The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 183–191 | Cite as

Marketing Period Risk in a Portfolio Context: Comment and Extension

Article

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.

Keywords

Real estate Illiquidity Portfolio diversification Marketing period risk 

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973) The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 637–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Glower, M., Haurin, D., & Hendershott, P. (1998). Selling price and selling time: The impact of seller motivation. Real Estate Economics, 26, 719–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hull, J. (2002). Options, futures, and other derivatives (5th ed.). NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Lin, Z., & Vandell, K. (2007). Illiquidity and pricing biases in the real estate market. Real Estate Economics, 35, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Merton, R. (1973). Theory of rational option pricing. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 4, 141–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ross, S. (2002). A first course in probability (6th ed.). NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fannie MaeWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.The Paul Merage School of BusinessUniversity of California – IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations