Minimization of potential debt problems
Key to the success of a property derivatives market is the existence of a transparent and reliable index that can be used as an underlying value. Creating such an index for properties is by no means an easy task. No two buildings are identical; i.e. properties are heterogeneous constituents of an index. Consequently, recording and averaging only prices or valuations lead to a poor-quality index. All characteristics of a property that determine its value also need to be considered, so that prices can be adjusted for heterogeneity and finally be aggregated. Most existing indices were initially constructed as descriptive measures, typically targeted as a benchmark instrument. Thus, it is not clear that these indices are suitable as underlying instruments for derivatives, i.e. as operative measures. To achieve a high accuracy and to earn wide trustworthiness, the following basic criteria should be fulfilled:
Representativeness. The index must truly reflect risk and performance of the respective real estate market and idiosyncratic risk should be reduced to an acceptable level by including a large enough number of objects. Just as for the stock market, where an index with a limited number of titles represents the overall market well, a large enough sample represents the property market as a whole.
Transparency. The calculation debt problems method of the index has to be publicly available.
Track record. A long track record helps people to understand the index and to judge its representativeness and behavior in past economic circumstances.
Objectivity and minimization of potential fraud. The input data must be free of subjective preferences and valuation practices. A large number of independent data providers further reduces the risk of manipulation, as the data of each provider gets a smaller weight in the overall index.
Loans market is developing confidence and stability
After years of a hesitant existence, the UK property derivatives market is developing confidence and stability that has generated a momentum of excitement. Property derivatives had a small cohort of advocates since the mid 1990s, but for most of that period only Barclays Capital was involved. The market remained illiquid and one-sided. Apart from rare activity, the market did not start to grow until 2005. Transactions happened occasionally but volumes were very low. The first publicly traded property derivatives were the futures that were traded on the London Futures and Options Exchange (FOX), introduced on 9 May, 1991. Pension funds used property derivatives when they first came out. The exchange offered four contracts based on indices for commercial property capital value, commercial rent, residential property and mortgage rates. The underlying indices of the FOX contracts were the IPD capital growth index, the IPD rental growth index, the Nationwide Anglia House Price (NAHP) index and the FOX Mortgage Interest Rate (MIR) index. While the IPD indices are based on appraisals and reflect commercial properties, theNAHPis a transaction-based hedonic index on residential properties (see property indices).
Unfortunately, trading was suspended just a few months after the launch. It became public that trading volumes were artificially boosted using so-called wash trades, i.e. offsetting deals that in the end produce neither a gain nor a loss. However, real trading volume was much lower than expected. The discovery of this mischief hastened the contracts’ demise. In sum, the market was open only from May to October of 1991.
Cash-settled payday loan contracts are available
After the launch of futures and options on regional home prices, CME announced a partnership with the commercial real estate index provider Global Real Analytics (GRA) on 6 September 2006. They listed future and option contracts based on the S&P/GRA Commercial Real Estate Indices (CREX) on 29 October 2007.
The S&P/GRA CREX indices capture underlying real estate dynamics by tracking transaction-based price changes in diverse property sectors and geographic regions. GRA has a 20-year history of capturing data and sees the new indices as a natural extension, suited for the use of publicly traded futures contracts.
Ten quarterly cash-settled contracts are available: a national composite index, five regional indices (Desert Mountain West, Mid-Atlantic South, Northeast, Midwest and Pacific West) and four national property type indices (retail, office, apartment and warehouse properties).
CME expects the users of the new property contracts to be different from those trading in housing derivatives. If someone hedges against house-price declines in an area, he or she develops or buys a house there. The commercial contracts, on the other hand, are designed for larger investors who hold commercial properties in their portfolios, such as pension funds and REITs.
To hedge real estate or home price declines, individuals can purchase put options based on a particular index. If prices fall, investors will naturally see the value of their real estate holdings decline, but they offset the losses with gains in the put options. The CME hopes that there will be enough speculators in the market to take the other side of the transactions.
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.
