Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Determinants of REIT Capital Structure: Evidence from around the World

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

Abstract

Using a sample of REITs from twelve countries around the world, we examine the determinants of REIT capital structure. We investigate firm-specific and country-specific factors, and account for the unique legal requirements that REITs face in each country. Our results suggest that legal requirements are significant determinants of the capital structure of REITs. Specifically, we find that REITs have the highest book debt ratio in countries where they must pay out most of their operating income. This result implies that REITs prefer debt financing to equity financing. Additionally, we find that in countries with no payout requirement, but leverage restrictions, REITs have lower book leverage, which suggests that internal financing is preferred to external financing. Our findings also indicate that country-specific factors do not have significant impact on REIT leverage.

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. Several other studies explore the capital structure of REITs. Recent studies include Brown and Riddiough (2003), Giambona et al. (2008), Boudry et al. (2010), and Hardin III and Wu (2010). These studies report similar leverage ratios for REITs.

  2. Other notable studies that analyze REIT corporate policies in an international context include Giacomini et al. (2015), Pavlov et al. (2015), Brounen et al. (2012), Erol and Tirtiroglu (2011), and Brounen and Eichholtz (2001). Most of these studies focus on the impact of differential regulation on REITs’ risk and return. Interestingly, Giacomini et al. (2015) contend that although rules regarding REITs’ dividend distribution and leverage ratios vary across countries, there is significant commonality in these rules which has contributed to the growing cross-border investment in real estate assets.

  3. Though there are leverage restriction in the UK and Turkey, they are not as strict (limiting) as in the other countries. Thus, we put the UK and Turkey in the group of countries with no restrictions on leverage.

  4. Brown and Riddiough (2003) argue that as more stable cash flows support higher debt levels, debt capacity may vary across property types. Although, we control for property type in all models, we suppress their coefficients in the tables for brevity.

  5. The excluded countries with established REIT regimes are Germany and New Zealand due to lack of sufficient data for analysis. We further include three countries (Belgium, South Africa and Turkey) who have an existing REIT structure, but in an emerging state.

  6. See https://www.reit.com/advocacy/policy/cross-border-issues. An example of this position can be seen in NAREIT Discussion Paper South Africa, 2012 available online at

    : https://www.reit.com/sites/default/files/media/Files/Policy/NAREIT-Discussion-Paper-South-Africa-7-31-12.pdf

  7. This feature makes REITs an attractive investment, by providing REIT investors not only with a liquid vehicle to invest in real estate, but also with high income return through dividends.

  8. Before the 2000s only few governments legislated the REIT system in their countries. REITs still do not exist in many countries, but their popularity continues to grow.

  9. EY’s 2016 REIT report lists in addition to the eleven countries with established REITs, ten countries where the REIT structure has been adopted recently and the REIT regime is in an emerging stage (Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, South Korea, Spain and Turkey). Finally, the REIT structure is in planning stage in fifteen countries (Bahrain, Brazil, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Kenya, Pakistan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, UAE, and Vietnam).

  10. There are three companies covered by SNL in each, Germany and New Zealand, with a total of 14 and 22 usable observations, respectively. Further details on our sample selection are provided in the data section.

  11. In South Africa, prior to the introduction of the REITs in 2013, two broad types of property companies existed - Property Unit Trust (PUT) and Property Loan Stock (PLS). Both PUTs and PLSs were exempt from income taxation and were required to distribute 100% of their taxable earnings. However, due to important differences in legal requirements and inconsistencies between the two property companies, foreign investors were hesitant to invest in these property vehicles. Consequently, PUTs and PLSs were replaced in 2013 by the widely-accepted REIT structure.

  12. Due to the favorable tax treatment, REITs are required to distribute large amounts of taxable income as dividends. In most the countries where the REIT system is established the dividend payout requirement is at least 90% or more (e.g. for Singapore-, US-, UK-based REITs 90%, for Dutch REITs 100%). However, in practice REITs pay-out at least 100% of their taxable earnings to avoid paying taxes completely.

  13. Consistent with the tradeoff theory, several studies report that growth opportunities – proxied by market to book ratio – are associated with lower leverage ratio (Myers 1977; Baker and Wurgler 2002; De Jong et al. 2008). Harrison et al. (2011) find similar results for U.S. REITs.

