Pub Date : 2023-12-12DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2280280
A. Oust, Sjur Westgaard, Jens Erik Waage, Nahome Kidane Yemane
{"title":"Assessing the Explanatory Power of Dwelling Condition in Automated Valuation Models","authors":"A. Oust, Sjur Westgaard, Jens Erik Waage, Nahome Kidane Yemane","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2280280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2280280","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"17 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139007935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-12DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2280320
Seulki Lee, Young Min Kim
{"title":"The Asymmetric Effects of Real Estate Uncertainty Shock","authors":"Seulki Lee, Young Min Kim","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2280320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2280320","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"7 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139009270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-06DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2277479
Cathrine Nagl, Maximilian Nagl, Daniel Rösch, Wolfgang Schäfers, J. Freybote
{"title":"Time Varying Dependences Between Real Estate Crypto, Real Estate and Crypto Returns","authors":"Cathrine Nagl, Maximilian Nagl, Daniel Rösch, Wolfgang Schäfers, J. Freybote","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2277479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2277479","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"61 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138595549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-30DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2267717
Chinmoy Ghosh, Milena T. Petrova
{"title":"Building Sustainability, Certification, and Price Premiums: Evidence from Europe","authors":"Chinmoy Ghosh, Milena T. Petrova","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2267717","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2267717","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139206487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-29DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2281770
Xuejun Du, Zhonghua Huang, Junhua Chen
{"title":"How Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Housing Market? Evidence from Shanghai, China","authors":"Xuejun Du, Zhonghua Huang, Junhua Chen","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2281770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2281770","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139210018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-20DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2266282
Stace Sirmans, Stacy Sirmans, Greg Smersh, Daniel Winkler
AbstractThis study fills a void in the literature by examining real estate capitalization rates for single-tenant net lease (STNL) properties. First, we examine cap rate variation in relation to market and firm-level fundamentals using individual transaction data in a multistage regression approach. Second, our single-tenant dataset, which allows us to control for characteristics such as industry and tenant credit ratings, gives us unique insight into not only the pricing of cap rates, but also their underlying drivers and their relationship to market fundamentals and returns on alternative assets. Using this unique dataset of more than 8,000 single-tenant net lease retail property transactions, we develop a quarterly cap rate index controlling for Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and industry fixed effects, property and lease characteristics, and localized influences such as population density and household income. Third, we examine the effect of excess corporate bond spreads, excess stock returns, stock market indicators, firm financials, and economic and demographic indicators. Finally, we examine the effect on cap rates of MSA characteristics such as size, wealth, poverty, crime, gross domestic product, and growth. The findings show that, besides the systematic risk from stock and bond returns, national and metropolitan economic forces and firm fundamental factors explain variation in cap rates.Keywords: cap ratesnet leaseexcess returnmacroeconomic factors AcknowledgmentsWe thank the editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful feedback, which has substantially improved this article. We also thank the participants at the 2023 ARES Conference for their helpful comments.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 As a percentage of total investible wealth, real estate is a significant percentage of domestic publicly traded equities. According to Siblis Research Ltd, the total market capitalization of the U.S. stock market was $53.4 trillion as of December 31, 2021 (https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/) while, according to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), the total value of U.S. commercial real estate was $20.7 trillion as of June 2021 (https://www.reit.com/data-research/research/nareit-research/estimating-size-commercial-real-estate-market-us-2021).2 The cap rate is defined as the ratio of a property’s net operating income to its current market value; most often the cap rate is based on expected net operating income.3 Common multifactor models in the finance literature include the Fama-French three-factor model (1992) and the arbitrage pricing theory (APT) model (Ross, Citation1976).4 All the studies discussed in this section use either the full cap rate or the excess cap rate (typically defined as the full cap rate minus the three-month TB yield) as the dependent variable in their analysis.5 To examine the relationship between real
