It is possible to make a credit funded investment
Alternatively to an unfunded swap or CFD, it is also possible to make a funded investment. Rather than paying LIBOR plus a spread quarterly and receiving property returns, the investor pays the notional amount of cash upfront and receives property returns net of the spread. For example, on a two-year swap an investor could choose, rather than paying LIBOR plus 1% on the swap, to pay 100% of the notional amount and receive the property return minus 1% each year and 100% redemption after two years.
The basis for property derivatives documentation is the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) documentation. Just as for other derivatives, ISDA has prepared standardized documents for property swaps, in order to facilitate trading. The Property Index Derivatives Definitions were published in May 2007. Standardization aims to reduce transaction costs, legal risk and transaction time, to increase transparency and confidence in the market, and to improve efficiency and liquidity. In addition to the definitions, ISDA provides confirmation templates for forwards and swaps in the US (Form X) and in Europe (Form Y), as well as an annex that describes the indices on which the trades are based. By September 2007, the Association has included the Standard&Poor’s/Case–Shiller Index, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) Index, the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries (NCREIF) Index, the worldwide Investment Property Databank (IPD) Indices, the UK Halifax House Price Index, the FTSE UK Commercial Property Index and Radar Logic’s Residential Property Index (RPX). The definitions booklet covers issues such as disruption events on these indices. More indices, as well as confirmation templates for options and basket trades, are likely to follow.
The Credit Property Total Return Swap
By December 2007, property derivatives deals have been made public in Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, the UK and the US. Deals were referenced to both commercial and residential properties. Derivatives that reflect commercial real estate are typically tied to appraisal-based indices while derivatives that reflect owner-occupied residential housing usually use transaction-based indices as the underlying instrument (see property indices).
Most contracts are still executed as matched bargain trades between a buyer and a seller, with pricing determined through negotiations between them. As the market becomes more liquid, standardized contracts will become available directly from intermediaries. They will price the contracts and assume the risk of finding a suitable counterparty.
Several derivative structures have been developed and traded. So far, the bulk of trades has been structured as over-the-counter (OTC) swap contracts. In addition, a few derivatives are listed and traded on public exchanges. Most market participants are aiming to create derivatives that replicate the familiar characteristics of direct property investment, i.e. quarterly rental income and annual capital growth. As the market expands, the variety of structures increases. Derivative markets have a particular order of development and it is not unusual for options to develop after futures and swaps, because the option writers require these instruments to be liquid in order to hedge their positions.
The Property Total Return Swap (PTRS) is the most popular format and, in principle, swaps a fixed or floating interest payment for an amount calculated with reference to total returns on the property index, which consists of both rental income and capital gains (see swap transactions). The swap structure is quite simple and the variations usually only involve the choice of the index (country, sector and rental, and/or capital growth index), the tenor and the payment conventions.
Derivatives to manage house credit and price risk
On the side of residential owner-occupied housing, Hinkelmann and Swidler (2006) are sceptic as to whether the market can take off. Mentally, homeowners tend to treat their home just as a consumption good rather than as an investment that involves price risk. Moreover, they would always be subject to a huge tracking error risk when hedging their homes with derivatives based on house price indices. This limits the effectiveness of hedging, and individuals may not use derivatives to manage house price risk. Ultimately, a lack of hedgers in the marketplace may lead to failure of residential housing derivatives such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) housing futures contracts. It remains to be seen whether the involved challenges and hurdles can be successfully addressed.
History shows that the buildup period of a new market is very fragile. Property derivatives were launched in the early 1990s and actually failed. The debut on the London Futures and Options Exchange (FOX) crashed in a combination of bad timing and scandal over false trades designed to create the impression of higher activity (see experience in property derivatives).
Today, liquidity in the property derivatives market has a good chance of being increased. In 1981, the first interest rate swap was done. Although people were sceptic at the time, it is now a trillion dollar market. The property market could experience a similar sort of growth in derivative instruments.
