Asymmetric Correlation and Volatility Dynamics among Stock, Bond, and Securitized Real Estate Markets

Abstract

We apply a multivariate asymmetric generalized dynamic conditional correlation GARCH model to daily index returns of S&P500, US corporate bonds, and their real estate counterparts (REITs and CMBS) from 1999 to 2008. We document, for the first time, evidence for asymmetric volatilities and correlations in CMBS and REITs. Due to their high levels of leverage, REIT returns exhibit stronger asymmetric volatilities. Also, both REIT and stock returns show strong evidence of asymmetries in their conditional correlation, suggesting reduced hedging potential of REITs against the stock market downturn during the sample period. There is also evidence that corporate bonds and CMBS may provide diversification benefits for stocks and REITs. Furthermore, we demonstrate that default spread and stock market volatility play a significant role in driving dynamics of these conditional correlations and that there is a significant structural break in the correlations caused by the recent financial crisis.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Following a large body of the literature as reviewed below, we investigate dynamic interactions between these asset classes at the aggregate level in this study. Such an investigation is interesting in itself, as investors with passive portfolio management style are most interested in price dynamics of asset classes at the aggregate level. Certainly, within each of these asset classes, there are different subgroups of securities with certain common characteristics that may respond to economic shocks in substantially different manners. Allowing for such heterogeneity within each asset class is obviously an interesting extension of our study. Nevertheless, due to serious limitations of GARCH models when applied to a high-dimensional system (as discussed below), such a task is practically infeasible, particularly given the sample size of this study.

  2. 2.

    A number of specific criteria apply to construction of the Barclays Capital (formerly Lehman Brothers) CMBS investment grade index: (1) all CMBS securities are rated investment grade by Moody’s (BBB or higher) and offered publicly; (2) all transactions must be private label. No agency transactions will be included; (3) the collateral for each transaction must be new origination; (4) each original aggregate transaction size must be at least $500 million and aggregate outstanding transaction sizes must be at least $300 million; (5) all certificates must be either fixed rate, weighted average coupon (WAC) or capped WAC securities. No floating rate certificates will be included; (6) all certificates must have an expected maturity of at least 1 year.

  3. 3.

    We choose VAR (1) because it is the optimal lag for all returns based on Schwarz Criterion (SC). The optimal lags based on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) are typically somewhat longer. We also use these alternative lags to run regressions and find that results are similar.

  4. 4.

    Furthermore, a potential structural break point (July 31, 2007) can be incorporated in the DCC and AG-DCC models. However, this addition has not significantly improved the goodness of fit, perhaps because the structural break might have been captured by the modeling of time variations in conditional correlations and their asymmetries.

  5. 5.

    Although there might be alternative dates which can be identified as potential structural break points and there are also techniques to search for unknown break points, the feedback from the industry suggests that the crisis began to have a substantial impact on various securities markets since July 31, 2007.

  6. 6.

    According to Chan et al. (2003), during the period from 1990 to 2000, the total debt to total capital ratio is 48% for equity REITs and 65% for mortgage REITs and the total debt to market cap ratio is 42% for equity REITs and 52% for mortgage REITs.

  7. 7.

    A variety of diagnostic tests are conducted on the standardized residuals from the VAR-AG-DCC-GJR-GARCH model. Although the skewness and kurtosis are still significantly different from zero, the values of kurtosis are much smaller than those of asset returns. Ljung-Box Q tests show that autocorrelations of the standardized residuals are insignificant at the 1% level and that autocorrelations of the squared standardized residuals are either insignificant or at least much weaker than those of asset returns. LM tests suggest no remaining ARCH effects in the standardized residuals for general financial markets but not for securitized real estate markets. Overall, the results (available on request) suggest that the estimation of the VAR-AG-DCC-GJR-GARCH model leads to a better fit of the data but still leaves room for further improvement.

  8. 8.

    Noteworthy, there are far fewer mortgage REITs forming the index than equity REITs. Furthermore, components of the mortgage REIT index are very heterogeneous: Some are mortgage lenders; some are MBS/CMBS investors. Such data limitations could lead to less robustness of our finding regarding the mortgage REIT index.

  9. 9.

    The linear time-trend coefficients for the three significant cases are 4.9 × 10−6 at the maximum. By multiplying the sample size (2320), the increase of these correlations over time is no more than 0.01 over the study period, which is small. It suggests that the trending behavior is not a major driving force of conditional correlation movement, particularly compared to macroeconomic variables under consideration.

  10. 10.

    One might also consider using the system estimation methods such as SUR and GMM. Although SUR in general is more efficient, its efficiency would be the same as separate estimation of individual OLS regressions in the case that all regressions in the system have identical independent variables. Furthermore, as our OLS regressions are also conducted following Newey and West’s (1987), the results probably would remain qualitatively unchanged compared with applying GMM to a system of linear regressions. Finally, we also conduct unit root tests on the residuals from these regressions. While the variables used in the regressions are persistent, the augmented Dickey-Fuller tests reject the null hypothesis of a unit root for all regression residuals, which suggests the stationarity of these regression residuals and thus nonexistence of the spurious regression problem.

References

  1. An, X., Deng, Y., & Gabriel, S. (2009). Value creation through securitization: evidence from the CMBS market. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 38, 302–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Vega, C. (2007). Real-time price discovery in stock, bond and foreign exchange markets. Journal of International Economics, 73, 251–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baek, H. & Golbin, A. (1999). The Lehman Brothers commercial mortgage-backed securities index: A new benchmark for the CMBS market. Lehman Brothers Fixed Income Research.z

  4. Brenner, M., Pasquariello, P., & Subrahmanyam, M. (2009). On the volatility and comovement of U.S. financial markets around macroeconomic news announcements. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 44, 1265–1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cappiello, L., Engle, R. F., & Sheppard, K. (2006). Asymmetric dynamics in correlations of global equity and bond returns. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 4, 537–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Case, B., Yang, Y., & Yildirim, Y. (2009). Dynamic correlations among asset classes: REIT and stock returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, forthcoming.