摘要本研究通过考察单租户净租赁(STNL)物业的房地产资本化率,填补了文献中的空白。首先,我们在多阶段回归方法中使用个人交易数据检查上限率变化与市场和公司层面基本面的关系。其次,我们的单租户数据集允许我们控制行业和租户信用评级等特征,使我们不仅能够独特地了解上限费率的定价,还可以了解其潜在驱动因素及其与市场基本面和替代资产回报的关系。利用这个独特的数据集,超过8000单租户净租赁零售物业交易,我们开发了一个季度上限率指数,控制大都市统计地区(MSA)和行业固定效应,物业和租赁特征,以及人口密度和家庭收入等局部影响。第三,我们考察了超额公司债券利差、超额股票回报、股票市场指标、公司财务以及经济和人口指标的影响。最后,我们研究了MSA特征(如规模、财富、贫困、犯罪、国内生产总值和增长)对上限率的影响。研究结果表明,除了股票和债券回报的系统性风险外,国家和城市的经济力量以及坚定的基本面因素也解释了上限利率的变化。关键词:封顶率净租金超额收益宏观经济因素致谢感谢编者和匿名审稿人的深刻反馈,他们的意见大大改进了本文。我们也感谢2023年ARES会议与会者提供的有益意见。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1作为可投资财富总额的一个百分比,房地产在国内公开交易的股票中所占的比例很大。根据Siblis Research Ltd的数据,截至2021年12月31日,美国股市的总市值为53.4万亿美元(https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/),而根据全国房地产投资信托协会(NAREIT)的数据,截至2021年6月,美国商业房地产的总价值为20.7万亿美元(https://www.reit.com/data-research/research/nareit-research/estimating-size-commercial-real-estate-market-us-2021).2上限率的定义是房地产的净营业收入与其当前市场价值的比率;大多数情况下,上限费率是基于预期的净营业收入金融文献中常见的多因素模型包括Fama-French三因素模型(1992)和套利定价理论(APT)模型(Ross, Citation1976)本节讨论的所有研究都使用全额封顶率或超额封顶率(通常定义为全额封顶率减去三个月TB收益率)作为其分析中的因变量为了检验房地产和资本市场之间的关系,其他研究使用了其他回报措施,如公开交易的REITs或全国房地产投资受托人委员会(NCREIF)的回报数据。一些结果:房地产收益受基本宏观经济因素驱动,如实际人均消费增长率、实际国库券利率、利率期限结构和意外通货膨胀(Naranjo & Ling, Citation1997);交易所交易的房地产与交易所交易的非房地产股票市场相结合,实际人均消费的增长率是一个共同的变量(Ling & Naranjo, Citation1999);基本和非基本因素,如债务资本市场状况、失业率、NAREIT和NCREIF回报、股市波动和投资者情绪,是事前风险溢价的重要预测因素(Beracha等人,Citation2019);房地产收益的横截面分散由宏观经济因素解释,如期限和信贷利差、通货膨胀和短期利率(Plazzi等人,Citation2008);高密度地区的房地产投资信托基金的隐含资本化率较低(Fisher等人,Citation2020)估计模型将超额上限率与当前BAA债券利率与当前三个月国库券利率之差、滞后一期BAA债券利率与滞后一期3个月国库券利率之差、滞后两期BAA债券利率与滞后两期3个月国库券利率之差、当前标普500股票市场收益率与当前3个月国库券利率之差、滞后一期标普500股票市场收益率与滞后一期3个月国库券利率之差、滞后一期标普500股票市场收益率与滞后一期3个月国库券利率之差联系起来。滞后于标准普尔500指数的两期股市回报率和滞后于三个月期美国国债的两期收益率。假设增长的影响是由固定效应的MSA变量捕获的。 Gordon模型,重新安排以解决权益资本成本,是基于从第1时期开始收到的股息(D1),当前股票价格为P0,股息流以恒定的增长率g增长到可预见的未来。使用该模型的权益资本成本为rE=D1P0+g.8有关从财务管理角度对这种方法的详细解释,请参见Emery等人(Citation2018, pp. 132-134)大部分物业的总租约亦属土地租约交易。总租赁中有一小部分是单纯所有权。为了获得可靠的回归估计,从样本中删除了这些观测值正如Letdin等人(Citation2023)指出的那样,这种积极的关系可能是由于随着建筑规模的增加而增加的额外维护成本上限费率因经营者的实力而有很大差异,而特许经营的现金流(用于支付租金)比经销商经营的物业风险更大。投资者可能会看到一处房产的公司标志,并认为他们受到了保护,但事实并非如此。公司所有者代表的风险较小,因此,我们预计加盟商的上限率会更高工业假人包括:汽车,银行,手机,教育,健身,加油站,政府,食品杂货,工业,大型零售,医疗,多,办公室,药房,餐厅和小型零售。交易类型假人包括:简单费用,土地租赁和租赁。租赁类型包括:GL、N、NN、NNN。如附录A所示,我们使用BBB级公司债券利差(代替AAA级利差)进行基线回归,与Jud和Winkler (Citation1995)一致,发现统计显著性较弱,但经济解释相似。例如,附录A中第一列的R2为0.363,远低于表2 Panel A中第四列的R2为0.610,这表明BBB价差中存在大量房地产上限利率中没有的企业违约风险信息Jud和Winkler (Citation1995)使用虚拟变量来捕捉MSA特征的差异这些变量可能是内生的,因为它们可能基于我们数据集中的一些相同的房地产交易值得注意的是,这三个变量表现出很强的相关性。相对于住房供应弹性,沃顿土地调控指数和不可用于发展的土地份额在我们的样本中分别显示出-55%和-76%的相关性。此外,第一主成分解释了三个变量之间67%的差异。尽管存在相关性,但是,当所有三者都包括在回归中时,R2增加到0.38(未报告的结果)因为数据看起来没有错误(没有输入错误、误报等),所以超过第5和第95百分位的观测值被认为是合法的数据,应该包括在统计分析中。因此,我们报告的发现基于未转换的数据。
{"title":"The Effect of Market Asset Returns, Economic Conditions, and Firm Fundamentals on Net Lease Capitalization Rates","authors":"Stace Sirmans, Stacy Sirmans, Greg Smersh, Daniel Winkler","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2266282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2266282","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis study fills a void in the literature by examining real estate capitalization rates for single-tenant net lease (STNL) properties. First, we examine cap rate variation in relation to market and firm-level fundamentals using individual transaction data in a multistage regression approach. Second, our single-tenant dataset, which allows us to control for characteristics such as industry and tenant credit ratings, gives us unique insight into not only the pricing of cap rates, but also their underlying drivers and their relationship to market fundamentals and returns on alternative assets. Using this unique dataset of more than 8,000 single-tenant net lease retail property transactions, we develop a quarterly cap rate index controlling for Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and industry fixed effects, property and lease characteristics, and localized influences such as population density and household income. Third, we examine the effect of excess corporate bond spreads, excess stock returns, stock market indicators, firm financials, and economic and demographic indicators. Finally, we examine the effect on cap rates of MSA characteristics such as size, wealth, poverty, crime, gross domestic product, and growth. The findings show that, besides the systematic risk from stock and bond returns, national and metropolitan economic forces and firm fundamental factors explain variation in cap rates.Keywords: cap ratesnet leaseexcess returnmacroeconomic factors AcknowledgmentsWe thank the editor and the anonymous referees for their insightful feedback, which has substantially improved this article. We also thank the participants at the 2023 ARES Conference for their helpful comments.