Search results

This paper aims to offer a comprehensive comparison of the characteristics between banks that securitize and banks that do not and to provide evidence of the capital arbitrage theory of securitization.

First, the fundamental financial similarities and differences between banks that securitize assets and banks that do not participate in the securitization market are tested. Second, variables that help predict whether a bank securitizes assets are analyzed. Third, the determinants of securitization extent in banks that securitize assets are investigated – for general securitization extent and for specific type of asset securitized. Using a sample of 112 banks that securitize different assets, a matched sample of banks that do not securitize based on entity type and size is created. A quarterly panel data set of these banks dating back to 2001 is used.

The results indicate that bank size is a significant determinant of whether a bank securitizes. Further, overall securitization extent is negatively related to the bank's capital ratio (in support of capital arbitrage theory), but this result is primarily driven by credit card securitization.

Utilizing a unique data set of quarterly data from bank Call Reports; the panel data set is large relative to past studies. A matched sample approach was used to test fundamental financial similarities and differences between securitizing and non‐securitizing banks. In addition to aggregated securitization, an examination was made of how different classes of assets affect the banks' risk‐based capital ratios and test the capital arbitrage theory of securitization.

The paper surveys the risks and rewards of asset securitisation and illustrates how this structured finance technique can lift credit constraints to small‐ and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) as banks to turn more conservative in their lending in response to more risk‐sensitive capital requirements for credit risk.

The mechanics of securitisation provide an analytical framework and perspective for our analysis of conditions for sustainable SME securitisation and its potential contribution to greater risk diversification of both issuers and investors. The paper also elicits lessons to be learned for essential regulatory and policy measures to guide a sound development of securitisation markets from an empirical review of SME securitisation in Germany.

The paper finds that the structural versatility of securitisation offers economic benefits irrespective of the configuration of the financial system. The development of a viable securitisation market for SME‐related claims in a bank‐based financial system is likely to require financial sector initiatives, whose scope and intensity might be enhanced by development agencies. Orchestrated policy efforts make for a benign strategy to incubate SME securitisation in a timely fashion, while keeping legal uncertainty and economic attrition to a minimum.

As opposed to previous papers, the paper defines and discusses SME securitisation from both the perspective of bank‐ and firm‐sponsored securitisation and issue hands‐on recommendations for its efficient implementation.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of specialization of the securitized assets portfolio on banks’ performance and securitization risk. In doing so, the paper addresses two important issues. First, whether the efficient risk–return trade-off for securitized asset portfolios is consistent with the principles of diversification. Second, whether the relationship between bank-level returns and securitized assets portfolio specialization is non-linear in securitization risk.

This paper used the fixed-effects panel regression model on US bank holding company data for the period 2001:Q2 to 2014:Q1.

The results show that securitized assets portfolio specialization increases returns and also reduces securitization default risk; banks’ return and securitized assets specialization are dependent in a non-linear manner on banks’ securitization risk. Additionally, it was also found that lower bank performance leads to higher securitization risk.

This paper is of value by demonstrating that diversification (specialization) of securitized assets portfolio would achieve better bank performance in low-risk (high-risk) scenarios.

Existing studies provide conflicting results regarding whether real estate investment trusts (REITs) effectively optimize and diversify institutional portfolios. Based on the style analysis of Sharpe, we extend Liang and McIntosh’s study with a more complete set of asset classes over a longer sample period. We provide additional evidence suggesting that practicing analysts should include REITs as an asset class to optimize their portfolios. Specifically, our results show that the price behavior of REITs is unique and cannot be satisfactorily duplicated by combining equity, fixed‐income securities, and unsecuritized real estate. The time series of the styles on REITs indicates that it is difficult to ex ante produce returns on REITs without diversifying into REITs.

This paper aimed to examine the return/risk performance of direct and indirect real estate (listed property stock) in the Nigerian real estate market and analyzed the short-term integration between the two classes of real estate assets. It also established whether investors could achieve diversification benefits by combining both assets in a portfolio.

The data utilized comprised annual returns on direct real estate calculated from the rental and capital values of 226 direct commercial properties obtained from property valuers in Lagos, Nigeria, for a period of January 1999-December 2014. The appraisal-based direct real estate returns were de-smoothed using the Geltner (1993) procedure. The annual returns of indirect real estate were also computed from the transactions of listed property stock on the Nigerian Stock Exchange for the study period. The return-risk profiles were also broken down into short- and medium-term sub-periods, comprising 3, 5, 8 and 12 years to reflect the level of volatility in the market, whereas the nature of the short-term relationship between the two real estate assets classes was tested using Granger causality technique.

The results revealed that listed property stock performed better than unsmoothed direct real estate on a risk-adjusted performance basis. The performance profile, however, varies over the different sub-periods considered. Short-term integration analysis showed that there was no bidirectional relationship between direct and listed property stock, implying diversification and risk reduction possibilities in combining both assets with other asset classes in a domestic asset portfolio. Overall, the results confirm the findings of previous study that listed property stocks return is segmented from the direct real estate market upon which its pricing and trading in the stock market are based.

