Using Repeat-Sales Indices to Track Diverging Office and Multifamily Property Values

The commercial real estate market is no longer moving as a single monolith, and the indices that track it are exposing a historic divergence between central business district (CBD) office properties and multifamily assets. As remote work patterns stabilize and housing demand shifts, these two foundational pillars of institutional real estate are charting entirely different valuation paths.[3]

For real estate investment trusts (REITs) and institutional buyers, understanding this split requires looking under the hood of the major commercial property price indices (CPPI). Unlike the stock market, where equities trade millions of times a day and provide instant price discovery, commercial buildings change hands infrequently, making valuation a complex mathematical exercise.

To solve this, industry benchmarks like the CoStar Commercial Repeat-Sale Indices (CCRSI) and the MSCI Real Capital Analytics CPPI rely on a repeat-sales methodology. This approach measures price changes by tracking the exact same property across multiple transactions over time, isolating genuine market appreciation or depreciation from the noise of varying asset qualities.[1]

The methodology is rigorous. When a property is sold more than once, a "sales pair" is created. The price difference between the first and second sale forms the basis of the index's movement. This is the most academically defensible standard for controlling selection bias at a portfolio scale, ensuring that a sudden rush of high-end trophy asset sales does not artificially inflate the broader market's perceived health.[1]

However, how these indices weigh those sales pairs fundamentally alters the picture they paint of the office and multifamily sectors. To provide a comprehensive view, indices are typically published in two distinct formats: equal-weighted and value-weighted.

In an equal-weighted index, a $5 million suburban apartment complex influences the metric exactly as much as a $500 million downtown office tower. This format is highly effective at capturing the health of secondary and tertiary markets, where transaction volume is high but individual deal sizes are smaller.[1]

Conversely, a value-weighted index gives proportional influence to the dollar size of the transaction. Because CBD office buildings are typically massive, high-value assets, they exert a gravitational pull on value-weighted indices. When CBD office valuations face downward pressure due to elevated vacancy rates and shifting corporate footprints, the value-weighted composite index often drags, even if the broader number of total market transactions remains stable.[2]

This structural difference explains why investors often see conflicting headlines about the health of commercial real estate. A value-weighted index might show the market cooling rapidly due to a few heavily discounted CBD office trades, while an equal-weighted index might show resilience driven by steady, smaller-scale multifamily transactions.[3]

The divergence between office and multifamily assets is particularly stark in major metropolitan areas. Historically, strong urban job growth fueled simultaneous demand for both downtown office space and nearby apartment units, linking the two asset classes in a shared cycle of appreciation.[2]

Today, that correlation has weakened. While multifamily properties have seen periods of stabilization supported by demographic demand and the high cost of single-family homeownership, the office sector continues to recalibrate as businesses optimize their physical footprints.

For REIT investors, this decoupling means that broad, composite commercial real estate indices are less useful than sector-specific sub-indices. Tracking the multifamily sub-index against the CBD office sub-index provides a much clearer picture of where capital is flowing and where risk is concentrated.[1]

Ultimately, a commercial real estate valuation is a projection, and its defensibility comes from traceability. By relying on transaction-based indices rather than purely appraisal-based models, the market gains a transparent, albeit sometimes delayed, view of how different asset classes are weathering the current economic cycle.[3]