Capital on the Ramp: Hangar Real Estate for Endowment Portfolios

Abstract

This paper examines the portfolio construction case for allocating endowment capital to aviation hangar real estate, an emerging niche within the broader real alternatives universe. Drawing on modern portfolio theory, the institutional characteristics of airport ground lease structures, and the first publicly available data from Sky Harbour Group Corporation (NYSE: SKYH), the sector's first publicly traded pure-play hangar company, we construct a theoretical and empirical framework demonstrating that hangar investments offer endowments a combination of attributes: stable, contractually escalating income streams; structural supply constraints that support pricing power; demand drivers with low correlation to traditional real estate sectors; and inflation-hedging characteristics aligned with endowments' long-duration liabilities. We develop a mean-variance optimization model incorporating estimated hangar return and risk parameters derived from institutional transaction data and public company disclosures, demonstrating that a modest 2% to 5% hangar allocation improves the efficient frontier for a representative university endowment. The paper further examines the risks of leasehold hangar ownership, including reversion-without-compensation clauses, monopsony ground lessor dynamics, and finite lease horizons, and proposes risk management frameworks appropriate for fiduciary capital. The findings suggest that aviation hangar real estate merits serious consideration by endowment investment committees seeking uncorrelated real asset exposure in a market environment characterized by compressed yields and elevated correlation among traditional asset classes.

1. Introduction

University endowments face a persistent and intensifying challenge: generating returns sufficient to support institutional spending policies, typically 4.5% to 5.5% of trailing average assets, while preserving intergenerational equity in a low-yield environment where traditional asset class correlations have converged. The post-Global Financial Crisis era has witnessed endowment allocators responding to this challenge through systematic diversification into alternative and real asset strategies, with the largest endowments now allocating 50% to 60% of portfolios to non-traditional investments including private equity, hedge funds, natural resources, and real assets (NACUBO-TIAA, 2024). Yet within the real assets category, most endowment allocations remain concentrated in conventional property types, including office, multifamily, retail, and industrial, that have experienced yield compression, elevated construction pipelines, and structural demand disruptions from remote work, e-commerce, and shifting consumer preferences.

This paper introduces aviation hangar real estate as a portfolio-diversifying allocation for endowment investors. Aviation hangars, purpose-built structures for the storage, maintenance, and operation of aircraft, represent a multi-billion dollar real estate asset class that has attracted substantial institutional capital over the past decade while receiving virtually no attention in the portfolio construction literature. The entry of publicly traded companies, private equity platforms, and institutional family offices into the hangar market has transformed what was once an opaque, fragmented collection of individually owned properties into an institutional-grade investment category with improving data availability, professional management, and portfolio-scale investment opportunities.

The investment thesis for hangar real estate in endowment portfolios rests on five pillars that we develop analytically throughout this paper. First, structural supply constraints: federal Airport Improvement Program funding priorities, FAA regulatory requirements, airport authority capacity limitations, and the absence of speculative development create persistent undersupply that supports pricing power and occupancy stability. Second, differentiated demand drivers: business aviation demand correlates with corporate profitability, high-net-worth household formation, and executive time valuation, factors with low correlation to the demand drivers governing office, retail, and standard industrial properties. Third, contractual income characteristics: hangar leases typically feature CPI-linked escalations, triple-net structures, and affluent, creditworthy tenants that generate stable, inflation-protected cash flows aligned with endowments' long-duration spending obligations. Fourth, operational simplicity: relative to multi-tenant office, retail, or multifamily properties, hangars present straightforward management requirements that reduce operational risk. Fifth, an emerging institutional ecosystem: Sky Harbour Group Corporation's success as a publicly traded hangar developer, combined with private equity platforms including SR Aviation Infrastructure, Bain Capital's APP Jet Center investment, and the broader FBO consolidation wave led by Blackstone (Signature Flight Support) and KKR (Atlantic Aviation), has created the institutional infrastructure, including professional management, standardized documentation, and improving transparency, that endowment fiduciaries require.

The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, we provide the first systematic application of modern portfolio theory to aviation real estate, constructing return, risk, and correlation estimates appropriate for endowment asset allocation models. Second, we analyze the risk characteristics of leasehold hangar ownership, including the reversion-without-compensation mechanism, airport authority monopsony power, and the finite-horizon problem created by ground lease structures, within a framework that institutional risk managers can evaluate. Third, we propose a practical implementation pathway for endowment investment committees considering hangar allocations, including vehicle selection criteria, due diligence frameworks, and risk monitoring protocols.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the relevant literature on endowment portfolio construction, niche real estate allocation, and aviation real estate. Section 3 establishes the institutional characteristics of the hangar market. Section 4 develops the portfolio construction framework. Section 5 presents the mean-variance optimization analysis. Section 6 examines risk factors specific to hangar investments. Section 7 discusses implementation considerations. Section 8 concludes.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

2.1 Endowment Portfolio Theory and the Yale Model

The modern endowment investment paradigm was shaped by the work of David Swensen at Yale University, whose allocation to illiquid alternatives generated strong long-term returns that other institutions sought to replicate (Swensen, 2000, 2009). Swensen's central insight, that endowments' perpetual time horizons and tolerance for illiquidity constitute structural advantages that can be monetized through exposure to illiquidity premia, has become axiomatic in institutional portfolio construction. The subsequent adoption of this approach across hundreds of university endowments transformed the asset management industry, directing trillions of dollars into private equity, real assets, and absolute return strategies.

Empirical evidence broadly supports the diversification benefits of alternative investments for endowments. Lerner, Schoar, and Wang (2008) documented that the largest university endowments, which allocate most heavily to alternatives, consistently outperformed smaller endowments concentrated in public equities and fixed income. However, Ang, Ayala, and Goetzmann (2018) cautioned that much of the outperformance attributed to alternatives may reflect illiquidity and leverage premia rather than genuine alpha, underscoring the importance of understanding the specific risk factors driving returns in any alternative allocation.

Within the real assets category, the literature has increasingly recognized the heterogeneity of real estate as an asset class. Pagliari, Scherer, and Monopoli (2005) demonstrated that commercial real estate return and risk profiles vary substantially across property types, with significant implications for portfolio construction. More recent work has extended this analysis to niche property types such as data centers, cold storage, cell towers, and self-storage, finding that specialized real estate sectors frequently exhibit different return drivers and correlation structures than core property types (Fisher and Hartzell, 2016). Aviation hangars, as we argue in this paper, represent an analogous niche with even more distinctive characteristics.

2.2 Niche Real Estate and the Diversification Frontier

The academic and practitioner literature on niche real estate allocation has expanded considerably since 2015, driven by the institutionalization of property types that were previously considered too specialized for portfolio allocation. Self-storage, student housing, senior living, data centers, and life sciences laboratories have each progressed from fragmented, operationally complex niches to institutional-grade categories with dedicated investment vehicles, performance benchmarks, and academic attention. The common thread across these transitions is a pattern of structural demand growth, supply constraints, and differentiated return drivers that provide diversification benefits when added to portfolios dominated by traditional property types.

Aviation hangars share these characteristics but add a further dimension of differentiation: the leasehold ownership structure. Unlike most commercial real estate investments, hangar ownership typically involves a ground lease from an airport authority, a structure that creates both opportunities and risks not present in fee-simple real estate. The literature on ground lease valuation, while robust for urban commercial properties (Giglio, Maggiori, and Stroebel, 2015; Kopsch and Han, 2019), has not been extended to aviation contexts, where reversion-without-compensation clauses and airport authority monopsony power create institutional features that amplify lease-term risk beyond what standard ground lease models predict (Carter, forthcoming).

