Banking Relationships and REIT Capital Structure

This article examines the evolution of real estate investment trust (REIT) capital structure in the new REIT era with a focus on the effects of banking relationships on REIT capital structure. Using a unique sample of REITs from 1992 to 2003, we find that, after controlling for firm characteristics, REITs with banking relationships are more likely to obtain long‐term debt ratings and subsequently issue public debt. Moreover, REITs with banking relationships tend to use less secured debt and have lower leverage. These findings support the notion that banking relationships facilitate REITs' access to the public debt markets and help explain why REITs shift from traditional mortgage financing to bank debt and public capital market financing. The results also support the proposition that firm leverage should be positively related to the amount of a firm's secured debt.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Financing Choice and Liability Structure of Real Estate Investment Trusts

We conduct an analysis of public financial offerings of equity Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), with a focus on liability structure effects and whether or not firms target longer-run debt ratios. Our major findings are that (1) proceeds from equity offers are more likely to fund investment, whereas public debt offer proceeds are typically used to reconfigure the liability structure of the firm; (2) public debt issuers are often capital constrained and target total leverage ratios to retain an investment grade credit rating; and (3) the preoffer liability structure affects the issuance choice decision, in that firms with higher preoffer levels of secured (unsecured) debt tend to issue equity (public debt). Other notable findings are that the market for public REIT debt is integrated with the broader debt markets and that higher credit quality firms issue longer-maturing bonds.     

Industrial tail exposure risk and asset price: Evidence from US REITs

In this study, we investigate the impact of industry-based tail dependence risk on the cross-section of stock returns. To this end, we propose a novel tail risk dependence measure (industrial tail exposure risk [ITER]), which captures the tail risk exposure of individual stocks to multiple industries. Using US equity real estate investment trusts (REITs) data from 1993 to 2020, we document that stocks in the highest ITER portfolio outperform stocks in the lowest ITER portfolio by 8.40% per annum. This positive return spread is significant even after controlling for well-known firm characteristics. The return premium of ITER is stronger for small, value, and highly levered stocks and is substantially high during recession periods. Finally, the effects of ITER are cross-sectionally more associated with REITs that have greater degrees of the following factors: bivariate tail exposure risks of major industries, exposure to local industry tail risk, geographical concentration, and ownership of home-biased investors. Overall, our results suggest that REIT investors are indeed averse to tail risks that are associated with various sectors.     

REIT Capital Structure Choices: Preparation Matters

Sun, Titman and Twite find that capital structure risks, namely, high leverage and a high share of short‐term debt, reduced the cumulative total return of U.S. REITs in the 2007–2009 financial crisis. We find that mitigating capital structure risks ahead of the crisis by reducing leverage and extending debt maturity in 2006 was associated with a significantly higher cumulative total return 2007–2009, after controlling for the levels of those variables at the start of the financial crisis. We further identify two systematic cross‐sectional differences between those REITs that reduced capital structure risks prior to the financial crisis and those that did not: the exposure to capital structure risks and the strength of corporate governance. On balance, our findings are consistent with the interpretation of risk‐reducing adjustments to capital structure ahead of the crisis as a component of managerial skill and discipline with significant implications for firm value during the crisis.     

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.     

Further Evidence on the Capital Structure of REITs

This study examines the determinants of real estate investment trust (REIT) capital structure decisions from 1990 to 2008. Using a broad sample of 2,409 firm‐year observations, we find that asset tangibility is positively related to leverage, whereas profitability and market‐to‐book ratios are negatively related. Additional evidence suggests that firm debt capacity varies systematically with the unique operating and financing mechanisms employed by REITs. These results are robust across both aggregate firm debt levels and marginal security issuance decisions. Finally, our results provide further insight into competing capital structure theories, generally supporting empirical predictions derived from the market timing and trade‐off theories, although failing to support pecking order theory predictions.     

An Empirical Study of Derivatives use in the REIT Industry

We examine the use of derivatives in the real estate investment trust (REIT) industry. Tax considerations and speculative motives should not be important factors here, as REITs pay no corporate income tax and their speculative activities are limited by regulations. We find that 41 % of REITs use interest-rate derivatives, although the amount of derivatives on average is not high. Our principal results are that larger REITs and mortgage REITs are more likely to use derivatives. However, in terms of the amount of derivatives, REITs that are smaller and have a larger amount of debt tend to use more derivatives. We interpret the results as evidence supportive of substantial entry costs for hedging and financial-distress costs being a major consideration for the level of hedging. REITs with greater ratio of market to book value of assets also tend to use more derivatives. However, this result is not robust across different sample sets. We therefore view this as weak evidence supporting the agency-cost explanation for hedging. Additional analysis on interest-rate risk and hedging activities finds that mortgage REITs tend to increase their hedging activities when interest rates decrease, while the opposite is true for equity REITs. We interpret this as evidence consistent with prepayment risk being a major factor for mortgage REITs, while equity REITs primarily hedge to control funding costs.     

