Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the risk neutral and non-risk neutral pricing of Singapore Real Estate Investment Trusts (S-REITs) via comparing the average of the individual ratios (of deviation between expected and observed closing price/observed closing price) with the ratio (of standard deviation/mean) for closing prices via the binomial options pricing tree model.

If the ratio (of standard deviation/mean) ratio > the ratio (of deviation between expected and observed closing price/observed closing price), then the deviation of closing prices from the expected risk neutral prices is not significant and that the S-REIT is consistent with risk neutral pricing. If the ratio (of deviation between expected and observed closing price/observed closing price) is greater, then the S-REIT is not consistent with risk neutral pricing.

Capitacommercial Trust (CCT), Capitamall Trust (CMT) and Keppel Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) have large positive differences between the two ratios (39.86, 30.79 and 18.96 percent, respectively), implying that these S-REITs are not trading at risk neutral pricing. Suntec REIT has a small positive difference of 2.35 percent between both ratios, implying that it is trading at risk neutral pricing. Ascendas REIT has the largest negative difference between the two ratios at −4.24 percent, to be followed by Mapletree Logistics Trust at −0.44 percent. Both S-REITs are trading at risk neutral pricing. The analysis shows that CCT, CMT and Keppel REIT exhibit risk averse pricing.

Results are consistent with prudential asset allocation for viable S-REIT portfolio investing but that not all these S-REITs exhibit strong market efficiency in their pricing.

Pricing may be risk neutral over a certain period but investor sentiments, fear of risks and speculative activities could affect an S-REIT’s risk neutrality.

With enhanced risk diversification activities, the S-REITs should attain risk neutral pricing.

Virtually no research of this nature has been undertaken for S-REITS.

The statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, coming so quickly after the ban on the use of cyclamates in food and drink in the United States, indicates that the new evidence of carcinogenesis in animals, placed at the disposal of the authorities by the U.S. F.D.A., has been accepted; at least, until the results of investigations being carried out in this country are available. The evidence was as new to the U.S. authorities as to our own and in the light of it, they could no longer regard the substances as in the GRAS class of food additives. It is, of course, right that any substance of which there is the slightest doubt should be removed from use; not as the result of food neuroses and health scares, but only on the basis of scientific evidence, however remote the connection. It is also right that there should always be power of selection by consumers avoidance is usually possible with other things known to be harmful, such as smoking and alcohol; in other cases, especially with chemical additives to food and drink, there must be pre‐knowledge, so that those who do not wish to consume food or drink containing such additives can ascertain from labelling those commodities which contain them.