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 As a percentage of total investible wealth, real estate is a significant percentage of domestic publicly traded equities. According to Siblis Research Ltd, the total market capitalization of the U.S. stock market was $53.4 trillion as of December 31, 2021 (https://siblisresearch.com/data/us-stock-market-value/) while, according to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), the total value of U.S. commercial real estate was $20.7 trillion as of June 2021 (https://www.reit.com/data-research/research/nareit-research/estimating-size-commercial-real-estate-market-us-2021).2 The cap rate is defined as the ratio of a property’s net operating income to its current market value; most often the cap rate is based on expected net operating income.3 Common multifactor models in the finance literature include the Fama-French three-factor model (1992) and the arbitrage pricing theory (APT) model (Ross, Citation1976).4 All the studies discussed in this section use either the full cap rate or the excess cap rate (typically defined as the full cap rate minus the three-month TB yield) as the dependent variable in their analysis.5 To examine the relationship between real ","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135617916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-20DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2263246
Vladimir A. Gatchev, Nandkumar Nayar, S. McKay Price, Ajai Singh
AbstractUsing hand collected data from offering prospectuses and other corporate filings, we examine the market response to real estate investment trust (REIT) follow-on stock offerings’ stated uses of proceeds. We also track REIT banking relationships over time. Consistent with the idea of bank certification, we show that markets react relatively favorably to REIT equity offers where issuers have lending relationships with affiliates of the underwriters. However, we also find that reactions are most favorable where REIT issuers intend to repay their bank’s line of credit, regardless of the bank’s affiliation with the underwriters. This pattern is particularly strong among smaller firms with lower institutional ownership. We posit that credit line repayments preserve benefits of bank monitoring while enhancing financial flexibility. Further examination reveals that this monitored financial flexibility is the dominant effect.Keywords: REITsequity offeringscredit linesbanking relationshipscertificationmonitored financial flexibility AcknowledgmentsWe thank Nevin Boparai, Paul Brockman, John Cobb, Sandeep Dahiya, Chitru Fernando, Ioannis Floros, Kathleen Weiss Hanley, Bill Hardin, David Harrison, Masaki Mori, Christo Pirinsky, Victoria Rostow, Calvin Schnure, Paul Schultz, Qinghai Wang, Ke Yang, two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the American Real Estate Society Conference and European Real Estate Society Conference for helpful discussions and comments. Natalya Bikmetova, Debanjana Dey, Xin Fang, and Sulei Han provided invaluable research assistance. We remain responsible for any errors. Gatchev and Singh are grateful for the financial support provided by the SunTrust Endowment; Nayar appreciates support from the Hans Julius Bär Endowed Chair; Price acknowledges support from the Collins-Goodman Endowed Chair.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Indeed, the increase of REITs’ commercial bank borrowings, such as lines of credit and term loans, in recent years has attracted the attention of investors, credit rating agencies, and the press. See, for example, https://www.wealthmanagement.com/reits/are-reits-maxing-out-bank-borrowing.2 Consistent with Puri (Citation1996), we also use the term investment houses interchangeably with investment bankers (or underwriters) to distinguish them from pure commercial banks. To denote the dual underwriting and commercial banking relations, we use the term “underwriting-banking relations” through the rest of the paper.3 The general conclusion across prior studies is that the certification benefits, net of any conflicts of interest costs, stem from information advantages gained through the lending channeland are most, and sometimes only, evident for junior, information sensitive securities. For example, Duarte-Silva (Citation2010) finds that announcement returns to equity offers are less negative when underwriters also have prior lending relationships wit
