Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide conclusive evidence that infrastructure constitutes a separate asset class and cannot be classified as real estate from an investment point‐of‐view. Furthermore, optimal allocations are determined for direct and indirect infrastructure within a multi‐asset portfolio.

Portfolio allocations are optimized by using an algorithm, which accounts for downside risk, rather than variance. This approach is more in accordance with the actual investor behaviour and might meet their investment objectives more effectively. An Australian dataset comprising stocks, bonds, direct real estate, direct infrastructure and indirect infrastructure is applied for portfolio construction.

Although infrastructure and real estate have common characteristics, the conclusion is that that they constitute two different asset classes. Furthermore, the diversification benefits of direct and indirect infrastructure within multi‐asset portfolios are highlighted and determine efficient allocations up to 78 percent for target rates of 0.0 percent, 1.5 percent and 3.0 percent quarterly.

The results will help investors and portfolio managers to efficiently allocate funds to various asset classes. Most institutional investors are not familiar with investments in infrastructure. The study facilitates a better understanding of the asset class infrastructure and yields some important implications for the optimal allocation of infrastructure within institutional investment portfolios.

This is the first study to examine the role of direct and indirect infrastructure within a multi‐asset portfolio by applying a downside‐risk approach.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the pricing of European real estate equities. The study examines the main drivers of real estate equity returns and determines whether loadings on systematic risk factors – the excess market return, small minus big (SMB), HIGH minus low (HML) – can explain cross‐sectional return differences in unconditional as well as in conditional asset pricing tests.

The paper draws upon time‐series regressions to investigate determinants of real estate equity returns. Rolling Fama‐French regressions are applied to estimate time‐varying loadings on systematic risk factors. Unconditional as well as conditional monthly Fama‐MacBeth regressions are employed to explain cross‐sectional return variations.

Systematic risk factors are important drivers of European real estate equity returns. Returns are positively related to the excess market return and to a value factor. A size factor impacts predominantly negatively on real estate returns. The results indicate increasing market integration after the introduction of the Euro. Loadings on systematic risk factors have weak explanatory power in unconditional cross‐section regressions but can explain returns in a conditional framework. Beta – and to a lesser extent the loading on HML – is positively related to returns in up‐markets and negatively in down markets. Equities which load positively on SMB outperform in down markets.

The implementation of a liquidity or a momentum factor could provide further evidence on the pricing of European real estate equities.

The findings could help investors to manage the risk exposure more effectively. Investors should furthermore be able to estimate their cost of equity more precisely and might better be able to pick stocks for time varying investment strategies.

This is the first paper to examine the pricing of real estate equity returns in a pan‐European setting.

The aim of this study is two-fold: (1) to promote a model of youth participatory research and offer a window of understanding into how it can be enacted and (2) to understand youth perspectives on youth empowerment. This study asks: “how can youth help us understand youth empowerment?”

The study applies youth participatory action research (YPAR) and interpretative phenomenological analysis. The study illustrates how to enact a model of YPAR by engaging youth in the process of research in a youth-serving community non-profit organization.

This study sets out to make two important contributions, one methodological and one theoretical: First, the study contributes to our understanding of the opportunities and benefits of youth-engaged, peer-to-peer research. Specifically, this study promotes a model of youth participatory action research and knowledge making processes, and the associated social and formal benefits for youth. By extension, this study illustrates an approach to engage youth in formal contexts which has implications for both management and organizational studies and education. Finally, the study extends our understanding and conceptualization of the phenomenon of youth empowerment (as informed by youth perspectives).

The study offers insight into how to conduct youth participatory action research and specifically how to address two limitations cited in the literature: (1) how to authentically engage youth including how to share power, and (2) how to perform youth participatory action research, often critiqued as a black box methodology.