  7. Chan, S. H., Erickson, J., & Wang, K. (2003). Real estate investment trusts: Structure, performance, and investment opportunities, Oxford University Press.

  8. Chandrashekaran, V. (1999). Time series properties and diversification benefits of REIT returns. Journal of Real Estate Research, 17, 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chaudhry, M. K., Myer, F. C. N., & Webb, J. R. (1999). Stationarity and cointegration in systems with real estate and financial assets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 18, 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, N. F., Roll, R., & Ross, S. A. (1986). Economic forces and the stock market. Journal of Business, 59, 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, S. J., Hsieh, C., & Jordan, B. D. (1997). Real estate and the arbitrage pricing theory: macrovariables vs. derived factors. Real Estate Economics, 25, 505–523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chow, G. C. (1960). Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica, 28, 591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Clayton, J., & Mackinnon, G. (2003). The relative importance of stock, bond and real estate factors in explaining REIT returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 27, 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Connolly, R., Stivers, C., & Sun, L. (2005). Stock market uncertainty and stock-bond return relation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40, 161–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cotter, J., & Stevenson, S. (2006). Multivariate modeling of daily REIT volatility. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 32, 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Downs, D. H., & Patterson, G. A. (2005). Asset pricing information in vintage REIT returns: An information subset test. Real Estate Economics, 33, 5–25.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Engle, R. F. (2002). Dynamic conditional correlation-a simple class of multivariate GARCH models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 20, 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Engle, R. F., & Rangel, J. G. (2008). The spline GARCH model for low frequency volatility and its global macroeconomic causes. Review of Financial Studies, 21, 1187–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fama, E. F., & French, K. (1989). Business conditions and expected returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 25, 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Glascock, J. L., Lu, C., & So, R. W. (2000). Further evidence on the integration of reit, bond, and stock returns. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 20, 177–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Glosten, L. R., Jagannathan, R., & Runkle, D. E. (1993). On the relationship between the expected value and the volatility of the nominal excess return on stocks. Journal of Finance, 48, 1779–1801.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, J. & Zhong, Z. (2006). Time-variation in diversification benefits of commodity, REITs, and TIPS. Working Paper, Pennsylvania State University.

  23. Kallberg, J. G., Liu, C. H., & Pasquariello, P. (2002). Regime shifts in Asian equity and real estate markets. Real Estate Economics, 30, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kau, J. B., Keenan, D. C., & Yildirim, Y. (2009). Estimating default probabilities implicit in CMBS. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 39, 107–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ling, D. C., & Naranjo, A. (1999). The integration of commercial real estate markets and stock markets. Real Estate Economics, 27, 483–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Liow, K. H., & Yang, H. (2005). Long-term co-memories and short-run adjustment: securitized real estate and stock markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3, 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liow, K. H., Ho, K., Ibrahim, M., & Chen, Z. (2009). Correlation and volatility dynamics in international real estate securities markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 39, 202–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu, C., Hartzell, D., Greig, W., & Grissom, T. (1990). The integration of the real estate market and the stock market: some preliminary evidence. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 3, 261–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Michayluk, D., Wilson, P. J., & Zurbruegg, R. (2006). Asymmetric volatility, correlation and returns dynamics between the U.S. and U.K. securitized real estate markets. Real Estate Economics, 34, 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Newey, W., & West, K. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity, and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55, 703–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Okunev, J., & Wilson, P. (1997). Using nonlinear tests to examine integration between real estate and stock markets. Real Estate Economics, 25, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Peterson, J. D., & Hsieh, C. H. (1997). Do common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds explain returns on REITs? Real Estate Economics, 25, 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wilson, P., Okunev, J., & Webb, J. J. (1998). Step interventions and market integration: tests in the US, UK and Australian property markets. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16, 91–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Xu, X. (2007). What drives the returns on CMBS. Journal of Portfolio Management, Special Issue, 145 –157.

  35. Yang, J., Zhou, Y., & Wang, Z. (2009). The stock-bond correlation and macroeconomic conditions: one and a half centuries of evidence. Journal of Banking and Finance, 33, 670–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yang, J., Zhou, Y., & Wang, Z. (2010). Conditional co-skewness in stock and bond markets: Time series evidence. Management Science, forthcoming.

  37. Yavas, A. & Yildirim, Y. (2009). Price discovery in real estate markets: A dynamic analysis of the REIT premium. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, forthcoming.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge helpful comments from Warren Bailey, Amitabh Godha, Qiao Liu, Christopher Schwarz, Ko Wang, session/seminar participants at Sun Yat-Sen University, Hunan University, 2010 Midwest Finance Association annual meeting, 2010 China International Conference in Finance, 2010 Global Chinese Real Estate Congress annual meeting, and 2010 Asian Real Estate Society annual conference. An earlier version of this paper was awarded the 2010 Global Chinese Real Estate Congress Best Paper Award. Extensive comments from an anonymous referee have greatly improved the paper. Zhou acknowledges the financial support of a direct grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region, China (Project No. Chinese U 2070446).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yinggang Zhou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, J., Zhou, Y. & Leung, W.K. Asymmetric Correlation and Volatility Dynamics among Stock, Bond, and Securitized Real Estate Markets. J Real Estate Finan Econ 45, 491–521 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-010-9265-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • CMBS
  • REITs
  • Dynamic conditional correlation
  • Macroeconomic variables

JEL Classifications

  • G11
  • C32