{"title":"Using REIT Follow-on Equity Offerings to Pay down Credit Line Balances: Bank Certification or Monitored Financial Flexibility?","authors":"Vladimir A. Gatchev, Nandkumar Nayar, S. McKay Price, Ajai Singh","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2263246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2263246","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractUsing hand collected data from offering prospectuses and other corporate filings, we examine the market response to real estate investment trust (REIT) follow-on stock offerings’ stated uses of proceeds. We also track REIT banking relationships over time. Consistent with the idea of bank certification, we show that markets react relatively favorably to REIT equity offers where issuers have lending relationships with affiliates of the underwriters. However, we also find that reactions are most favorable where REIT issuers intend to repay their bank’s line of credit, regardless of the bank’s affiliation with the underwriters. This pattern is particularly strong among smaller firms with lower institutional ownership. We posit that credit line repayments preserve benefits of bank monitoring while enhancing financial flexibility. Further examination reveals that this monitored financial flexibility is the dominant effect.Keywords: REITsequity offeringscredit linesbanking relationshipscertificationmonitored financial flexibility AcknowledgmentsWe thank Nevin Boparai, Paul Brockman, John Cobb, Sandeep Dahiya, Chitru Fernando, Ioannis Floros, Kathleen Weiss Hanley, Bill Hardin, David Harrison, Masaki Mori, Christo Pirinsky, Victoria Rostow, Calvin Schnure, Paul Schultz, Qinghai Wang, Ke Yang, two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the American Real Estate Society Conference and European Real Estate Society Conference for helpful discussions and comments. Natalya Bikmetova, Debanjana Dey, Xin Fang, and Sulei Han provided invaluable research assistance. We remain responsible for any errors. Gatchev and Singh are grateful for the financial support provided by the SunTrust Endowment; Nayar appreciates support from the Hans Julius Bär Endowed Chair; Price acknowledges support from the Collins-Goodman Endowed Chair.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 Indeed, the increase of REITs’ commercial bank borrowings, such as lines of credit and term loans, in recent years has attracted the attention of investors, credit rating agencies, and the press. See, for example, https://www.wealthmanagement.com/reits/are-reits-maxing-out-bank-borrowing.2 Consistent with Puri (Citation1996), we also use the term investment houses interchangeably with investment bankers (or underwriters) to distinguish them from pure commercial banks. To denote the dual underwriting and commercial banking relations, we use the term “underwriting-banking relations” through the rest of the paper.3 The general conclusion across prior studies is that the certification benefits, net of any conflicts of interest costs, stem from information advantages gained through the lending channeland are most, and sometimes only, evident for junior, information sensitive securities. For example, Duarte-Silva (Citation2010) finds that announcement returns to equity offers are less negative when underwriters also have prior lending relationships wit","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135618037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2254587
Gow-Cheng Huang, Kartono Liano, Ming-Shiun Pan
AbstractThis study examined the performance of 371 equity real estate investment trusts (REITs) over the period 1972–2020. Unlike stocks, we found that the majority of the 371 REITs outperformed one-month T-bills, particularly over longer holding periods and in the modern REIT era. While most REITs outperformed the T-bills, only a minority of them outperformed the overall equity REIT market. REITs that outperformed the overall equity REIT market concentrated in the health care, industrial, residential, and other specialty REIT sectors. In terms of wealth creation, REITs in aggregate created a total net wealth of $0.89 trillion to their shareholders, but the wealth creation was highly concentrated in relatively few top-performing REITs. Specifically, the top five (20) REITs together accounted for almost 30% (60%) of the total net wealth creation. Overall, our results suggest that relative to the T-bills, REITs performed better than stocks.Keywords: Real estate investment trustsREIT return performanceshareholder wealth AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank three anonymous referees for helpful comments.