  14. However, Fan et al. (2012) report that firms in countries with large government bond markets have lower debt ratios and shorter maturity debt. They assert that government bonds crowd out long-term corporate debt.

  15. Considering Turkey and South Africa as emerging markets, it would appear that REITs in emerging markets have lower leverage ratios. Lower leverage ratio is consistent also with the fact that the securities markets in these countries are still developing. In addition, cultural and other differences in REIT regimes also affect firms’ leverage decisions, and definitive conclusions must await further analysis.

  16. Note that currently there are no REITs with payout requirement, but no tax exemption. However, the base of the tax exemption varies. There are two broad considerations – qualified income (e.g. qualified real property income in Belgium, profit from tax-exempt property business in the UK, or income derived from RE outside of HK for Hong Kong REITs) and distributed income (e.g. taxable income from properties located in Singapore distributed within the year, taxable income distributed in the US). REITs would be tax exempt to the extent that their income is qualified or distributed, depending on their home country legislation.

  17. Using this approach, we can easily capture the effect of the two possible regulations when leverage restriction is ignored – no payout requirement and corporate tax exempt or no payout requirement and non-exempt status. An alternative approach would be to include a dummy variable indicating no payout requirement and an interaction variable between no payout and non-exempt status. Our approach is favored when the expectation is that the effect between the two regimes may be different and we want to isolate each one, as opposed to looking at the effect of no payout restriction in general.

  18. Note that by including these interaction variables it is easier to identify the effect of lack of leverage restriction in regimes with vs. without payout requirements. The comparison group is REITs with leverage restrictions. The alternative approach is to include a dummy variable for no leverage restriction and an interactive variable NOPAYOUT_NOLEVRESTRICT. Our approach, provides direct estimates of the effects without having to add coefficients in the case of no payout restrictions.

  19. Business risk is usually defined as (levered beta)/(1 + (1-T)*(D/E)), where T is the corporate income tax rate, and D/E is the debt-to-equity ratio.

  20. De Jong et al. (2008) use standard deviation of operating income over the book value of total assets as a proxy for risk for non-REITs. We do not include this variable because for majority of the countries in their sample, this variable is not significant. The literature discusses several other variables as potential determinants of capital structure. Our choice of variables is dictated by the availability of data and their relevance and significance.

References

  • Baker, M., & Wurgler, J. (2002). Market timing and capital structure. Journal of Finance, 57(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barclay, M. J., Heitzman, S. M., & Smith, C. W. (2013). Debt and taxes: evidence from the real estate industry. Journal of Corporate Finance, 20, 74–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (1994). Did risk-based capital allocate bank credit and cause a credit crunch in the United States? Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 26(August), 585–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, W. I., Kallberg, J. G., & Liu, C. H. (2010). An analysis of REIT security issuance decisions. Real Estate Economics, 38(1), 91–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brounen, D., & Eichholtz, P. M. A. (2001). Capital structure theory: evidence from European property companies’ capital offerings. Real Estate Economics, 29(4), 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brounen, D., Kok, N., & Ling, D. C. (2012). Shareholder composition, share turnover, and returns in volatile markets: the case of international REITs. Journal of International Money and Finance., 31, 1867–1889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. T., & Riddiough, T. J. (2003). Financing choice and liability structure of real estate investment trusts. Real Estate Economics, 31(3), 313–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashman, G. D., Harrison, D. M., & Sheng. (2015). Political risk and the cost of capital in Asia-Pacific property markets. International Real Estate Review, 18(3), 331–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashman, G. D., Harrison, D. M., & Seiler, M. J. (2016). Capital structure and political risk in Asia-Pacific real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 53(2), 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chikolwa, B. (2011). Investigating the capital structure of A-REITs. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 19(2), 391–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, A., Kabir, R., & Nguyen, T. T. (2008). Capital structure around the world: the roles of firm- and country specific determinants. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32(9), 1954–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delcoure, N., & Dickens, R. N. (2004). REIT and REOC systematic risk sensitivity. Journal of Real Estate Research, 26(3), 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirgüc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (1996). Stock market development and firm financing choices. World Bank Economic Review, 10(2), 341–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirgüc-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (1999). Institutions, financial markets and firm debt maturity. Journal of Financial Economics, 54(3), 295–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, K.K., Wong, S.K., & Chau, K.W. (2018). Institutions and capital structure: the case of chinese property firms. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 56(3), 352–385.

