• Home
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • LATIF
  • Conferences
  • Dashboard
  • Edit My Profile
  • Log In
  • Logout
  • Register
  • Edit this post

Room 151

  • 151 BRIEF

    What's New?

  • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’

    June 27, 2022

  • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”

    June 27, 2022

  • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council

    June 23, 2022

  • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase

    June 23, 2022

  • UK Infrastructure Bank launches plan to deploy £22bn of investment

    June 23, 2022

  • LGA: councils facing service and job cuts due to National Living Wage increase

    June 21, 2022

  • Treasury
  • Technical
  • Funding
  • Resources
  • LGPS
  • Development
  • 151 News
  • Blogs
    • David Green
    • Agent 151
    • Dan Bates
    • Richard Harbord
    • Stephen Sheen
    • James Bevan
    • Steve Bishop
    • Cllr John Clancy
    • David Crum
    • Graham Liddell
    • Ian O’Donnell
    • Jackie Shute
  • Interviews
  • Briefs

Beware of potholes on the road to infrastructure investing

0
  • by Guest
  • in Blogs · LGPS
  • — 12 Feb, 2020

Infrastructure is an increasingly attractive asset class for LGPS investors. But Joanne Job argues that as seductive as it may be, there are still risks to assess.

Subscribe for FREE to the LGPS Quarterly Briefing

With the potential for high and stable yields, the long-term nature of the assets and their low correlation to other asset classes, infrastructure investment is an attractive proposition, particularly for investors with long-term liabilities, such as pension funds.

Indeed, over the last ten years, pension funds’ search for yield in a zero-interest rate environment and their need for greater portfolio diversification have favoured substantial capital flows into this asset class.

As investing in infrastructure is typically measured relative to the attractiveness of fixed income assets, strategic asset allocation has increasingly included an allocation to infrastructure.

With its structural diversifying properties and resilience during times of stress, the infrastructure asset class is here to stay.

Joanne Job

When considering strategic asset allocation, as always, portfolio diversification is key. Infrastructure can allow investors to increase allocations to investments with similar characteristics to fixed income, along with access to long-term, ESG-conscious assets.

The final two characteristics are especially important for pension funds, as long-term cash flows and the more stable nature of asset-backed investments, match well with their long-term liabilities.

Furthermore, pension funds are coming under increasing pressure to integrate ESG considerations into their portfolios and infrastructure, particularly renewable assets, has lent itself well to those considerations.

These factors, coupled with the fact that, inter alia, there is a demand-supply imbalance, whereby it is estimated that between 2016 and 2030 there will need to be approximately $3.3tn of investment in infrastructure across the globe, have provided an expanding opportunity set for institutional investors.

Scrutiny

Nonetheless, investing in infrastructure is not a straight-forward affair and as investors have turned to the asset class, the role of infrastructure within institutional portfolios has come under scrutiny.

Investors are faced with several considerations: Firstly, one could invest in infrastructure debt or equity; secondly, there are different investment routes, such as primary funds, funds of funds, co-investment vehicles, secondary funds; thirdly, there are different sub-strategies, namely core, core plus, value-add, and opportunistic, and the lines are often blurred therein (sometimes purposely by managers). There are also specialist funds like those focusing on renewable energy for instance which can align with pension funds’ ESG concerns.

Whilst the risk-return profile varies across the range of routes and strategies, and each has unique risks, there are some key risks that are common across all, including what the key drivers of returns are and whether an investor is actually getting the exposure they expect.

Infrastructure assets have experienced rising valuations and compressing yields in recent years, not unlike other areas of private markets, given the substantial capital flows and the finite number of low risk (core) assets.

To the extent that the asset class becomes more like private equity, we expect the dispersion of strategies and returns to increase, bringing fund selection and due diligence into heightened focus.

Joanne Job

As such, many managers are taking ostensibly low-risk assets that are classified as core, or core plus, and increasing leverage levels in order to boost fund returns.

While increasing leverage in itself is not a bad thing, especially when the cost of leverage is as cheap as it has been in recent years, it can increase the risk of assets, though with the potential to increase overall fund returns. This can alter the risk-return profile of an asset, or a fund, away from what is marketed.

This, coupled with increasing valuations, can lead to returns being driven by capital structure arbitrage: Buying an asset with little or no debt attached initially, applying high leverage to refinance and boost fund returns, and then, as valuations rise over time due to capital markets trends, adding further leverage. This cycle can repeat until the asset is sold.

However, valuations may drop, meaning that the equity cushion is hit by this fall in value, the debt to equity ratio rises, and the asset suddenly looks far riskier than initially thought. If valuations continue to fall and the manager has employed this strategy across numerous assets, investors could find that their investments would lose value very quickly.

But pension funds should not view such practices as doomed to failure. As mentioned earlier, when used prudently, leverage can increase fund returns. The key point to note is that the practice of capital market arbitrage changes the risk-return profile of investments; whilst a fund may only invest in typically low-risk core or core plus assets, increasing leverage substantially could lead to a risk-return profile that is more in line with a higher-risk strategy than marketed. That may not be what pension funds are expecting to receive and therefore may not be factored into their strategic asset allocation models.

