Geographic diversity is a fundamental tenet in portfolio management. Yet there is evidence from the USA that institutional investors prefer to concentrate their real estate investments in favoured and specific areas as primary locations for the properties in their portfolios. Work done in the UK, focusing on the office sector, has drawn similar conclusions. The present paper seeks to examine the extent of real estate investment concentration in institutional Retail portfolios in the UK at two points in time; 1998 and 2003, and to present some comparisons with equivalent concentrations in the Office sector.
To examine this issue two datasets are used at two dates, 1998 and 2003. The analysis is confined to England and Wales because of data considerations relating to the availability of comparable data for the rest of the UK. The first dataset relates to floor space and rateable value statistics for the so‐called “bulk classes” of commercial property at Unitary Authority and District (local authority area, LA) level. The more specific institutional real estate investment data for the study come from the IPD analysis “UK Local Markets”. This provides a detailed view of the performance of institutional real estate investment, by sector, in a number of localities across the UK. For the purposes of this study, IPD made data available showing (but with much less detail) other LAs where the number of properties held was greater than zero, but fewer than the four required normally for disclosure. The approach taken is to map the basic data and the results from a standardising measure of spatial concentration – the Location Quotient.
The findings indicate that retail investment correlates more closely with the UK urban hierarchy than that for offices when measured against employment, and is focused on urban areas with high populations and large population densities which have larger numbers of retail units in which to invest.
Using data sets that account for the entire “population” of observations at these two dates the paper demonstrates the relationships between economic theory and the market performance of the sector. The comparisons with the Office sector also show the differences that would be expected between the sectors, emphasising the point that these markets are dynamic and that their structure, form and content can change dramatically even over quite short periods.