  • Dolde, W., & Knopf, J. D. (2009). Insider ownership, risk, and leverage in REITs. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 41(4), 412–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erol, I., & Tirtiroglu, D. (2011). Concentrated ownership, no dividend payout requirement and capital structure of REITs: Evidence from Turkey. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 43(1), 174–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertugrul, M., & Giambona, E. (2011). Property segment and REIT capital structure. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 43, 505–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EY. (2016). Global perspectives: 2016 REIT report. 2016 EYGM Limited.

  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2002). Testing trade-off and pecking order predication about dividends and debt. Review of Financial Studies, 15(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., Titman, S., & Twite, G. (2012). An international comparison of capital structure and debt maturity choices. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47(1), 23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, Z., Ghosh, C., & Sirmans, C. F. (2007). On the capital structure of real estate investment trusts (REITs). Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 34(1), 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giacomini, E., Ling, D. C., & Naranjo, A. (2015). Leverage and returns: a cross-country analysis of public real estate markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 51(2), 125–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giambona, E., Harding, J. P., & Sirmans, C. F. (2008). Explaining the variation in REIT capital structure: the role of asset liquidation value. Real Estate Economics, 36(1), 111–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, B. (2006). Insider ownership and firm value: evidence from real estate investment trusts. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 32(4), 471–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin III, W. G., & Wu, Z. (2010). Banking relationships and REIT capital structure. Real Estate Economics, 38, 257–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. M., Panasian, A. C., & Seiler, M. J. (2011). Further evidence on the capital structure of REITs. Real Estate Economics, 39(1), 133–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maris, B. A., & Elayan, A. F. (1990). Capital structure and the cost of capital for untaxed firms: the case of REITs. Real Estate Economics, 18(1), 22–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morri, G., & Beretta, C. (2008). The capital structure determinants of REITs. Is it a peculiar industry? Journal of European Real Estate Research, 1(1), 6–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morri, G., & Cristanziani, F. (2009). What determines the capital structure of real estate companies? An analysis of the EPRA/NAREIT Europe index. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 27(4), 318–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C. (1984). The capital structure puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39(3), 575–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13(2), 187–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niskanen, J., & Falkenback, H. (2012). European listed real estate: the capital structure perspective. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 9(1), 76–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ooi, J. T. L., Ong, S.-E., & Li, L. (2008). An analysis of the financing decision of REITs: the role of market timing and target leverage. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 40(2), 130–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, S. H., Riddiough, T. J., & Yi, H. C. (2005). Finance, investment and investment performance: Evidence from the REIT sector. Real Estate Economics, 33(1), 203–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlov, S., Steiner, A. E., & Wachter, S. (2015). Macroeconomic risk factors and the role of mispriced credit in the returns from international real estate securities. Real Estate Economics, 43(1), 241–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, R., & Zingales, L. (1995). What do we know about capital structure? Some evidence from international data. Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1421–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rovolis, A., & Feidakis, A. (2013). Evaluating the impact of economic factors on REITs’ capital structure around the world. Journal of Property Investment & Finance, 32(1), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shyam-Sunder, L., & Myers, S. C. (1999). Testing static tradeoff against pecking order models of capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(2), 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titman, S., & Wessels, R. (1988). The determinants of capital structure. Journal of Finance, 43(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, I. (2011). Two common problems in capital structure research: the financial debt-to-asset ratio and issuing activity versus leverage changes. International Review of Finance, 11(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INVESDO Grundbesitz GmbH, Katzbergstraße 3, 40764, Langenfeld, Germany

    Yunus Yasin Dogan

  2. School of Business, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, 06268, USA

    Chinmoy Ghosh

  3. Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 13244, USA

    Milena Petrova

Authors
  1. Yunus Yasin Dogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chinmoy Ghosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Milena Petrova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Milena Petrova.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dogan, Y.Y., Ghosh, C. & Petrova, M. On the Determinants of REIT Capital Structure: Evidence from around the World. J Real Estate Finan Econ 59, 295–328 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-018-9687-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-018-9687-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation