Top

The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics

Published in:

01-01-2012

Real Estate Ownership, Leasing Intensity, and Value: Do Stock Returns Reflect a Firm’s Real Estate Holdings?

Authors: David C. Ling, Andy Naranjo, Michael Ryngaert

Published in: The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics | Issue 1-2/2012

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Little is known about the effects of real estate ownership and leasing on the stock return characteristics of public firms. In this study, we first examine the sensitivity of retail firm returns to a real estate factor over the period 1998–2008. The retail industry is chosen because of the significant use of real estate in a typical retail firm’s production function. Consistent with our expectations, retail stocks exhibit positive real estate risk exposure, even after controlling for sensitivity to general market risk as well as other standard risk factors. The second part of our analysis examines whether the intensity of real estate ownership and the use of off-balance operating leases to finance real property holdings are reflected in the market and real estate betas of retail stocks. We find that greater use of off-balance sheet operating leases is associated with higher market betas. In fact, the use of operating leases appears to have a larger impact on sensitivity to market risk than does the use of on-balance sheet debt. Our findings also confirm our hypothesis that real estate intensive firms display significantly greater exposure to a real estate factor. Moreover, our results strongly suggest that investors are fully aware of the risk associated with off-balance sheet operating leases.

previous article Information Producers and Valuation: Evidence from Real Estate Markets

next article Cash Flow Volatility, Prices and Price Volatility: An Experimental Study

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Using property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) from Compustat as a proxy for real estate can be problematic if the industries analyzed are heavy in non-real estate property like in trucking (trucks) or auto manufacturing (capital goods equipment).

The following two-digit SIC codes constitute the retail trade division: Group 52, building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers; Group 53, general merchandise stores; Group 54, food stores; Group 55, automotive dealers and gasoline service stations; Group 56; apparel and accessory stores; Group 57, home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores; Group 58, eating and drinking places; and Group 59, miscellaneous retail.

Returns are annualized by multiplying the mean weekly return by 52 and the standard deviation of returns by the square root of 52.

We also estimate the model using various alternative specifications, including estimating the results by year.

Using Compustat data item number classifications, the present value of operating leases is calculated as follows: \( \begin{gathered} OPLEASES = \left( {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{96}\,{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{1 - year}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{164}\,{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{2 - years}}} \right) \hfill \\ + \left( {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{165}\,{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back \, 3 \!- years}}} \right) + \left( {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{166}\,{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{4 - years}}} \right) \hfill \\ + \left( {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{167}\,{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{5 - years}}} \right) + {\text{adjustment}}\,{\text{factor}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \). The discount rate employed is the annual BAA rate from the H15 data (Fed Reserve Data). The adjustment factor requires multiple steps: (1) Take Compustat Item 389, the value of all minimum rents after year 5, and divide by Compustat Item 167, the last minimum rent payments for year 5; (2) Round this number up to next integer (so if ratio is 5.3, round up to 6); (3) Take Compustat Item 389 and divide by the ratio. This gives the present value of leases that will persist for the next 6 years (in this example); (4) Take this annuity and discount it back for the adjustment factor. For example, if the rounded up integer is 6, the adjustment factor would equal: \( \begin{gathered} {\text{Adjustment}}\,{\text{factor}} = \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item \, 389\!}}/{6}} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{6 - years}}} \right. + \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{389}/{6}} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{7 - years}}} \right.{ } \hfill \\ + \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{389}/{6}} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{8 - years}}} \right. + \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{389}/{6}} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{9 - years}}} \right. \hfill \\ + \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{389}/{6}} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{1}0{\text{ - years}}} \right. + \left( {\left. {{\text{Compustat}}\,{\text{Item}}\,{389}/6} \right\}{\text{discounted}}\,{\text{back}}\,{\text{11 - years}}} \right. \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \). Note: Because Compustat Item 389 is missing for many firms, we also experimented with several variations of the adjustment factor, including setting it equal to zero if missing. Also note that if the rounded up integer is 8 in our above example, then we discount Compustat Item 389/8 for years 6–13. Compustat data items numbers 96, 164, 165, 166, 167, and 389 correspond to Compustat items MRC1-MRC5 and MRCTA, respectively.

In some cases, there are missing values for gross land and gross building. This is usually because the firm leased all its properties or the firm combined the two figures. Because we combine gross land and building in our alternative measure of real estate intensity, we again use the firm’s 10-k filings on the SEC Edgar database to obtain the information for the missing values when possible. In 27 cases, the data are not broken out sufficiently to make an adjustment. This results in 2,632 final observations for our alternative real estate intensity measure versus 2,659 final observations when using our first real estate intensity measure.

For the explanatory variables there are a total of 2,659 observations across the 11 years from 1998–2008, which is 24 fewer observations than those reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., 2,683 versus 2,659 observations). 19 of the 24 missing observations are due to the firm missing all operating lease data both in Compustat (i.e., missing all MRC1-MRC5) and in our additional search of the firm’s 10-k data on the SEC Edgar database. The other five missing observations are missing a D/E long term debt component. Note also that our alternative real estate intensity measure has 27 fewer observations since the data are not broken out sufficiently to make an adjustment in these 27 cases.

The significance of this negative relation is, however, sensitive to additional time-varying definitions of the D/E ratio. In particular, if we allow the equity component of the D/E ratio to vary monthly and define the annual ratio as an average of the monthly varying D/E ratios, the estimated coefficient is no longer statistically different from zero. In this specification, market risk is more related to off-balance sheet leverage as opposed to on-balance sheet leverage.

We thank Lynn Fisher for this insight.

Alvayay, J. R., Rutherford, R. C., & Smith, W. S. (1995). Tax rules and the sale and leaseback of corporate real estate. Real Estate Economics, 23(2), 207–238.CrossRef

Eisfeldt, A. L., & Rampini, A. A. (2009). Leasing, ability to repossess, and debt capacity. Review of Financial Studies, 22, 1621–1657.CrossRef

Fisher, L. M. (2004). The wealth effects of sale and leasebacks: new evidence. Real Estate Economics, 32(4), 619–643.CrossRef

Jorion, P. (1990). The exchange rate exposure of U.S. multinationals. Journal of Business, 63, 331–345.CrossRef

Ling, D., & Naranjo, A. (2002). Commercial real estate return performance: a cross-country analysis. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 24(1/2), 119–142.CrossRef

Liow, K. H., & Nappi-Choulet, I. (2008). A combined perspective of corporate real estate. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(1), 54–67.CrossRef

Petersen, M. A. (2009). Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(1), 435–480.CrossRef

Rodriquez, M., Sirmans, C. F. (1996). Managing corporate real estate: evidence from the capital markets. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 4(1), 13–33.

Roulac, S. E. (2003). Corporate-owned real estate represents and substantial investment universe. Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, 9(2), 167–178.

Rutherford, R. C. (1990). Empirical evidence on shareholder value and sale-leaseback of corporate real estate. Real Estate Economics, 18(4), 522–529.CrossRef

Seiler, M. A., Chatrath, J., & Webb, J. (2001). Real asset ownership and the risk and return to stockholders. Journal of Real Estate Research, 22(1/2), 199–212.

Slovin, M., Sushka, M. E., & Poloncheck, J. A. (1990). Corporate sale-leasebacks and shareholder wealth. Journal of Finance, 45, 289–299.CrossRef

Smith, C. W., Jr., & Wakeman, L. M. (1985). Determinants of corporate leasing policy. Journal of Finance, 40, 895–908.CrossRef

Tuzel, S. (2009). Corporate real estate holdings and the cross section of stock returns. Working Paper.

Yu, S. M., & Liow, K. H. (2009). Do retail firms benefit from real estate ownership? Journal of Property Management, 26(1), 25–60.CrossRef

You gonna buy that? The Economist, August 21, 2010, page 52.

Title: Real Estate Ownership, Leasing Intensity, and Value: Do Stock Returns Reflect a Firm’s Real Estate Holdings?
Authors: David C. Ling
Andy Naranjo
Michael Ryngaert
Publication date: 01-01-2012
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics / Issue 1-2/2012
Print ISSN: 0895-5638
Electronic ISSN: 1573-045X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-010-9271-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 1-2/2012

The Subprime Crisis and House Price Appreciation

Introduction to Special Issue on the Economics of Information in Real Estate Markets

Information, Search, and House Prices: Revisited

Asymmetric Information in the Subprime Mortgage Market

Cash Flow Volatility, Prices and Price Volatility: An Experimental Study

On the Hybrid Nature of REITs