The conclusion of the study suggests that investors could achieve improved performance by investing in listed property stocks than direct real estate in the Nigerian real estate market. The inclusion of both assets in a domestic mixed-asset portfolio could also be expected to offer diversification and risk reduction benefits.

This is one of the few studies that examine the short-run integration between direct real estate and listed property stocks with a focus on an emerging African market.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the gradual evolution of the supervisory policy adopted by the Basel Committee for the regulatory treatment of asset securitisation. The pathology of the new “securitisation framework” is carefully highlighted to facilitate a general understanding of what constitutes the current state of computing adequate capital requirements for securitised credit exposures. Although a simplified sensitivity analysis of the varying levels of capital charges depending on the security design of asset securitisation transactions is incorporated, the author does not engage in a profound analysis of the benefits and drawbacks implicated in the new securitisation framework.

This paper aims to gain exposure to Australian real estate investment trusts (A‐REITs). Many institutional investors make use of securitised property funds as they employ experienced property professionals with specialist knowledge of underlying property fundamentals, direct property markets and the 30‐plus A‐REITs. As securitised property funds operate in a competitive environment, investment performance benchmarks are important.

To add to the familiar risk and return benchmarks, the risk adjusted performance (RAP) measure first outlined by Modigliani and Modigliani provides an additional and valuable return measure to a definite level of risk. This research selected 16 wholesale securitised property funds each with seven years of continuous quarterly total return data.

Overall a large proportion of the selected funds (14 out of 16), on average, outperformed the market benchmark return (14.53 per cent) with the worst fund marginally under‐performing the index by 0.54 per cent. In contrast, the annualised RAP measure highlighted the differences in the securitised property fund returns for a given level of risk, with a wide 12.90‐16.66 per cent range. To achieve this uniform level of risk, five securities property funds had to replace up to 21 per cent of their property portfolio with a risk‐free asset (90 day bank bills). The RAP measure also decomposes the excess returns above the benchmark. In this instance, the securitised property funds outperformance was from a mixture of active portfolio selection and simply taking on additional risk exposure.

The research demonstrated the benefits of analysing securitised property funds beyond the standard return and risk measures. The RAP approach provides a measure of return for a definite level of risk with the benchmark excess attributed to portfolio selection and additional risk. This performance information can provide valuable additional information for an astute investor.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the reasons that urge US banks to securitize.

The authors apply a logistic regression model to a sample of 5,394 observations. The dependent variable takes 1 if the bank securitizes and 0 if not. The authors use also, a Heckman selection model to account for the potential dependence between the decision to securitize and the decision of which assets to securitize.

The results indicate that liquidity, credit risk transfer, regulatory capital arbitrage and profitability are the most important factors that drive securitization in the USA. Moreover, the nature of the asset securitized appears to be dependent on the objective that the bank pursues. For funding and capital arbitrage objectives, the bank needs to securitize its mortgage loans. However, for credit risk transfer purposes, it has to opt for a non mortgage securitization. The nature of the asset securitized can thus, be used as a signal for bank’s intentions to securitize.

This study contributes to a better understanding of the reasons that urge banks to securitize. It also presents, using a Heckman selection procedure, a detailed analysis that discriminates between different types of securitization.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the role of securitised real estate within the confines of a multi‐asset investment portfolio and to identify if indeed securitised real estate can afford investors the desired investment benefits of direct property investment whilst mitigating many of the recognised barriers and risks.

The paper employs a suite of analytical techniques; lead‐lag correlations are utilised to examine market dynamics between listed and direct real estate markets across jurisdictions. Grainger causality and co‐integration techniques are applied to examine the nature and extent of relationships between investment markets with optimal portfolio analysis utilised to explore the role of securitised real estate and the optimum weighting allocation within the confines of a multi‐asset investment portfolio.

The findings demonstrated the unresponsive nature of direct real estate markets relative to listed real estate markets – in some jurisdictions the extent of lag can be as much as 12 months. Whilst the research did not identify a Grainger causality relationship between listed and direct property markets across the jurisdictions, co‐integration analysis does infer trend reverting price behaviour in the long run (ten years) between direct and listed real estate markets. Optimal portfolio analysis serves to demonstrate the crucial role of real estate within a multi‐asset portfolio in terms of both mitigating risk and enhancing performance over the ten‐year time series. Indeed, the optimal portfolio analysis highlights the compatibility and complementarity of listed and direct real estate within a multi‐asset investment portfolio.

The question if securitised real estate is a viable proxy for direct property investment is as inconclusive as it is enduring. In contrast to the large embodiment of previous work, this paper adopts an international market perspective depicting the global nature of securitised real estate investment markets whilst also reflecting on the extent of co‐integration between asset classes and across jurisdictions during a period of extreme financial and economic distress.