks. Moreover, the degree of integration has significantly increased during the 1990s. However, when appraisal-based returns (adjusted for smoothing) are used to construct real estate portfolio returns, the results fail to support the integration hypothesis, although this may reflect the inability of these estimated private market returns to accurately proxy for commercial real estate returns. Interestingly, the growth rate in real per capita consumption is consistently priced in both commercial real estate markets and stock markets, whereas previous studies have found mixed evidence on the role of consumption in explaining ex ante stock returns.     

The Composition of the Market Portfolio and Real Estate Investment Performance

This study investigates whether the composition of the market portfolio leads to different inferences on real estate performance. As a point of departure, this paper first explores whether the omission of assets in a market proxy leads to a biased measurement of investment performance. The study finds that ranking investment performance is not meaningless even though investment performance is inaccurately measured. Furthermore, the composition of the market proxy does not necessarily lead to different inferences on real estate investment performance although superior real estate investment performance arises from the omitted asset phenomenon and also from smoothing bias in general.