Have big-ticket properties performed better than lower-value properties?

Posted On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 23:06 Published by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Some real estate investors assume that higher-value (big ticket) real estate assets outperform lower-value assets, partly because there are fewer of them and they are harder to buy.

But is this just speculation? Using MSCI global real estate dataset, we find evidence that higher-value assets have been more likely to outperform other assets in the same country and sector than lower-priced assets.

One of the defining characteristics of directly owned real estate is its lumpy and indivisible nature. Real estate assets can range in size and value from small warehouses worth a few thousand dollars to downtown office towers worth billions. But buyers are limited by size and capacity constraints. For direct investments, smaller investors are generally limited to lower-value assets (though they can access higher-value properties via pooled vehicles), while larger investors typically prefer larger properties for efficiency purposes. The resulting stratification of investment markets could lead to differences in performance within the broader real-estate market.

Since 1999, for example, U.S. office assets worth more than USD 200 million have outperformed smaller U.S. office assets in every year except 2016.1

LARGE U.S. OFFICE ASSETS HAVE OUTPERFORMED SMALLER OFFICE ASSETS IN 17 OF THE PAST 18 YEARS

Source: MSCI – Global Intel

But has there been a systematic difference in performance across capital value bands at a global level? To answer this question, we used 487,152 annual return observations from 87,723 assets across 24 national markets over a five-year period in the retail, office and industrial sectors. The analysis controls for difference in location and property type by comparing assets only within in the same country and sector.

The exhibit below shows that higher-value assets have historically had a higher chance than lower-value assets of outperforming other assets in the same country and sector. For instance, a fully owned asset in the top capital value quarter for its sector and country had a 53.2% chance of outperforming its country and sector peers overall, compared with 43.5% for a fully owned asset in the bottom quarter.

In addition, part ownership slightly reduced the chances of outperformance, though this effect appeared to be relatively small compared with the impact of asset size. To illustrate, a part-owned asset in the top capital value quarter still had a higher chance of outperforming than a fully owned asset in the first or second quarters.

HIGH-VALUE ASSETS WERE MORE LIKELY TO OUTPERFORM LOW-VALUE IN THE SAME COUNTRY AND SECTOR

Source: MSCI

Last modified on Thursday, 17 August 2017 09:01

Most Popular

Attacq Ltd and Tricolt break ground on Ellipse Waterfall

Aug 30, 2019
 13 2
Today Attacq Ltd the JSE listed REIT developing Waterfall City, and Waterfall Logistics…

Tshwane Regional Mall Grand Opening date set

Aug 31, 2019
  TSHWANE REGIONAL  MALL
24th October 2019, the long-awaited day earmarked for the grand opening of Tshwane…

Eris Property Group appoints successive CEO Barend de Loor

Aug 30, 2019
 BAREND DE LOOR
Eris Property Group has appointed a new Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Barend de Loor…

Cap Rates and Property Values - Is it time for a more significant move?

Aug 19, 2019
FNB John Loos
A few months on from the May general election, a somber mood is once again settling in in…

Redefine Properties appoints Daisy Naidoo as independent non-executive director

Aug 30, 2019
 STRATE 1
Redefine Properties appoints Daisy Naidoo as independent non-executive director.

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.