The case for property investment and the implications of a unitized property market

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
It is well known that direct property investment has often provided a more attractive risk/return profile than gilts and yet it enjoys a comparatively small role in institutional portfolios. This paper begins by updating and confirming that position. It then considers why this should be the case and poses the question of whether the development of a unitized property market might alter institutions’ perceptions of property as an investment in such a way as to increase its portfolio importance. Section 2 discusses the weighting attached to property in recent years and section 3 discusses the conventional methods of risk/return analysis which present property in a favourable light. The paper then asks why the weighting should be so low and begins (section 4) by looking at arguments that conventional methods of risk/return analysis are misleading when applied to property, leading to an overstatement of return and an underestimate of risk. If institutions are aware of these defects they may adjust their perceptions of risk/return appropriately. We are not, however, persuaded that this is the whole of the explanation. In section 5 we consider other disadvantages or costs of direct property investment which go unrecorded by conventional measures of risk but which might be important to institutions. We confirm there are peculiarities attaching to direct property investment but that these cannot wholly explain the high return that institutions seem to need to induce them to hold only a small proportion of their portfolio in property. We are left, therefore, with the conclusion that institutions’ perceptions of the merits of property investment are a significant factor. Thus, in section 6, we try to identify ways in which an active market in unitized property might encourage institutions to hold larger property portfolios in future.

This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit: