The credit and tax bindweed on the growth
In 2004, the authorities loosened the legal and tax bindweed on the growth of a wider derivatives market. One of the earliest derivatives swap was arranged between Deutsche Bank and Eurohypo in 2005, and brought together a buyer and a seller of UK property risk. The seller exchanged a total property return (based on the IPD Index) for a LIBOR-based return paid by the buyer based on a notional principle. Prudential, the UK life assurer, and British Land also agreed on a commercial property swap at about the same time.
The formal launch of the Property Derivatives Interest Group (PDIG) on 16 September 2005 has set the crucial signal for the property market in the UK, which may serve as a role model for property derivatives trading elsewhere. However, the UK is somewhat fortunate because the available indices that are run by IPD are mature and widely accepted as accurate. That is not (yet) the case in most other countries.
In 2006, the market could build on the growth of the previous year and attracted further investment banks. Several banks started to quote option prices on IPD’s main index. Further, it was hoped that the arrival of sectoral transactions would deliver a further boost to the market. However, after a few trades on sector and even subsector indices in 2006, there were no more such deals in the first half of 2007. In essence, it remained a simple swap and forward market on the All Property Index with a few option trades, before trading volume soared in the wake of the US subprime mortgage crisis. The uncertainty introduced by the crisis attracted a number of new participants in the property derivatives market.
Payday loans to build exposures to different markets
Throughout the 1990s, several other initiatives were launched to get derivatives started. Iain Reid, a property consultant, realized that property funds could benefit hugely from the ability not just to build synthetic exposures to different segments of the market but also to hedge existing long positions by creating off-setting short positions. Reid moved to Barclays and found that its bankers were similarly enthusiastic about his plans to develop a product that could hedge property exposures. The UK real estate market had just been through a crash, and Barclays had property exposure as a result of bad loans made to property developers. To them, the idea that they could hedge that exposure was a revelation and they were very keen to launch something.
Together with Aberdeen Property Investors, Barclays Capital structured a tradable bond that pays out IPD index returns. They called these bonds Property Index Certificates (PICs). PICs link their coupon payments to the IPD All Property Income Return Index and the capital redemption value to the IPD All Property Capital Growth Index. Investors who wanted to gain exposure to the property market paid upfront to buy the bond and received income based on property valuations in the form of quarterly coupon and redemption payments. By issuing PICs, Barclays basically exchanged its long property exposure for a fixed income. The PICs were seen as bond instruments that pay a return based on an IPD index rather than pure derivatives.
The instruments enable investors to bet on the market, but not against it. Since its release, the certificate has mainly created interest from high-net-worth, private bank and institutional investors. In addition, Barclays launched exchange-traded Property Index Forwards (PIFs). These forward contracts on the IPD Capital Growth or Total Return Index included some standardized elements, to make the products tradable. However, in contrast to exchange-traded future contracts, not the market itself but the bank took the role of the market maker. Since the bank never really succeeded in developing a liquid secondary market, the concept was still based on matching buyers and sellers. Barclays continuously quoted prices for the contracts.
Exchange of cash flows between loans
A PTRS is a simple exchange of cash flows between two counterparties based on a notional amount. On one side, the buyer, taking a long position on commercial property, pays a fixed percentage interest rate or LIBOR plus a spread. In return, he or she receives a cashflow based on the annual total return of the property index. The seller, taking the equivalent short position, pays and receives cashflows that are exactly opposite.
The interest rate used by the market is typically the three-month LIBOR. The spread that is added reflects expectations of the future performance of the index, and what buyers and sellers are prepared to accept to take the position (see the property spread). In January 2008, many banks switched from the LIBOR-based to a fixed interest rate convention.
In the event that the annual total return is negative, i.e. if the capital value drops sufficiently to wipe out income returns, the total return buyer pays that negative return to the seller, in addition to the quarterly interest payments. The property index commonly used is an annual index, which is based on the actual performance of a large number of institutional portfolios and comprises an income or rental and a capital growth element.
In addition to swaps, contracts-for-difference (CFDs) are used as trading instruments. For deals on residential indices, such as the Halifax House Price Index, CFDs are already common. A CFD represents an index that is artificially set at 100 when the deal is done. Investors and hedgers then state the price at which they are willing to buy or sell the index at maturity. If two counterparties agree on a three-year deal at 112 and the index rises to 116, then the buyer receives 116 ? 112 = 4 times the contract size from the seller. The transactions are cash free until maturity, when profits and losses are settled. Many market participants find CFDs more intuitive than swaps.
Beyond commercial property loans
Beyond commercial property, the second current initiative for property derivatives in the US considers owner-occupied residential housing. This market, estimated to be more than US$ 21 trillion, is much larger than its commercial counterpart. However, large institutions have shown little appetite to trade derivatives on residential property indices, consisting of privately owned houses. Institutional investors focus on commercial property, and do not trade residential property in volumes needed to encourage growth in a derivatives market.
Several derivative products based on a housing index have been proposed to hedge housing exposure in academic literature. To improve the possibilities to pool and share housing investment risks, Case, Shiller and Weiss (1993) propose a market in futures contracts tied to regional house price indices. Englund, Hwang and Quigley (2002) suggest that there are large potential gains from policies or instruments that would permit households to hedge their lump investments in housing. Case et al. attribute the failure of the London FOX contracts in 1991 to the public’s lack of appreciation and understanding of such markets. Whether such appreciation for housing markets now exists remains an open question.
The US market is still looking for a common benchmark. Multiple public exchanges or platforms try to promote housing derivatives for builders, developers, lenders and professional investors with large positions in real estate based on different index families. Although the platforms have many differences, they all operate in a similar way to an ordinary stock market.