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 The maximum lifetime return was 37,628% for REITs, while it was 244.3 million % for stocks.2 For example, Bessembinder (Citation2018) reported that the mean and median monthly returns for stocks were 1.13% and 0.00%, respectively. Our results showed that the mean and median monthly returns for REITs were 1.06% and 0.95%, respectively.3 For the period from 1972 to 2020, the average monthly return for the CRSP value-weighted market index was 0.94%, which was slightly higher than 0.88% for the FTSE NAREIT ALL REIT index. However, the average monthly income return (i.e., dividend yield) for stocks was 0.24%, which was less than 0.63% for REITs.4 We grouped equity REITs into eight property types, including diversified, health care, hotel, industrial, office, residential, retail, and other equity REITs. Other equity REITs included casino, self-storage, and specialty REITs.5 There are two REITs with the same company identification number in CRSP. We treated these two REITs as one company and calculated their lifetime wealth creation as the sum of dollar wealth creations from these two REITs. Also, see note 19.6 Our sample began in January 1972 because return data for the FTSE NAREIT All Equity REIT index are available since then. Eight equity REITs were listed in CRSP prior to January 1972. The sample also excluded four equity REITs with an initial listing date in 2020.7 The CRSP database does not contain the offering price of an IPO and, hence, the return in the IPO month is not available. Consequently, our analysis did not capture the return from the IPO month of a REIT. Furthermore, some firms changed their status from a non-REIT to a REIT after operating for some time. For these REITs, the first monthly return used was the month when their REIT status was established. We
摘要本研究考察了1972-2020年期间371家股权房地产投资信托基金(REITs)的表现。与股票不同的是,我们发现371支REIT中的大多数表现都好于一个月期国库券,特别是在较长的持有量和现代REIT时代。虽然大多数REIT的表现优于美国国债,但只有少数REIT的表现优于整体股票REIT市场。表现优于整体股票REIT市场的REIT集中在医疗保健、工业、住宅和其他专业REIT部门。在财富创造方面,房地产投资信托基金为其股东创造了总计0.89万亿美元的净财富,但财富创造高度集中在少数表现最好的房地产投资信托基金中。具体而言,前五大(20家)房地产投资信托基金合计占净财富创造总额的近30%(60%)。总体而言,我们的结果表明,相对于国库券,房地产投资信托基金表现优于股票。关键词:房地产投资信托;房地产投资信托基金;收益表现;股东财富;披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突。注1房地产投资信托基金的最高终身回报率为37,628%,而股票的最高终身回报率为2.443亿%例如,Bessembinder (Citation2018)报告称,股票的月平均回报率和中位数分别为1.13%和0.00%。结果表明,REITs的月平均收益率为1.06%,月中位数收益率为0.95%从1972年到2020年,CRSP价值加权市场指数的月平均收益率为0.94%,略高于富时NAREIT ALL REIT指数的0.88%。然而,股票的平均月收益回报率(即股息收益率)为0.24%,而房地产投资信托基金的平均月收益回报率低于0.63%我们将股权REITs分为八种房地产类型,包括多元化、医疗保健、酒店、工业、办公、住宅、零售和其他股权REITs。其他股权REITs包括赌场,自助仓储和专业REITsCRSP中有两个REITs具有相同的公司识别号。我们将这两个REITs视为一家公司,并将其一生的财富创造计算为这两个REITs创造的美元财富总和。此外,我们的样本开始于1972年1月,因为富时NAREIT所有股票REIT指数的回报数据从那时起就可用了。在1972年1月之前,有8个股权REITs在CRSP中上市。该样本还排除了4个首次上市日期为2020.7的股权REITs。CRSP数据库不包含IPO的发行价格,因此无法获得IPO月份的回报。因此,我们的分析没有捕捉到房地产投资信托基金IPO月份的回报。此外,一些公司在经营一段时间后,从非REIT转变为REIT。对于这些房地产投资信托基金,使用的第一个月收益是其房地产投资信托基金成立的月份。我们使用标准普尔全球市场情报来确定这些日期。我们感谢一位匿名推荐人的建议对于截至2020年12月仍在交易的REITs,最后一次可用的月度回报是2020年12月。对于在2020年12月之前合并、交换、清算或退市的REITs,在计算中使用最后可用的非遗漏月度回报。由于股票可能在一个月内的任何时候被合并、交换、清算或退市,所以很可能最后一次没有丢失的月度回报不是整整一个月这些数据可在Kenneth French的网站https://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html.10上获得。结构性变化包括允许REIT由内部管理和内部建议,取消提供给有限合伙企业的税收优惠待遇,允许伞型合伙REIT的组织结构,以及放宽机构所有权的限制为节省篇幅,未将结果制成表格图A1描述了1990年至2020年期间按物业类型划分的股票型房地产投资信托基金的股息收益率。股息收益率数据来自标准普尔全球市场情报。图A2显示了1990-2020年期间按房地产类型划分的股票型房地产投资信托基金的价格与资产净值比率。资产净值溢价数据来自标准普尔全球市场情报。14 1981-1990年十年的糟糕表现可能是由于20世纪80年代末的商业房地产危机(雷诺,Citation1997)。1987-1990年期间,CRSP价值加权市场指数的年回报率几何平均值为9.62%,而富时NAREIT All Equity REIT指数的年回报率为0.19%11个房地产投资信托基金的终身回报率超过4,900%。Bessembinder (Citation2018)分析了1926-2016年期间的股票,这比我们的样本期1972-2020要长得多。 因此,Bessembinder样本中的股票寿命比我们样本中的股票REITs更长,因此产生了更大的终身回报。例如,在Bessembinder研究的25,967只个股中,574只股票的终身回报率超过了平均回报率18,747.05%。股票的最大终身回报率为2.443亿%,大大高于我们样本的37628%对于仍在交易的REITs,退市代码的第一位数字为1。因合并、交易、清算等原因退市的REITs,退市代码的第一位数字为2、3、4。对于被证券交易所摘牌的REIT,摘牌代码的第一个数字是5.18。SAS计算股东终身财富的程序可以在Hendrik Bessembinder的网站上找到,网址是https://wpcarey.asu.edu/sites/default/files/2021-10/wealthcreation_2019.sas_.txt.19 Kranzco Realty Trust,该公司拥有独特的PERMNO,于2000年6月与另一家REIT合并。这两个房地产投资信托被合并成一个新的房地产投资信托,克莱蒙特房地产信托。Kramont Realty Trust也有一个独特的PERMNO,但与Kranzco Realty Trust具有相同的PERMCO。这两个REITs的终身财富创造是两个permno创造的美元财富的总和从1972年1月到2020年12月,只有三个REITs的完整寿命为588个月。370只reit的平均寿命为151个月完整的列表可根据要求从作者处获得。
{"title":"REIT Long-Term Returns and Wealth Creation","authors":"Gow-Cheng Huang, Kartono Liano, Ming-Shiun Pan","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2254587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2254587","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractThis study examined the performance of 371 equity real estate investment trusts (REITs) over the period 1972–2020. Unlike stocks, we found that the majority of the 371 REITs outperformed one-month T-bills, particularly over longer holding periods and in the modern REIT era. While most REITs outperformed the T-bills, only a minority of them outperformed the overall equity REIT market. REITs that outperformed the overall equity REIT market concentrated in the health care, industrial, residential, and other specialty REIT sectors. In terms of wealth creation, REITs in aggregate created a total net wealth of $0.89 trillion to their shareholders, but the wealth creation was highly concentrated in relatively few top-performing REITs. Specifically, the top five (20) REITs together accounted for almost 30% (60%) of the total net wealth creation. Overall, our results suggest that relative to the T-bills, REITs performed better than stocks.Keywords: Real estate investment trustsREIT return performanceshareholder wealth AcknowledgmentsThe authors thank three anonymous referees for helpful comments.