Search results

Though of fairly recent origin, the capital‐asset pricing model (CAPM) is becoming a dominant influence in the analysis of financial and investment decisions. While continuing to undergo stringent theoretical and empirical examination, the demonstrable explanatory and predictive ability of the CAPM have led to its widespread recognition as the foundation of modern financial management. Though usually attributed to Sharpe, Lintner and Mossin, the origins of the CAPM can be traced back to the celebrated work of Harry Markowitz on portfolio selection.

This paper seeks to address the question of consistency, regarding the allocation of real estate in the mixed‐asset portfolio.

To address the question of consistency the allocation of real estate in the mixed‐asset portfolio was calculated over different holding periods varying from five to 25 years. For each portfolio and holding period, the percentage of portfolios with real estate was computed, as was the average real estate allocation in the optimum solution. Then, the risk and return differences between the two efficient frontiers, with and without real estate, were calculated to estimate real estate's marginal impact on portfolio performance.

First, the results suggest strongly that real estate has possessed the attribute of consistency in optimised portfolios. Second, the benefits from including real estate in the mixed‐asset portfolio tend to increase as the investment horizon is extended. Third, the position of real estate changes across the efficient frontier from its return enhancing ability to its risk‐reducing facility. Finally, the results show that the gain in return from adding real estate to the mixed‐asset portfolio is typically less compared with the reduction in portfolio risk.

The results highlight a number of issues in relation to the role of direct real estate within a mixed‐asset framework. In particular, the rationale behind the inclusion of real estate in the mixed‐asset portfolio depends on the length of the holding period of the investor and their position on the efficient frontier.

The study examines the attractiveness of direct real estate in the context of mixed‐asset portfolio.

Traditionally, the measure of risk used in portfolio optimisation models is the variance. However, alternative measures of risk have many theoretical and practical advantages and it is peculiar therefore that they are not used more frequently. This may be because of the difficulty in deciding which measure of risk is best and any attempt to compare different risk measures may be a futile exercise until a common risk measure can be identified. To overcome this, another approach is considered, comparing the portfolio holdings produced by different risk measures, rather than the risk return trade‐off. In this way we can see whether the risk measures used produce asset allocations that are essentially the same or very different. The results indicate that the portfolio compositions produced by different risk measures vary quite markedly from measure to measure. These findings have a practical consequence for the investor or fund manager because they suggest that the choice of model depends very much on the individual's attitude to risk rather than any theoretical and/or practical advantages of one model over another.

It is now common for finance textbooks to discuss the concepts of the CAPM, diversification benefit, and systematic risk, as measured by beta. The purpose of this paper is to clarify aspects of these concepts and make the textbooks readers aware of them. In particular, this paper seeks to: (1) clarify the notion that “diversification reduces risk,” (2) provide geometric expositions and algebraic expressions of portfolio benefits in the context of both total risk and market risk, and (3) improve the interpretation of beta.

This paper aims to focus on three points of the theory about property investment risks: the management risk is not taken into account; the assumed regularity of the damping of the specific risks with an increase in the number of investments; and the assumption that the market risk is constant.

The analyses performed are based on an investment portfolio in the Dutch office market with 14 properties (fictive).

There are three risk component within the risk profile instead of the named two, namely: specific risk, depends on special individual factors of the investments; management risk, reflects the span of control problem of the organization of the investor; and systematic risk, depends on distinguishing local levels. The calculations do show the effect of diversification, but not in all cases. It depends on the order in which assets associated with different risks are added. Moreover, management and systematic risk work cumulative and opposed to the difersifying power of the specific risk because both increase with increasing portfolio size.

The market risk and the management risk can only be specified as subjective estimates, since they cannot be measured by the conventional standard‐deviation method.

The investor will have to learn to live with the fact that you never can tell.

This analysis shows that the theory derived for the financial market is only partially applicable, and that real estate investments need to be assessed on their own merits.

Healthcare property has become an important alternate property sector in recent years for many international institutional investors. The purpose of this paper is to assess the risk-adjusted performance, portfolio diversification benefits and performance dynamics of French healthcare property in a French property portfolio and mixed-asset portfolio over 1999–2020. French healthcare property is seen to have different performance dynamics to the traditional French property sectors of office, retail and industrial property. Drivers and risk factors for the ongoing development of the direct healthcare property sector in France are also identified, as well as the strategic property investment implications for institutional investors.

Using annual total returns, the risk-adjusted performance, portfolio diversification benefits and performance dynamics of French direct healthcare property over 1999–2020 are assessed. Asset allocation diagrams are used to assess the role of direct healthcare property in a French property portfolio and in a French mixed-asset portfolio. The role of specific drivers for French healthcare property performance is also assessed. Robustness checks are also done to assess the potential impact of COVID-19 on the performance of French healthcare property.

French healthcare property is shown to have different performance dynamics to the traditional French property sectors of office, retail and industrial property. French direct healthcare property delivered strong risk-adjusted returns compared to French stocks, listed healthcare and listed property over 1999–2020, only exceeded by direct property. Portfolio diversification benefits in the fuller mixed-asset portfolio context were also evident, but to a much lesser extent in a narrower property portfolio context. Importantly, this sees French direct healthcare property as strongly contributing to the French property and mixed-asset portfolios across the entire portfolio risk spectrum and validating the property industry perspective of healthcare property being low risk and providing diversification benefits in a mixed-asset portfolio. However, this was to some degree to the loss or substitution of traditional direct property exposure via this replacement effect. French direct healthcare property and listed healthcare are clearly shown to be different channels in delivering different aspects of French healthcare performance to investors. Drivers of French healthcare property performance are also shown to be both economic and healthcare-specific factors. The performance of French healthcare property is also shown to be different to that seen for healthcare property in the UK and Australia. During COVID-19, French healthcare property was able to show more resilience than French office and retail property.

Healthcare property is an alternate property sector that has become increasingly important in recent years. The results highlight the important role of direct healthcare property in a French property portfolio and in a French mixed-asset portfolio, with French healthcare property having different investment dynamics to the other traditional French property sectors. The strong risk-adjusted performance of French direct healthcare property compared to French stocks, listed healthcare and listed property sees French direct healthcare property contributing to the mixed-asset portfolio across the entire portfolio risk spectrum. French healthcare property’s resilience during COVID-19 was also an attractive investment feature. This is particularly important, as many institutional investors now see healthcare property as an important property sector in their overall portfolio; particularly with the ageing population dynamics in most countries and the need for effective social infrastructure. The importance of French direct healthcare property sees direct healthcare property exposure accessible to investors as an important alternate real estate sector for their portfolios going forward via both non-listed healthcare property funds and the further future establishment of more healthcare REITs to accommodate both large and small institutional investors respectively. The resilience of French healthcare property during COVID-19 is also an attractive feature for future-proofing an investor’s portfolio.

This paper is the first published empirical research analysis of the risk-adjusted performance, diversification benefits and performance dynamics of French direct healthcare property, and the role of direct healthcare property in a French property portfolio and in a French mixed-asset portfolio. This research enables empirically validated, more informed and practical property investment decision-making regarding the strategic role of French direct healthcare property in a portfolio; particularly where the strategic role of direct healthcare property in France is seen to be different to that in the UK and Australia via portfolio replacement effects. Clear evidence is also seen of the drivers of French healthcare property performance being strongly influenced by healthcare-specific factors, as well as economic factors.

This chapter presents a multi-criteria portfolio model with the expected return as a performance measure and the expected worst-case return as a risk measure. The problems are formulated as a single-objective linear program, as a bi-objective linear program, and as a triple-objective mixed integer program. The problem objective is to allocate the wealth on different securities to optimize the portfolio return. The portfolio approach has allowed the two popular financial engineering percentile measures of risk, value-at-risk (VaR) and conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) to be applied. The decision-maker can assess the value of portfolio return, the risk level, and the number of assets, and can decide how to invest in a real-life situation comparing with ideal (optimal) portfolio solutions. The concave efficient frontiers illustrate the trade-off between the conditional value-at-risk and the expected return of the portfolio. Numerical examples based on historical daily input data from the Warsaw Stock Exchange are presented and selected computational results are provided. The computational experiments prove that both proposed linear and mixed integer programming approaches provide the decision-maker with a simple tool for evaluating the relationship between the expected and the worst-case portfolio return.

This chapter presents the survey of selected linear and mixed integer programming multi-objective portfolio optimization. The definitions of selected percentile risk measures are presented. Some contrasts and similarities of the different types of portfolio formulations are drawn out. The survey of multi-criteria methods devoted to portfolio optimization such as weighting approach, lexicographic approach, and reference point method is also presented. This survey presents the nature of the multi-objective portfolio problems focuses on a compromise between the construction of objectives, constraints, and decision variables in a portfolio and the problem complexity of the implemented mathematical models. There is always a trade-off between computational time and the size of an input data, as well as the type of mathematical programming formulation with linear and/or mixed integer variables.

Opportunity real estate funds are an important style of real estate investing for institutional investors seeking nonlisted real estate exposure. Importantly, institutional investors have sought exposure to the China real estate market, often via opportunity real estate funds. This has been by a pure China opportunity real estate fund (100% China opportunity real estate) or by a pan-Asia opportunity real estate fund where China opportunity real estate was part of this pan-Asia opportunity real estate portfolio. Using two bespoke China opportunity real estate indices developed by the authors, this paper aims to assess the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification benefits of China opportunity real estate in a mixed-asset portfolio over 2008–2020. It also highlights critical issues for institutional investors going forward to factor into their real estate investment decision-making for effective China real estate exposure.

This paper develops two bespoke China opportunity real estate fund performance indices to assess the risk-adjusted performance and portfolio diversification benefits of China opportunity real estate funds in a mixed-asset portfolio over 2008–2020. An asset allocation diagram is used to assess the role of China opportunity real estate in a mixed-asset portfolio via both the non-listed and listed real estate investment channels.

Over 2008–2020, China opportunity real estate exposure via pan-Asia opportunity real estate funds were seen to outperform pure China opportunity real estate funds. In both formats, China opportunity real estate funds were seen to have a significant role in a China mixed-asset portfolio across most of the portfolio risk spectrum; particularly compared to listed real estate exposure in China. On-going issues regarding real estate risk management in China will take on increased importance for institutional investors seeking China real estate exposure.

Opportunity real estate funds are an important style of real estate investing, often used by institutional investors to gain non-listed real estate exposure in a developing real estate market. This style of real estate investing has been popular with institutional investors seeking exposure to China real estate as part of the China economic growth dynamic. The results of this research highlight the importance of opportunity real estate investing in China, both via a pure China opportunity real estate fund and via a pan-Asia opportunity real estate fund. Based on this empirical analysis, China opportunity real estate exposure is seen to be more effective via a pan-Asia opportunity real estate fund than a 100% China opportunity real estate fund. A range of practical China real estate investment issues are also highlighted for the effective delivery of China real estate exposure for institutional investors going forward; this particularly relates to the on-going risk management for real estate investment in China.

This paper is the first empirical research analysis of the risk-adjusted performance of China opportunity real estate and its role in a mixed-asset portfolio. Using bespoke China opportunity real estate fund indices developed by the authors, this research enables empirically-validated, more informed and practical opportunity real estate investment decision-making regarding the strategic role of China opportunity real estate in an institutional investor's portfolio. It also highlights the importance of various facets of real estate risk management in China going forward.