2.3 Aviation Real Estate: An Academic Gap

The academic literature on aviation real estate valuation is thin. Lindsey (2008a, 2008b) published the only comprehensive peer-reviewed treatment of hangar valuation methodology, providing a foundational framework for applying the three traditional approaches to value, namely cost, sales comparison, and income capitalization, to aircraft storage facilities. Since Lindsey's work, the hangar market has experienced transformative changes including the entry of institutional capital, the emergence of publicly traded investment vehicles, and a structural shift in demand toward larger-footprint hangars driven by fleet composition changes. No academic research has updated the valuation framework or examined the portfolio implications of hangar investment. This paper begins to fill that gap by examining hangars not as isolated appraisal problems but as portfolio assets with measurable return, risk, and correlation characteristics relevant to institutional allocators.

3. Institutional Characteristics of the Hangar Market

3.1 Market Structure and Size

The U.S. aviation hangar market encompasses approximately 19,869 airports of all types, with 3,285 designated as National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) facilities eligible for federal funding. General aviation airports generate approximately 45% of gross revenue from hangar-related activities, making hangars the financial backbone of the non-commercial airport system. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) reported $31.9 billion in 2024 aircraft deliveries, with manufacturer backlog exceeding $52 billion and forecast 2025 to 2034 deliveries of 8,500 new business jets worth more than $285 billion, each requiring hangar accommodation upon delivery.

The structural undersupply of hangar space is among the most important features for institutional investors. AOPA survey data indicates that 72% of aircraft owners on hangar waitlists wait six months to more than two years for space. Only 8% of available hangars are rated in excellent condition, while 36% require some or major repair. Pennsylvania's state aviation assessment found the state would need 38% more hangars to meet current demand. Hangars rank 31 out of 32 eligible project types under FAA Order 5090.5 for Airport Improvement Program grant priority, so federal funding rarely bridges the supply-demand gap. For endowment investors, this structural undersupply creates barriers to competitive entry, pricing power for existing facilities, and long-term demand visibility, conditions that institutional allocators value.

3.2 The Institutional Capital Wave

The past decade has witnessed a transformation of aviation real estate from a fragmented collection of individually owned properties into an institutional investment category. This transformation has proceeded along multiple channels. Sky Harbour Group Corporation (NYSE: SKYH) emerged as the sector's first publicly traded pure-play hangar company, operating nine campuses across premier U.S. airports with a $619 million to $686 million development pipeline, $166.3 million in tax-exempt Private Activity Bonds, and a $200 million JPMorgan construction warehouse facility. The company is organized as an umbrella partnership C-corporation, not a REIT, though management has discussed a potential REIT conversion as a longer-term option. Its ability to access public equity, investment-grade debt, and tax-exempt bond markets demonstrates that aviation real estate has achieved institutional acceptance.

Private equity capital has entered the sector aggressively. Blackstone's acquisition of Signature Flight Support and KKR's purchase of Atlantic Aviation represent multi-billion dollar commitments to airport infrastructure. Bain Capital's 2026 investment in APP Jet Center, led by a former CEO of the world's largest FBO network, signals continued private equity interest. SR Aviation Infrastructure (SomeraRoad), a platform backed by a New York-based firm with over $3 billion in transactions, acquired a 125,000 square-foot, seven-hangar complex at San Antonio International Airport as its second transaction in 2025. These institutional entrants bring professional management, standardized documentation, and portfolio-scale operations that endowment investors require.

3.3 Demand Drivers and Correlation Structure

The economic drivers of hangar demand differ fundamentally from those governing traditional commercial real estate. Business aviation demand correlates with corporate profitability, high-net-worth household formation, and executive time valuation rather than with retail foot traffic, remote work adoption, or e-commerce logistics. GAMA data confirms that the U.S. business aviation fleet footprint grew 61% from 2010 to 2023, with larger jets exceeding 24-foot tail height growing 102%, a fleet composition shift that drives demand for newer, larger hangar facilities precisely in the supply-constrained premier markets that institutional investors target.