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 The maximum lifetime return was 37,628% for REITs, while it was 244.3 million % for stocks.2 For example, Bessembinder (Citation2018) reported that the mean and median monthly returns for stocks were 1.13% and 0.00%, respectively. Our results showed that the mean and median monthly returns for REITs were 1.06% and 0.95%, respectively.3 For the period from 1972 to 2020, the average monthly return for the CRSP value-weighted market index was 0.94%, which was slightly higher than 0.88% for the FTSE NAREIT ALL REIT index. However, the average monthly income return (i.e., dividend yield) for stocks was 0.24%, which was less than 0.63% for REITs.4 We grouped equity REITs into eight property types, including diversified, health care, hotel, industrial, office, residential, retail, and other equity REITs. Other equity REITs included casino, self-storage, and specialty REITs.5 There are two REITs with the same company identification number in CRSP. We treated these two REITs as one company and calculated their lifetime wealth creation as the sum of dollar wealth creations from these two REITs. Also, see note 19.6 Our sample began in January 1972 because return data for the FTSE NAREIT All Equity REIT index are available since then. Eight equity REITs were listed in CRSP prior to January 1972. The sample also excluded four equity REITs with an initial listing date in 2020.7 The CRSP database does not contain the offering price of an IPO and, hence, the return in the IPO month is not available. Consequently, our analysis did not capture the return from the IPO month of a REIT. Furthermore, some firms changed their status from a non-REIT to a REIT after operating for some time. For these REITs, the first monthly return used was the month when their REIT status was established. We ","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135193527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2258012
Moritz Stang, Bastian Krämer, Marcelo Cajias, Wolfgang Schäfers
AbstractBesides its structural and economic characteristics, the location of a property is probably one of the most important determinants of its underlying value. In contrast to property valuations, there are hardly any approaches to date that evaluate the quality of a real estate location in an automated manner. The reasons are the complexity, the number of interactions and the non-linearities underlying the quality specifications of a certain location. By combining a state-of-the-art machine learning algorithm and the local post-hoc model agnostic method of Shapley Additive Explanations, this paper introduces a newly developed approach – called SHAP location score – that is able to detect these complexities and enables assessing real estate locations in a data-based manner. The SHAP location score represents an intuitive and flexible approach based on econometric modeling techniques and the basic assumptions of hedonic pricing theory. The approach can be applied post-hoc to any common machine learning method and can be flexibly adapted to the respective needs. This constitutes a significant extension of traditional urban models and offers many advantages for a wide range of real estate players.Keywords: Location AnalyticsExplainable AIMachine LearningShapley ValuesAutomated LocationValuation Model Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 This term describes the fact that this technique is applied after the actual training of an algorithm (= post-hoc) and can be applied for different algorithms (= model-agnostic).2 In the context of the SHAP-LS methodology, it is in principle possible to use both purchase or rental prices. Both reflect the observable willingness to pay for a property with certain characteristics and a certain location and can thus be used in this logic in an arbitrary manner.3 An example of the identification of aggregated results would be the Permutation Feature Importance (see e.g., Krämer, Nagl, et al., Citation2023).4 Theoretically, the SHAP-LS of single features could be used for this kind of analysis. However, this is not recommended, as one is exposed to the capriciousness of the algorithms and data providers. Often, locational features such as the distance to the next bus stop and to the next subway station correlate highly. Consequently, the algorithm cannot distinguish perfectly between these correlated features, which can lead to a blurring of the individual SHAP values. Another reason that should not be neglected is the dependence on the categorization of the location characteristics of the data providers. In some cases, individual amenities overlap considerably, e.g., the classification of restaurants, pubs or bars. Combining several individual characteristics into categories can counteract this blurring. As a rule of thumb, it can be stated that the more data available, the smaller the categories that can be used.5 It should be noted that the overall and categorica