REIT Dividend Policies and Dividend Announcement Effects During the 2008–2009 Liquidity Crisis

Real estate investment trust (REIT) dividend policies and dividend announcement effects during the 2008–2009 liquidity crisis are examined. Multinomial logit results indicate that REITs with higher market leverage or lower market‐to‐book ratios are more likely to cut dividends, suspend dividends or pay elective stock dividends. These results imply that mitigating going‐concern risk is an important motive for REITs adjusting dividend policies during the crisis and support dividend catering theory where investor demand for dividends impacts corporate dividend policies. Moreover, REITs that cut or suspend dividends experience positive cumulative abnormal returns during the post‐announcement period after controlling for the potential influence from simultaneous funds from operation announcements. The positive market response over the post‐announcement period supports the notion that dividend decisions convey information to investors and is also consistent with the broad catering theory of dividend policy.     

Predictability in Equilibrium: The Price Dynamics of Real Estate Investment Trusts

This research hypothesizes that, in markets where information costs, transaction costs and the economic impact of information can vary widely, we should expect predictability to vary systematically. We test this hypothesis with data on equity real estate investment trusts (REITs) from 1985 to 1992. We document that levels of predictability vary with firm characteristics like leverage, size and focus. Momentum is stronger for larger, more levered REITs. Reversion is faster for focused, levered REITs. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that, in equilibrium, securities, where information is either less costly to acquire or has less impact on fundamental value, should exhibit less predictability.     

Option Trading and REIT Returns

This article examines the relation between option trading volume and real estate investment trust (REIT) market performance. Specifically, we find that option volume increases are followed by decreases in returns. Furthermore, the portion of option volume that is orthogonal to REIT characteristics drives the observed return predictability relation, thereby suggesting that the return predictability of option trading is (at least partially) attributable to information‐based explanations. Finally, consistent with informed traders favoring option market activities due to short‐sale costs and/or constraints, we find option based return predictability is more evident within REITs than non‐REITs, even though firms within this industry are generally viewed as informationally transparent.     

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.     

Do Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds Explain Returns on REITs?

The monthly returns on equity and mortgage real estate investment trusts (REITs) are analyzed over the period July 1976 to December 1992. The results indicate that risk premiums on equity REITs are significantly related to risk premiums on a market portfolio of stocks as well as to the returns on mimicking portfolios for size and book-to-market equity factors in common stock returns. Mortgage REIT risk premiums are significantly related to the three stock market factors and two bond market factors in returns. Also, mortgage REIT shares underperform by an average of 6.8% per year.     

Changes in REIT Structure and Stock Performance: Evidence from the Monday Stock Anomaly

It is well documented that REITs in the 1990s experienced significant changes in their structure and attracted greater institutional participation. This article finds that REIT stocks with higher institutional holdings perform better on Monday than REITs with lower institutional holdings during the 1990s, but not in the 1980s. Furthermore, REITs that went public in the 1990s are the ones associated with the shift in the Monday return pattern. Our study supports the claim that the change in REIT structure and the increase in institutional participation in the REIT market in the 1990s make REIT stocks behave more like other equities in the stock market.     

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.     

Alternative Benchmarks for Evaluating Mutual Fund Performance

While real estate investment trusts (REITs) have experienced very high growth rates over the past 15 years, the growth in mutual funds that invest in REITs has been even more dramatic. REIT mutual fund returns are typically presented relative to the return on a simple value-weighted REIT index. We ask whether including additional factors when benchmarking funds' returns can improve the explanatory power of the models and offer more precise estimates of alpha. We investigate three sets of REIT-based benchmarks, plus an index of returns derived from non-REIT real estate firms, namely homebuilders and real estate operating companies. The REIT-based factors are a set of characteristic factors, a set of property-type factors and a set of statistical factors. Using traditional single-index benchmarks, we find that about 6% of the REIT funds exhibit significant positive performance using traditional significance levels, which is more than twice what random chance would predict. However, with the multiple-index benchmarks that we prefer, this falls considerably to only 0.7%. In addition, we find that these sets of factors and the non-REIT indices better explain the month-to-month returns of the REIT mutual funds. This suggests that investors or researchers evaluating REIT mutual fund performance may benefit from a multiple-benchmark approach.     

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.     

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.