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.     

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.     

International Real Estate Returns: A Multifactor, Multicountry Approach

We examine the risk and return characteristics of publicly traded real estate companies from 14 countries over the period 1990 to 2001. Our data are monthly country-level commercial real estate indexes constructed by the European Public Real Estate Association (EPRA). We find substantial variation in mean real estate returns and standard deviations across countries. Using various global- and country-level factor models, we find that there is evidence of a strong global market risk component, measured relative to the Morgan Stanley Capital International world index, in most countries. However, even after controlling for the effects of global market risk, an orthogonalized country-specific market risk factor is highly significant, especially for real estate indexes in Asia–Pacific markets. We find that a country-specific value risk factor has some explanatory power in addition to the country-specific market factor, but U.S.-based market, value and size risk factors do not provide any additional explanatory power. These findings imply that the international diversification opportunities with real estate companies are more complex than previously thought.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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 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.     

Real Estate Returns by Strategy: Have Value‐Added and Opportunistic Funds Pulled Their Weight?

Real estate strategies broadly fall into three categories: core, value‐added and opportunistic. This empirical examination of net returns from these three strategies indicates that, on a risk‐adjusted basis, the value‐added funds have strongly underperformed and the returns from opportunistic funds have weakly underperformed the returns available from core funds. In so concluding, this article departs from standard asset‐pricing models in two important respects: the total risk is used and the cost of borrowing increases as leverage increases. While the first departure has no substantive effect, the second departure lowers the estimate of the underperformance of noncore funds.     

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.     

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.     

Regime Shifts in Asian Equity and Real Estate Markets

This paper applies a new statistical technology for identifying regime shifts to analyze recent data on real estate and equity markets in eight developing Far Eastern countries in the 1992–1998 time period. We find that regime shifts in volatility occur in the summer of 1997; however, most of the regime shifts in returns occur in the spring of 1998. While the clustering of regime breaks does not seem to follow any obvious pattern, the country's exposure to trade and firm leverage are important. An analysis of Granger causality suggests that, in most cases, equity returns cause real estate returns but the converse is not true. We also find two-way causality in volatility, suggesting that a common factor drives volatility in these markets. Finally, we provide evidence that the regime shifts generally imply higher relative risk for real estate securities after the estimated breaks.     

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.     

Price Signaling and Return Chasing: International Evidence from Maturing REIT Markets

This article examines the liquidity of international real estate securities across 10 markets over the period 1990–2015. We apply and compare results for four different measures of liquidity, and find that while liquidity has increased consistently, wide variations still exist across markets, with the United States and Japan in the lead. Our results also suggest that the introduction of local REIT regimes did not have any pervasive effects on stock liquidity. When we study the relationship between liquidity and returns, we document new and consistent evidence for international return chasing behavior, whose pattern is a function of local market efficiency, listed real estate market maturity and stock ownership dispersion. The introduction of REIT regimes seems to weaken the importance of extra performance over and above general equity returns as investors tend to allocate funds to real estate securities within real estate rather than equity portfolios.     

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.     

The Effect of Alternative Return Measures on Restricted Mixed-Asset Portfolios

A restricted portfolio is constructed which includes NYSE common stocks, corporate bonds, government bonds, small capitalization common stocks, residential real estate and farmland and returns for each of four different tax brackets (0%, 15%, 30%, 45%). Next, three alternative measures of rates of return for residential real estate and farmland are used. Finally, since some researchers believe that standard risk measures (variance and standard deviation) do not capture the total risk in real estate, the risk for the real estate returns is increased five times while the returns are held constant. The twenty–four optimal portfolios (four tax brackets with two measures of risk and three measure of return for residential real estate and farmland) are then derived. These results are then compared and contrasted to each other to ascertain the change in sensitivity of the optimal portfolios due to different tax rates, different rates–of–return estimates and different risk estimates.     

The Substitutability of Real Estate Assets

This paper investigates the degree of substitutability between securitized real estate assets and real estate assets whose prices are appraisal-based. Given the insensitivity of unsecuritized asset's returns to the returns on stock market indices, equilibrium asset pricing models cannot be used to compare these two avenues of investment. Two assets are deemed substitutable if the information sets underlying unbiased, minimum error variance estimates of their pricing parameters are identical. The empirical evidence shows that the prices of the transactions-based assets—real estate investment trusts and the stock price index of the home building industry—follow a random walk while the prices of the appraisal-based assets—FRC/NCREIF indices—do not. The variance decompositions of the vector autoregressions also show that the level of economic activity helps predict the price indices of appraisal-based assets while the stock market index and the term structure of interest rates are better predictors of the prices of transactions-based assets     

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.