1 / 22

William Cheung and James Lei

D oes Property Transactions Matter in Price Discovery in Real Estate Market: Evidence from the US firm level data. William Cheung and James Lei University of Macau, Macau China ERES 2014 Bucharest University of Economi cs. Motivations.

laddie
Download Presentation

William Cheung and James Lei

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does Property Transactions Matter in Price Discovery in Real Estate Market: Evidence from the US firm level data William Cheung and James Lei University of Macau, Macau ChinaERES 2014 Bucharest University of Economics

  2. Motivations • The results of public market (REITs stock) V.S. private real estate market are mixed. - Hoesli et al. (2013) find that public real estate market leads the private real estate market. - Yavas et al. (2011) find that there are variations across firms within each property type. For any given property category, REIT returns could be leading NAV returns for some firms while NAV returns could be leading REIT returns for some other firms. - Tuluca et al. (2000) find that private market seems to informationally lead the public one. • Ross (1987) defined a market as efficient if there is a lack of arbitrage opportunity. Therefore, private real estate market makes itself as a compelling case for efficiency because of illiquidity. • Duffie, Malamud, and Manso (2010) find that private information sharing promotes the effect of public information sharing.

  3. Main Findings • Significant contributions to price discovery from the private markets. • Price discovery from the private markets increase further relative to the public real estate market, when employing transaction windows, as compared to full samples. • Impulse response analysis shows that private real estate market converges even faster than public market real estate market around transaction windows. • The results are robust to length of transaction windows and property types.

  4. Our Uniqueness • A unique dataset of daily property transactions covering 01/02/2001 to 12/31/2013. • Synchronized public and private pairs around transaction windows, not by regular calendar days as in the earlier studies in the literature. • Estimate long-run relation between public and private real estate markets with respect to information generated by property transactions in the underlying spot market. • Unique environment of property markets and transaction data allow us to provide empirical evidences on private and public information sharing.

  5. Contributions • We provide a new angle to test the relative contributions to price discovery between public and private real estate markets: the comparison between full samples and transaction windows. • Transaction windows matter because either the appraisal-based or transaction-based values of the underlying properties should react to the new information of property transactions and incorporate it into new values. • Though public real estate market dominates the price discovery with respect to private real estate market, as stated in literatures, we fill the gap that private real estate market can become informative when transaction windows are taken into account.

  6. Data • Source: SNL financial • Full samples: from 02 January 2001 to 31December 2013 Full samples:

  7. Data • Transaction windows: • lead_lag 25 days, based on each transaction datet, we include [ t-25, t+25 ] observations • Example 1: there was a property transaction on 04/25/2013 of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. To construct the transaction window of lead_lag 25 days, based on 04/25/2013, we include the observations of [ t-25, t+25 ]. Therefore, the transaction window will be from 03/20/2013 to 05/30/2013, only weekdays included. • lead_lag 30 days, based on each transaction date t, we include [ t-30, t+30 ] observations • transaction_date_lag 5 days & lead_lag 25 days, based on each transaction date t, we set t-7 as each new transaction date, denoted as t7, and include [t7 -25, t7 +25] observations • Example 2: there was a property transaction on 04/25/2013 of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide. To construct the transaction window of transaction_date_lag 5 days & lead_lag 25 days, we first lag the transaction date back to 5 days which should be 04/18/2013. Then, based on 04/18/2013, we include the observations of [t7 -25, t7 +25]. Therefore, the transaction window will be from 03/13/2013 to 05/23/2013, only weekdays included.

  8. Data Lead_lag 25 days Lead_lag 30 days Transaction_date_lag 5 days & lead_lag 25 days

  9. Methodology • Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) where Total_returnand NAV are the change of total return index and net asset value (NAV) in period t, respectively, Z = Total_return bNAV is the long-term relationship between total return index and NAV, and are i.i.d. innovations.

  10. Methodology • Gonzalo and Granger ratios (common factor loadings) • Gonzalo and Granger's (1995) price discovery focus on the error correction process. The model estimates the common factor weights that reflect the permanent contribution to the common factor (efficient price). The common factor weights are derived from each market's error correction coefficients. • Superior price discovery is attributed to the market with the higher GG ratio.

  11. Tables of GG Ratios GG ratios between full samples and lead_lag 25 days

  12. Tables of GG Ratios GG ratios between full samples and lead_lag 30 days

  13. Tables of GG Ratios GG ratios between full samples and transaction_date_lag 5 days & lead_lag 25 days

  14. The GG ratios (common factor loadings) of private real estate market increase further relative to public real estate market, when considering transaction windows.

  15. Graphs of Impulse Response of NAV for Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide

  16. The reaction of NAV to shocks of the three transaction windows converges faster than that to shocks of full samples • The slopes of the dashed lines are steeper than those of solid lines • The distance between two dashed lines becomes narrower than solid lines

  17. Conclusions • Consistent with Oikarinen et al. (2011), Hoesli et al. (2012), we find that public and private real estate market exhibit long-term cointegrating relationship • We also find that public and private real estate market exhibit long-term cointegrating relationship with samples of transaction windows • We test the relative contributions to price discovery between public and private real estate markets around transaction windows and find that the information content in the real estate market increases further, as compared with that of full samples. Private real estate market does matter in price discovery around transaction windows

  18. Robustness – Normalized Co-integrating Vector Comparison of the normalized cointegrating vector between full samples and transaction windows. The normalized cointegrating vector of transaction windows show the robustness.

  19. Robustness – Impulse Response of One Liberty Property Inc

  20. Robustness – Impulse Response of Forest City Enterprises Inc

  21. Robustness – Impulse Response of Kilroy Realty Corporation

  22. Thank you very much for your listening and your comments!

More Related