This differentiated demand profile has important implications for portfolio diversification. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when office and retail real estate experienced severe dislocation, business aviation experienced a surge in demand as high-net-worth individuals and corporate travelers sought private transportation alternatives. Hangar occupancy remained robust while urban office vacancy rates climbed to multi-decade highs. This counter-cyclical behavior relative to traditional real estate reinforces the diversification case for endowment allocation.

3.4 Income Characteristics

Hangar leases exhibit income characteristics that align well with endowment spending requirements. Typical institutional-grade hangar leases are structured as triple-net (NNN) arrangements, with tenants responsible for property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. Lease terms range from 5 to 30 years for tenant leases, with ground leases from airport authorities extending 20 to 73 years. Contractual rent escalation provisions tied to CPI indices or fixed annual increases of 2% to 4% provide built-in inflation protection that is increasingly valued in portfolio construction.

The tenant credit profile in aviation real estate is distinctive. Business aviation tenants include Fortune 500 corporate flight departments, ultra-high-net-worth individuals, charter operators, and aircraft management companies, a cohort characterized by above-average creditworthiness and low default rates. Sky Harbour has reported that some properties operate above 100% occupancy through semi-private hangar configurations, and that waiting lists at existing campuses allow Phase 2 developments to pre-lease before construction is complete, a demand signal with few parallels in traditional commercial real estate.

4. Portfolio Construction Framework

4.1 Return Estimation

Estimating expected returns for aviation hangar investments requires triangulating across multiple data sources given the limited history of institutional-quality performance data. We construct return estimates from three converging sources: (1) implied capitalization rates from observable institutional transactions, (2) disclosed financial data from Sky Harbour's public filings, and (3) target return ranges reported by private equity and institutional investors active in the sector.

Institutional hangar transactions over the 2020 to 2025 period suggest capitalization rates in the range of 5.5% to 7.5% for stabilized, investment-grade facilities, with risk premiums of 200 to 400 basis points above core real estate benchmarks. These initial yields, combined with contractual rent escalations of 2% to 4% annually and the potential for NOI growth driven by structural undersupply, produce total return estimates of 10% to 14% on an unlevered basis, competitive with value-add real estate and lower-quartile private equity while offering higher current income. Sky Harbour's 95% year-over-year revenue increase in 2024 versus 2023, and its 51% Obligated Group revenue growth, provide observable evidence of the income growth trajectory available to institutional hangar investors during the development and lease-up phase.

4.2 Risk Estimation

Volatility estimation for hangar investments is complicated by the private nature of most transactions and the absence of appraisal-based index data comparable to NCREIF for traditional property types. We estimate standard deviation in the range of 10% to 15%, reflecting several offsetting factors. On the risk-reducing side: contractual rent escalations smooth income volatility, structural undersupply limits vacancy risk, and the affluent tenant base reduces credit risk. On the risk-increasing side: leasehold ownership creates finite-horizon risk, airport authority actions can affect operating conditions, and the thin transaction market creates mark-to-market uncertainty.

The appraisal smoothing problem documented extensively in the private real estate literature (Geltner, 1993) is likely even more acute for hangar investments given the extreme thinness of comparable sales data. Endowment investors and their consultants should be aware that reported volatility may understate true economic risk, particularly during periods of economic stress when transaction activity declines and appraisals lag market conditions.

4.3 Correlation Estimates

We estimate the correlation between hangar returns and major endowment asset classes based on the fundamental demand drivers of aviation real estate and the limited empirical evidence available. Hangar demand's dependence on corporate profitability and high-net-worth wealth formation suggests moderate positive correlation with U.S. equities, estimated ρ = 0.25 to 0.40. The real asset characteristics and contractual income features suggest low positive correlation with core fixed income, ρ = 0.05 to 0.15. The differentiated demand drivers, distinct from office, retail, and standard industrial, suggest low to moderate correlation with core real estate, ρ = 0.20 to 0.35. These estimates, while necessarily preliminary, are consistent with the diversification benefits observed in other niche real estate sectors upon institutionalization.

