Real estate as an asset class
The real estate market as a whole is an aggregate of many submarkets such as owneroccupied housing, offices or land. Usually the performance of a submarket and not the overall market is the focus of an investor. It is important to take indices as underlying instruments that have a large community of potential users. Primary users are generally institutional investors, but private investors should also be able to understand and benefit from property derivatives.
While investors see real estate as an asset class that must generate a return as high as possible, homeowners see their house as a consumption good with some price risk. The submarkets for the two are completely different. The choice of an index as a suitable underlying instrument for derivatives depends mainly on the criteria of the region, property type and data base (rents, transaction prices or appraisal values). Types with a potential volume that is sufficiently large for a reasonable derivatives market include offices, residential properties, retail space and industrial space. It is doubtful whether more special property types such as hotels or even land would find a big enough market.
Owner-occupied housing is treated very differently around the globe. While homeowners borrow relatively moderately and stay for decades in their home in central Europe, households in the UK and in the US are much more sensitive to property price movements. Often, they are ready to realize gains by selling their home or they increase the mortgage once prices have appreciated.
Only the latter mind-set may lead to a broadly supported desire for protection against falling house prices. The market for owner-occupied housing is huge, and the sufficiently large number of transactions make indices more reliable.
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.
Development of the property credit and taxes
The development of the property derivatives market has so far centered on the UK and the US. However, both interest and transaction volumes are growing throughout Europe and Asia. Market participants expect first trades in Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden after first trades in Australia, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan and Switzerland. As the quality of indices improve, more and more countries will see first trades. Also, thePan-European IPD index creates strong interest from retail investors and from US pension funds. The trend is unlikely to spread to some countries where the data basis, needed to construct a reliable index, is insufficient.
Quickly increasing volumes are also expected due to the interest of insurance companies to hedge their liability risk, which depends heavily on real estate price changes. Liquidity will probably only change if more banks are willing to warehouse risks, i.e. take a risky position.
More mature markets will lead to more standardized derivatives traded on exchanges. However, the OTC market is likely to be the dominant derivative format in the near future.
The property group Grosvenor and ABN Amro traded the first property derivative in Australia, based on the Property Council/IPD Australian Property Index, in May 2007. The trade took the form of a two-year total return swap.
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.