{"title":"Changing the Location Game – Improving Location Analytics with the Help of Explainable AI","authors":"Moritz Stang, Bastian Krämer, Marcelo Cajias, Wolfgang Schäfers","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2258012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2258012","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractBesides its structural and economic characteristics, the location of a property is probably one of the most important determinants of its underlying value. In contrast to property valuations, there are hardly any approaches to date that evaluate the quality of a real estate location in an automated manner. The reasons are the complexity, the number of interactions and the non-linearities underlying the quality specifications of a certain location. By combining a state-of-the-art machine learning algorithm and the local post-hoc model agnostic method of Shapley Additive Explanations, this paper introduces a newly developed approach – called SHAP location score – that is able to detect these complexities and enables assessing real estate locations in a data-based manner. The SHAP location score represents an intuitive and flexible approach based on econometric modeling techniques and the basic assumptions of hedonic pricing theory. The approach can be applied post-hoc to any common machine learning method and can be flexibly adapted to the respective needs. This constitutes a significant extension of traditional urban models and offers many advantages for a wide range of real estate players.Keywords: Location AnalyticsExplainable AIMachine LearningShapley ValuesAutomated LocationValuation Model Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 This term describes the fact that this technique is applied after the actual training of an algorithm (= post-hoc) and can be applied for different algorithms (= model-agnostic).2 In the context of the SHAP-LS methodology, it is in principle possible to use both purchase or rental prices. Both reflect the observable willingness to pay for a property with certain characteristics and a certain location and can thus be used in this logic in an arbitrary manner.3 An example of the identification of aggregated results would be the Permutation Feature Importance (see e.g., Krämer, Nagl, et al., Citation2023).4 Theoretically, the SHAP-LS of single features could be used for this kind of analysis. However, this is not recommended, as one is exposed to the capriciousness of the algorithms and data providers. Often, locational features such as the distance to the next bus stop and to the next subway station correlate highly. Consequently, the algorithm cannot distinguish perfectly between these correlated features, which can lead to a blurring of the individual SHAP values. Another reason that should not be neglected is the dependence on the categorization of the location characteristics of the data providers. In some cases, individual amenities overlap considerably, e.g., the classification of restaurants, pubs or bars. Combining several individual characteristics into categories can counteract this blurring. As a rule of thumb, it can be stated that the more data available, the smaller the categories that can be used.5 It should be noted that the overall and categorica","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135193758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-29DOI: 10.1080/08965803.2023.2254039
Long Ma, Ronald W. Spahr, Mark A. Sunderman
AbstractIn recent years, especially as compared to mutual funds, exchange traded fund (ETF) markets have grown and advanced significantly compared to other financial asset classes because of relative advantages. We found that inclusion of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in ETF assets under management (AUM) positively impacts REIT capital structure (financial leverage), cost of equity capital, and stock market liquidity. As percentages of REIT outstanding shares included in ETF AUM increased, we found corresponding reductions in financial leverage (both book and market leverage), reduced costs of equity capital, and greater market liquidity. This should be of particular interest to REIT and ETF managers as well as REIT and ETF investors. Partially because regulatory statutes incentivize REITs to rely more heavily on external equity financing, REIT stocks included as ETF AUM showed greater reductions in leverage compared to non-REIT stocks also held as ETF AUM. Our results, including applying difference-in-differences models, were robust with respect to these findings, REIT type, and firm fixed effects.Keywords: REITETFAUMmarket liquiditycost of equity capitalfinancial leverage Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 We suggest that the reason REITs experience a significant increase in institutional ownership and in stock turnover on ETF inclusion as AUM is that ETF provide another and possibly stochastically superior way to own real