4.4 Comparative Asset Class Characteristics

The following table summarizes the estimated investment characteristics of aviation hangars relative to traditional endowment asset classes, providing the parameter inputs for our mean-variance optimization analysis.

Table 1: Comparative Asset Class Characteristics for Endowment Portfolio Construction. Hangar estimates derived from institutional transaction data, SKYH public filings, and private equity target return disclosures. Traditional asset class estimates based on NACUBO-TIAA (2024) and Cambridge Associates data.

5. Mean-Variance Optimization Analysis

5.1 Base Case: Representative Endowment Without Hangars

We model a representative mid-size university endowment with a policy portfolio consisting of 35% domestic equity, 15% international equity, 15% fixed income, 15% private equity, 10% hedge funds, and 10% core real estate. Using the return, risk, and correlation parameters described in Section 4, this base portfolio produces an estimated expected return of 8.2% with a standard deviation of 10.1%, consistent with NACUBO survey data for endowments in the $500 million to $1 billion range.

5.2 Enhanced Portfolio: Adding a Hangar Allocation

We construct an enhanced portfolio that reallocates 3% from core real estate and 2% from domestic equity to a 5% aviation hangar allocation. This reallocation is motivated by the observation that hangars offer higher expected returns than core real estate while exhibiting differentiated risk factors, and that reducing domestic equity exposure modestly decreases the portfolio's sensitivity to public market volatility.

The enhanced portfolio produces an estimated expected return of 8.5% with a standard deviation of 9.8%, an improvement in the Sharpe ratio from 0.56 to 0.61, assuming a 2.5% risk-free rate. The improvement derives from two sources: the higher expected return of the hangar allocation relative to the assets it replaces, and the diversification benefit arising from the low correlation between hangar returns and both domestic equity and core real estate returns.

Table 2: Portfolio Optimization Results. Base portfolio: 35% domestic equity, 15% international equity, 15% fixed income, 15% private equity, 10% hedge funds, 10% core real estate. Enhanced: reallocates 3% from core real estate and 2% from domestic equity to 5% aviation hangars.

5.3 Sensitivity Analysis

The portfolio improvement is robust across a range of parameter assumptions. Even under conservative hangar return assumptions (9% expected return, 15% standard deviation, 0.40 equity correlation), the 5% hangar allocation improves the Sharpe ratio by approximately 3 basis points. Under optimistic assumptions (13% expected return, 10% standard deviation, 0.25 equity correlation), the improvement exceeds 10 basis points. The diversification benefit is most sensitive to the assumed correlation with domestic equity, where a lower correlation produces a greater portfolio improvement, consistent with the theoretical argument that hangars' differentiated demand drivers provide genuine diversification rather than merely an illiquidity premium.

We also examine the impact of varying the allocation size from 1% to 10%. The marginal improvement in portfolio efficiency is greatest at the 2% to 4% level and begins to diminish above 5% as the portfolio's exposure to hangar-specific risks, including lease-term risk, airport authority risk, and illiquidity risk, begins to offset the diversification benefit. This finding supports a target allocation of 2% to 5% for most endowments, consistent with the allocation ranges observed for other niche real estate categories.

5.4 Income Distribution Implications

Beyond risk-return optimization, the hangar allocation addresses a practical challenge facing many endowments: the gap between portfolio income yield and spending policy requirements. The representative base portfolio generates approximately 2.8% in current income, requiring 2.2% to 2.7% in capital appreciation to fund a 5% to 5.5% spending rate. The enhanced portfolio's 3.1% income yield narrows this gap, reducing the endowment's dependence on selling appreciated assets to fund distributions, which is particularly valuable during periods of depressed asset values when forced selling is most costly.

The CPI-linked escalation provisions in institutional hangar leases further align the income stream with endowment spending needs. Many university spending policies implicitly or explicitly incorporate inflation adjustments, and an income stream that escalates with inflation provides natural matching of the liability. This characteristic distinguishes hangars from fixed-income investments that offer stable income but no inflation protection, and from equity investments that offer long-term inflation hedging but with substantial short-term volatility.

6. Risk Factors Specific to Hangar Investment

While the portfolio case for hangar allocation is strong, endowment fiduciaries must evaluate several risk factors unique to aviation real estate. Responsible stewardship requires understanding these risks not merely as theoretical possibilities but as structural features of the asset class that demand specific mitigation strategies.

6.1 Ground Lease and Reversion Risk

The most distinctive risk in hangar investment is the leasehold ownership structure. Unlike fee-simple real estate, hangars are typically constructed on airport authority land under ground leases that grant occupancy for a defined period, typically 20 to 50 years, with some leases extending to 73 years or more. The critical risk feature is the reversion-without-compensation clause: at lease expiration, improvements revert to the airport authority without payment to the tenant, creating a finite-horizon investment whose terminal value may be zero.

Carter (forthcoming) demonstrates that the capitalization rate impact of remaining ground lease term is non-linear, with an inflection point at approximately 15 to 20 years remaining as lender financing constraints (the 5-year buffer rule requiring debt retirement before lease expiration) combine with SBA maximum loan terms to create a financing cliff that reduces property marketability and value. Endowment investors can mitigate this risk by targeting properties with remaining lease terms exceeding 30 years, negotiating renewal options, and monitoring portfolio lease-term composition to avoid concentration in near-expiration assets.

6.2 Airport Authority Monopsony Power

Airport authorities occupy a monopsony position relative to hangar tenants: they are the sole providers of airport land within their jurisdictional boundaries, and FAA regulations prohibit through-the-fence access arrangements that might provide competitive alternatives. This monopoly power over land supply, combined with the single-purpose nature of hangar improvements (a hangar has no alternative use off-airport), creates what Williamson (1985) terms the fundamental transformation: a competitive market becomes a bilateral monopoly after relationship-specific investments are made.

The practical implications for endowment investors include vulnerability to above-market ground rent increases at lease reset, limited negotiating leverage on lease terms and conditions, and the risk that airport authority decisions regarding capital improvements, access, and services may not align with investor interests. These risks can be partially mitigated through portfolio diversification across multiple airports and geographic regions, and through the political economy dynamics that constrain airport authorities from extracting maximum rents, since doing so would discourage private investment in the hangar infrastructure that the authority needs for airport system viability.

6.3 Illiquidity and Thin Market Risk

Hangar transactions are infrequent relative to traditional commercial real estate, creating significant illiquidity risk. The specialized nature of the improvements, the leasehold ownership structure, and the limited buyer pool compound this illiquidity. Endowment investors must be prepared for holding periods of 7 to 12 years and should size allocations to ensure that liquidity requirements can be met without forced hangar dispositions.

The thin transaction market also creates valuation uncertainty, as discussed in Section 4.2. Appraisal-based valuations for illiquid hangar assets may lag true market conditions, potentially creating phantom alpha during rising markets and delayed recognition of losses during downturns, a phenomenon well-documented in the broader private real estate literature (Geltner, 1993) and likely exacerbated in niche sectors with even fewer comparable transactions.

6.4 Regulatory and Environmental Risks

Aviation real estate operates within a complex regulatory environment that includes FAA oversight, state aeronautics regulations, environmental compliance requirements (including PFAS contamination risk from firefighting foam used at airports), and local zoning and land use controls. Changes in regulatory requirements can affect operating costs, permitted uses, and property values. The FAA's grant assurance requirements, which attach to airport property for up to 20 years following the last grant, constrain airport authority flexibility and can affect tenant operations and lease terms.

7. Implementation Considerations for Endowment Allocators

7.1 Vehicle Selection

Endowment investors can access hangar real estate through several vehicles, each with distinct characteristics. Public equity investment (currently limited to SKYH) offers daily liquidity and transparency but subjects the allocation to public market volatility that may undermine the diversification benefit. Private fund vehicles offer more direct real estate exposure with reduced mark-to-market volatility but involve higher fees, longer lock-up periods, and governance complexity. Direct investment and joint venture structures provide maximum control and fee efficiency but require operational expertise and impose concentration risk.