Exposures

This leads on to another key risk of infrastructure investing, relating to expected versus actual exposures.

In theory, when an investor allocates to an asset class, they expect their exposure to match their targeted allocation. In practice, however, assets and investments may not match the exposures that were initially being targeted throughout the investment term.

As with all illiquid asset classes, infrastructure managers take time to draw and deploy capital, meaning that initial exposure will be below the full amount committed and will gradually increase during the investment period.

Additionally, an increasingly broad definition of infrastructure used by some managers (with private equity style investments in companies that undertake infrastructure-related activities becoming ever more common) may also lead to less certainty over how, exactly, the end portfolio will look, what the risk-return profile will be, and how much it will correlate with the other components of the investor’s overarching portfolio.

While the risks presented above should be kept in mind by all investors, infrastructure as an asset class continues to appeal. With its structural diversifying properties and resilience during times of stress, the infrastructure asset class is here to stay.

Nevertheless, it remains a complex and opaque asset class that can be risky. To the extent that the asset class becomes more like private equity, we expect the dispersion of strategies and returns to increase, bringing fund selection and due diligence into heightened focus.

Joanne Job is managing director, research, at MJ Hudson Allenbridge.

Share

You may also like...

  • Treasury year in review: inflation, regulation, borrowing and investment ups and downs 9th Dec, 2021
  • 2021 outlook: Knowns and unknowns after a tumultuous year 13th Jan, 2021
  • Michael Gove signals the end of ‘boring rollover’ settlements 22nd Dec, 2021
  • Lessons from Ukraine: are defence exclusions ‘responsible’? 7th Mar, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • 151 BRIEFS – WHAT’s NEW?

    • Underfunded social care reforms could ‘exacerbate workforce pressures’
    • Nottingham City Council leader labels proposed intervention as “disappointing”
    • Government preparing to intervene in Nottingham City Council
    • Low earners at Surrey County Council receive 7.85% pay increase
    • UK Infrastructure Bank launches plan to deploy £22bn of investment
  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    Valuations & Risk
    LGPS Women

  • Room151’s LGPS Roundtables

    Biodiversity
    LGPS Women
    Valuations & Risk
  • Latest tweets

    Room151 4 days ago

    Conrad Hall: ‘more sophisticated’ regulation needed for local government: The chair of the CIPFA/LASAAC Code Board has questioned the sophistication of financial regulation in local government and the continuing focus of the Department for Levelling Up,… dlvr.it/SSnPBV pic.twitter.com/G5d7JCWF8c

    Room151 6 days ago

    Slough Council approves plans to restructure finance department: Slough Borough Council has approved plans to restructure its finance department to enhance capacity and capability and to address a “significant weakness” in the function. The local… dlvr.it/SSf8DG pic.twitter.com/l5lmyHmkBg

    Room151 7 days ago

    Job Alert: Various Finance Roles: lnkd.in/eRKRvhJb pic.twitter.com/KkBrjXxAYD

    Room151 1 week ago

    MRP on capital loans: a step in the right direction: David Green says the latest government proposals on Minimum Revenue Provision should be welcomed by local authorities. There are still some unintended consequences, but the suggested approach for… dlvr.it/SSZ7JK pic.twitter.com/M1W9qVgYWN

    Room151 1 week ago

    MRP U-turn welcomed but ‘unintended consequences remain’: Local authority finance directors and treasury advisers have welcomed the government’s revised Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) proposals, while pointing out that some unintended consequences still… dlvr.it/SSWvY0 pic.twitter.com/sGglpVNFs3

    Room151 1 week ago

    Mike O’Donnell: ‘progress on LGPS asset pooling needs to go further and faster’: The CEO at the London CIV pension pool has called for progress on pooling the assets of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to accelerate. Mike O’Donnell told… dlvr.it/SSWvWV pic.twitter.com/rE1NjbMCCq

    Room151 1 week ago

    Mike O’Donnell: ‘progress on LGPS asset pooling needs to go further and faster’:The CEO at the London CIV pension pool has called for progress on pooling the assets of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to accelerate. @London_CIV room151.co.uk/local-governme…

    Room151 1 week ago

    JOB ALERT: Watford Borough Council & Three Rivers District Council, various roles:       Technical Accountant Career Grade: We are looking for a motivated team player to join our Finance Department. The post holder will gain experience across these… dlvr.it/SSWN8f

    Room151 1 week ago

    Inflation and the LGPS: Local government pension payments will rise significantly next year based on the inflation rate this September. William Bourne discusses whether funds should be looking for some protection by turning to[...] dlvr.it/SSVK9x pic.twitter.com/7zH9OkRo1d

  • Register to become a Room151 user

  • Previous story Interview: Laura Chappell, CEO, Brunel Pension Partnership
  • Next story NAO: Councils’ commercial property activity raises questions over prudential framework

© Copyright 2022 Room 151. Typegrid Theme by WPBandit.

0 shares