estate assets and their associated advantages.2 The Investment Company Act of 1940 is an act of Congress that regulates investment funds, investment companies, and pass-through companies that include REITs and ETFs. It was passed as a United States Public Law (Pub.L. 76–768) on August 22, 1940, and is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-1 – 80a-64. The act is enforced and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and defines the responsibilities and requirements of investment companies, including ETFs, and the requirements for any publicly traded investment product offerings such as open-end mutual funds, closed-end mutual funds, and unit investment trusts. The act primarily targets publicly traded retail investment products.3 Typically, ETFs hold assets in trust in their portfolios, technically not holding title to assets. ETFs are formed by an ETF manager (sponsor) filing a plan with the U.S. SEC to create an ETF. When approved, the sponsor forms an agreement with an authorized participant (AP), generally a market maker, specialist, or large institutional investor that is empowered to create and redeem ETF shares. Often, the AP and the sponsor are the same. The AP then borrows REIT stock shares from an institutional investor, often a pension fund, places those shares in a trust, and uses them to form ETF creation units (CU). CUs bundle stock, commonly 50,000 shares (one creation unit) of an ETF. Then, the trust provides fractionalized shares of the ETF
{"title":"Impacts on REIT Stock Capital Structures, Equity Costs, and Market Liquidities of Being Included in ETF Managed Portfolios","authors":"Long Ma, Ronald W. Spahr, Mark A. Sunderman","doi":"10.1080/08965803.2023.2254039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2023.2254039","url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIn recent years, especially as compared to mutual funds, exchange traded fund (ETF) markets have grown and advanced significantly compared to other financial asset classes because of relative advantages. We found that inclusion of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in ETF assets under management (AUM) positively impacts REIT capital structure (financial leverage), cost of equity capital, and stock market liquidity. As percentages of REIT outstanding shares included in ETF AUM increased, we found corresponding reductions in financial leverage (both book and market leverage), reduced costs of equity capital, and greater market liquidity. This should be of particular interest to REIT and ETF managers as well as REIT and ETF investors. Partially because regulatory statutes incentivize REITs to rely more heavily on external equity financing, REIT stocks included as ETF AUM showed greater reductions in leverage compared to non-REIT stocks also held as ETF AUM. Our results, including applying difference-in-differences models, were robust with respect to these findings, REIT type, and firm fixed effects.Keywords: REITETFAUMmarket liquiditycost of equity capitalfinancial leverage Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Notes1 We suggest that the reason REITs experience a significant increase in institutional ownership and in stock turnover on ETF inclusion as AUM is that ETF provide another and possibly stochastically superior way to own real estate assets and their associated advantages.2 The Investment Company Act of 1940 is an act of Congress that regulates investment funds, investment companies, and pass-through companies that include REITs and ETFs. It was passed as a United States Public Law (Pub.L. 76–768) on August 22, 1940, and is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 80a-1 – 80a-64. The act is enforced and regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and defines the responsibilities and requirements of investment companies, including ETFs, and the requirements for any publicly traded investment product offerings such as open-end mutual funds, closed-end mutual funds, and unit investment trusts. The act primarily targets publicly traded retail investment products.3 Typically, ETFs hold assets in trust in their portfolios, technically not holding title to assets. ETFs are formed by an ETF manager (sponsor) filing a plan with the U.S. SEC to create an ETF. When approved, the sponsor forms an agreement with an authorized participant (AP), generally a market maker, specialist, or large institutional investor that is empowered to create and redeem ETF shares. Often, the AP and the sponsor are the same. The AP then borrows REIT stock shares from an institutional investor, often a pension fund, places those shares in a trust, and uses them to form ETF creation units (CU). CUs bundle stock, commonly 50,000 shares (one creation unit) of an ETF. Then, the trust provides fractionalized shares of the ETF ","PeriodicalId":51567,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Real Estate Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135194086","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}