For most endowments contemplating an initial hangar allocation, we recommend a blended approach: a core allocation through a diversified private hangar fund or joint venture, supplemented by a smaller liquid allocation through SKYH or successor public vehicles. This structure captures the illiquidity premium while maintaining some portfolio liquidity and providing public market pricing signals that enhance oversight of private holdings.

7.2 Due Diligence Framework

Endowment due diligence for hangar investments must extend beyond standard commercial real estate analysis to address aviation-specific factors. Critical evaluation areas include remaining ground lease term (with strong preference for 30 or more years remaining), ground lease renewal provisions and historical authority behavior, airport operational characteristics (runway length, instrument approach capability, based aircraft mix), competitive facility analysis and supply pipeline assessment, tenant credit quality and lease structure, regulatory compliance history, and environmental condition. We recommend that endowment investment committees supplement internal analysis with specialized aviation real estate expertise, a market served by firms including Valuation Takes Flight, LLC, which provides an academically grounded hangar valuation methodology for institutional clients.

7.3 Performance Monitoring and Benchmarking

The absence of established performance benchmarks for aviation real estate creates monitoring challenges for endowment oversight bodies. We propose a dual-benchmark approach: comparing hangar investment performance against (1) a core-plus real estate benchmark (for example, NCREIF ODCE plus 150 basis points) to evaluate risk-adjusted returns relative to the broader real estate allocation, and (2) a customized aviation real estate index that tracks observable metrics including SKYH total returns, institutional hangar transaction activity, and AOPA survey data on occupancy and rental trends. As the sector matures and additional data becomes available, we anticipate the development of purpose-built performance indices analogous to those now available for data centers and self-storage.

8. Conclusion

Aviation hangar real estate presents a strong and underexplored portfolio diversification opportunity for university endowments. The asset class exhibits a combination of characteristics, including structural supply constraints, differentiated demand drivers, contractual inflation-protected income, an affluent tenant base, and operational simplicity, that distinguish it from traditional real estate and address specific challenges in endowment portfolio construction. Our mean-variance optimization analysis demonstrates that a modest 2% to 5% hangar allocation improves portfolio efficiency across a wide range of parameter assumptions, generating higher risk-adjusted returns, increased income yield, and improved probability of meeting endowment spending targets.

The risks of hangar investment, including ground lease reversion, airport authority monopsony power, illiquidity, and regulatory complexity, are real and demand specific mitigation strategies. However, these risks are manageable within the framework of a diversified endowment portfolio, particularly when allocations are made through professionally managed vehicles with appropriate lease-term, geographic, and airport diversification.

The institutionalization of the hangar market is still in its early stages. Sky Harbour's emergence as the first publicly traded pure-play hangar company, combined with the entry of major private equity platforms and institutional family offices, has created the infrastructure necessary for fiduciary capital. As more endowments explore this allocation, we anticipate improvements in data quality, performance measurement, and vehicle availability that will further support the investment case. Endowment investment committees that evaluate this opportunity now, while the market remains inefficient and the diversification benefit is greatest, are likely to be rewarded with superior long-term risk-adjusted returns.

The broader implication of this research extends beyond any single asset class recommendation. The persistent challenge of generating sufficient returns to support institutional spending in a compressed-yield environment demands creative exploration of underexploited market segments where structural advantages, including supply constraints, information asymmetries, and specialized expertise requirements, create the conditions for sustainable premium returns. Aviation hangar real estate exemplifies this opportunity, and we encourage further academic research and practitioner investigation into its role in institutional portfolio construction.

References

Ambrose, B.W., and H.O. Nourse. 1993. "Factors Influencing Capitalization Rates." Journal of Real Estate Research 8 (2): 221-237.

Ang, A., A. Ayala, and W. Goetzmann. 2018. "Investment and De-investment Policies and Options for Managing University Endowments." Journal of Financial Economics 128 (3): 484-502.

Carter, C.W. Forthcoming. "Terminal Value or Terminal Risk? Estimating the Relationship Between Remaining Ground Lease Term and Capitalization Rates for Airport Hangar Properties." The Appraisal Journal.

Carter, C.W. 2026. "Capital on the Ramp: The Institutional Transformation of Aviation Hangar Real Estate." Working Paper, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

Fisher, J.D., and D.J. Hartzell. 2016. "Real Estate Returns and Inflation: An Interpretation of the Evidence." Journal of Portfolio Management 42 (5): 78-92.

Geltner, D. 1993. "Temporal Aggregation in Real Estate Return Indices." Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association 21 (2): 141-166.

General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA). 2025. 2024 Annual Data Report. Washington, DC: GAMA.

Giglio, S., M. Maggiori, and J. Stroebel. 2015. "Very Long-Run Discount Rates." Quarterly Journal of Economics 130 (1): 1-53.

Jud, G.D., and D.T. Winkler. 1995. "The Capitalization Rate of Commercial Properties and Market Returns." Journal of Real Estate Research 10 (5): 509-518.

Kopsch, F., and X. Han. 2019. "The Impact of Leasehold Status on Apartment Price." Journal of Housing Economics 44: 42-54.

Lerner, J., A. Schoar, and J. Wang. 2008. "Secrets of the Academy: The Drivers of University Endowment Success." Journal of Economic Perspectives 22 (3): 207-222.

Lindsey, T.J. 2008a. "An Introduction to the Valuation of Aircraft Hangars." The Appraisal Journal 76 (1): 26-38.

Lindsey, T.J. 2008b. "An Introduction to the Valuation of Aircraft Hangars, Part 2." The Appraisal Journal 76 (2): 115-130.

Linneman, P., and B. Kirsch. 2024. Real Estate Finance and Investments: Risks and Opportunities. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Linneman Associates.

NACUBO-TIAA. 2024. Study of Endowments: 2023 Results. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers.

Pagliari, J.L., K.A. Scherer, and R.T. Monopoli. 2005. "Public Versus Private Real Estate Equities: A More Refined, Long-Term Comparison." Real Estate Economics 33 (1): 147-187.

Sky Harbour Group Corporation. 2025. FY2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Filed March 27, 2025. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR.

Swensen, D.F. 2000. Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment. New York: Free Press.

Swensen, D.F. 2009. Pioneering Portfolio Management: An Unconventional Approach to Institutional Investment. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.

Williamson, O.E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.

Appendix A: Assumed Correlation Matrix

The following correlation matrix underlies the mean-variance optimization analysis presented in Section 5. Estimates for traditional asset classes are derived from Cambridge Associates and NACUBO historical data. Hangar correlation estimates reflect the theoretical demand driver analysis in Section 3.3 and the limited empirical evidence from SKYH public market trading patterns.

Table A1: Assumed Correlation Matrix for Endowment Portfolio Optimization.

Appendix B: About the Author

Clay W. Carter, DBA, MBA, MS, CFA, FRM, CAIA, CIPM, is a faculty member at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and the founder of Valuation Takes Flight, LLC, an aviation real estate valuation firm specializing in airport hangar properties. Dr. Carter's research focuses on the intersection of institutional investment, real estate valuation, and aviation infrastructure, with particular emphasis on the empirical relationship between ground lease structures and capitalization rates. His credentials span both academic research (DBA, MBA, MS) and professional investment management (CFA, FRM, CAIA, CIPM), providing a bridge between scholarly inquiry and practitioner application. Correspondence may be directed to the author at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University or through valuationtakesflight.com.

This paper is research and general information for professionals evaluating aviation real estate. It is not appraisal, legal, or tax advice, and it does not create an engagement.