Top1000funds.com survey: funds favour domestic property

Funds are looking to increase their allocations to property, with direct ownership of unlisted pooled-property funds the most popular way of gaining exposure, a Top1000funds.com global property survey reveals.

The survey shows funds have an average exposure to property of 9.5 per cent of their overall portfolios and would most likely move funds from equities and bonds to increase exposure to the asset class.

Most of the funds surveyed indicated their allocation to property would either stay the same or increase. While they had long-term plans to increase allocations to non-domestic property, funds still demonstrated strong home bias when it came to property.

Funds that indicated they would increase allocations to property on average would do so by 10 per cent to domestic property, compared to an average increase to non-domestic property of 5.6 per cent.

When it came to investing in property, funds were looking for like-minded investors with long-term time horizons.

“The ideal way to invest in non-domestic property for us as a pension fund would be a non-listed leveraged or very low leveraged fund with a limited number of participants, preferably other long-term investors,” one senior investment staff member told Top1000funds.com.

Sponsored Content

Conducted in the later part of 2011, the survey garnered responses from 54 funds in 14 different countries representing almost $1 trillion in combined assets under management.

Respondents included Canada’s Alberta Investment Corporation, sovereign wealth funds the Korean Investment Corporation, Ireland’s National Pensions Reserve Fund and Pensioenfonds Vervoer from the Netherlands.

More than 70 per cent of respondents say they plan to diversify into non-domestic property, with the majority seeing little difference in the global approach they take to equities and bonds and the strategy they are adopting in property.

Despite this, property portfolios still have some way to go before they match these diversification goals as the median allocation of property assets was 85 per cent domestic and 15 per cent non-domestic.

The continuing home bias towards domestic property can be seen in the context of last year’s risk-off environment.

The majority of funds consider non-domestic property to be higher risk than the domestic variety. But they also indicated that the rewards were potentially higher in non-domestic property.

Funds also seem more confident about investing in their own backyards. When asked if they had strong knowledge about non-domestic property, the most popular response was “somewhat/neutral”

The vast majority of funds saw the main benefits of investing in non-domestic property as increased diversification followed by increased risk/adjusted returns.

There was also a number of ways funds were choosing to access the asset class. The most popular was direct ownership of unlisted pooled-property funds, with 20 per cent of investors indicating they used or would use this method. This was followed by a fund of listed-property securities or real-estate investment trusts (REITs), with about 14 per cent of investors preferring this method, 11 per cent each going for direct ownership of listed-property securities or REITs and exposure through property debt.

When it came to selecting a manager, funds indicated that they on average ranked investment process as the most important feature followed by experience and performance.

The size of the fund and a consultant’s ranking were the least important criteria for manager selection.

Asset Owner:Vervoer

Leave a Comment

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

GIC, Temasek eye trillions of growth in climate adaptation market

Singapore’s two largest asset owners, GIC and Temasek, see attractive opportunities in climate adaptation solutions – a relatively underfunded area compared to decarbonisation. The former has already made selective adaptation investments and said the opportunity set across public and private debt and equity could increase to $9 trillion by 2050.

Sort content by

Macroeconomic risk and hedge fund returns

This paper estimates hedge fund and mutual fund exposure to newly proposed measures of macroeconomic risk that are interpreted as measures of economic uncertainty. The academics, from Georgetown and Stern, find the resulting uncertainty betas explain a significant proportion of the cross-sectional dispersion in hedge fund returns. However, the same is not true for mutual

Active ownership

Academics from the London Business School, Boston College and Temple University, examine the outperformance of US public companies following corporate social responsibility engagement.

Capturing illiquidity premiums

This paper commissioned by the Norwegian Ministry of Finance investigates the possibilities for the Government Pension Fund Global (GPFG) to profit from liquidity premiums in  illiquid investments. It looks at the empirical evidence for the presence of liquidity effects in a broad range of asset classes: listed equities, corporate bonds, treasury and agency bonds, and

A trustee guide to factor investing

This research by academics at Tilburg University and the VU University Amsterdam, looks at the hurdles of implementing factor investing. It translates those into a checklist for implementing factor investing. The research, conducted for Robeco, finds that three approaches to factor investing are emerging and conducts case studies to examine how these approaches are implemented

Manager risk contribution in a multi-manager portfolio

This paper by MSCI creates a framework in order to answer the question: given a portfolio of managers, how does the active risk of each manager relate to the active risk of the portfolio? Asset owners often measure manager risk (the active risk of each manager) and have difficulty relating it to the contribution each

How active is your real estate fund manager?

Using detailed data from IPD, this paper looks at the holdings and performance of 256 UK commercial real estate funds from 2002-2011. It concludes the more active funds, those further from benchmark holdings, outperform but are not accompanied by higher risk.   To access the paper click here How active is your real estate fund

Previous