Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marketing Period Risk in a Portfolio Context: Comment and Extension

  • Published:
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper re-examines and extends the findings of Bond et al., Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34, 447–461, (2007) who consider the theoretical model of Lin and Vandell, Real Estate Economics, 35, 291–330, (2007) to determine the extent to which individual real estate asset return characteristics caused by marketing period risk disappear in a large, diversified real estate portfolio. The effects of marketing period risk are found to disappear in the limit with growth in the size of the portfolio, with ex ante variance approaching ex post variance, but only if the portfolio consists of nonsystematic risk alone, in which case both approach zero. The marketing period risk factor (MPRF), representing the ratio of ex ante to ex post variance, however, does not in general approach zero in the limit, in fact could increase or decrease depending upon the illiquidity characteristics of the individual assets and the magnitude and degree of correlation among individual property returns and marketing periods. The results suggest that even large institutional real estate portfolio managers must consider the illiquidity present in their portfolios and cannot assume that its effect will be diversified away.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that the formula appears in Eq. 6 of Theorem 1.

  2. The terms in Equation 1 are defined as follows: t is the holding period; s p is the marketing time of the portfolio; λ p is the expected marketing time of the portfolio; μ p and \({\text{ $ \sigma $ }}_{\text{p}}^{\text{2}} \) are expected return and variance of the portfolio return per unit of time. N is the number of property in the portfolio.

  3. See Black and Scholes (1973), Merton (1973) and Hull (2002).

  4. In fact, based on the assumptions that the portfolio is equally weighted and that returns are independent of each other with μ i  = μ and σ i  = σ for all i, we can directly obtain that m p = m and \(\sigma _P = \frac{1}{N}\sigma \) without using Eq. 7 in Bond et al. (2007).

  5. We do not assume that each property has the same return distribution, because empirical evidence suggests that higher expected TOM is likely to be associated with a higher expected return (Glower et al. 1998).

References

  • Bond, S., Hwang, S., Lin, Z., & Vandell, K. D. (2007). Marketing period risk in a portfolio context: Theory and empirical estimates from the UK commercial real estate market? Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34, 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973) The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glower, M., Haurin, D., & Hendershott, P. (1998). Selling price and selling time: The impact of seller motivation. Real Estate Economics, 26, 719–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, J. (2002). Options, futures, and other derivatives (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., & Vandell, K. (2007). Illiquidity and pricing biases in the real estate market. Real Estate Economics, 35, 291–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, 141–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (2002). A first course in probability (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank editor James Kau at the Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Ping Cheng at Florida Atlantic University and Paul Obrecht at Fannie Mae for their insightful comments and suggestions. All errors remain our own. The views expressed in this article are our own and do not necessarily represent the views of Fannie Mae.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fannie Mae, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington, DC, 20016, USA

    Zhenguo Lin & Yingchun Liu

  2. The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California – Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697–3125, USA

    Kerry D. Vandell

Authors
  1. Zhenguo Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yingchun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kerry D. Vandell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhenguo Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, Z., Liu, Y. & Vandell, K.D. Marketing Period Risk in a Portfolio Context: Comment and Extension. J Real Estate Finance Econ 38, 183–191 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9086-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-007-9086-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation