Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey
probity n. [from Latin probitas: good, proper, honest.] adherence to the highest principles, ideals and character. On an ongoing basis, Probitas Partners offers research and investment tools for the alternative investment market to aid its institutional investor and general partner clients. Probitas Partners compiles data from various trade and other sources and then vets and enhances that data via its team s broad knowledge of the market. Real Estate Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 214 Probitas Partners
Contents Landscape... 2 Ten Largest Funds to Date... 4 Institutional Investor Survey... 5 Highlights of Survey Findings... 5 Proمحle of Respondents... 6 Plans for Investing... 9 Sectors, Industries and Geographies of Interest... 13 Targeted Returns and Fees... 16 Portfolio Benchmarks... 2 Investment Structures... 21 Terms and Conditions... 23 Reasons for Not Investing... 24 Investment Concerns... 25 Key Trends for the Future... 26 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 1
Landscape Fundraising set a post-great Financial Crisis ( GFC ) high in 213, along with an all-time high in the number of funds raised (Chart I). Fundraising so far in 214 has been strong, though slower than 213 s pace. Global funds continue to lead investor interest, with most of these funds focused on developed markets (Chart II). Interest in funds strictly focused on North America dropped, though interest in Europe-focused funds remained strong. Combined brownfield/greenfield strategies continue to be the largest sector in the market, though most of these funds are focused on brownfield investing with a limited ability to do greenfield projects (Chart III). Interest in pure greenfield funds remains weak. debt funds, a new sector of the market, surged in interest, moving from 12% of fundraising in 212 to 23% in 213. Chart I Global Fundraising 24 213 5 4 USD in billions 4 3 2 1 2.4 5.2 17.9 39.7 24.7 1.7 19. 2.8 23.5 35.8 3 2 1 Number of Funds with Final Closes 24 25 26 27 28 29 21 211 212 213 Capital Raised Funds with Final Closes Source: Probitas Partners, PREQIN, Investor, Private Equity Analyst Note: Does not include infrastructure funds-of-funds Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 2 214 Probitas Partners
Chart II Fundraising, 213 by Region (In terms of Capital Raised in USD) 52% 9% 23% Global North America 12% Europe Asia Latin America 2% 2% Other Emerging Markets Source: Probitas Partners, PREQIN, Investor, Private Equity Analyst Note: Does not include infrastructure funds-of-funds Chart III Fundraising, 213 by Strategy (In terms of Capital Raised in USD) 23% 17% Brownfield/Greenfield Debt 27% 15% Brownfield 8% 1% Opportunistic Renewable Energy Greenfield Source: Probitas Partners, PREQIN, Investor, Private Equity Analyst Note: Does not include infrastructure funds-of-funds 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 3
Ten Largest Funds to Date Table I lists the ten largest infrastructure funds closed to date; most of these funds were launched and had significant closes before the GFC. Global Partners II and Brookfield Fund II are the major exceptions to that point; in 213 they managed to raise the two largest infrastructure funds ever created. All these funds focus on developed markets. Four of them were sponsored by larger financial organizations. Increasingly, independent fund groups continue to be launched or spun out from sponsors, driven both by a desire for independence and regulatory and other issues impacting financial sponsors. Table I Ten Largest Funds, August 214 Rank Fund Name Firm Name Location Year Founded Amount (MM) 1 Global Partners II Global Partners New York 213 USD 8,25 2 Brookfield Fund II Brookfield Asset Management Toronto 213 USD 7, 3 GS Partners I GS Investment Group New York 26 USD 6,5 4 Macquarie European Fund II Macquarie and Real Assets Sydney; London 26 EUR 4,635 5 Global Partners I Global Partners New York 28 USD 5,64 6 Energy Capital Partners III Energy Capital Partners Short Hills, NJ 214 USD 5,95 7 Energy Capital Partners II Energy Capital Partners Short Hills, NJ 29 USD 4,335 8 Alinda Fund II Alinda Capital Partners New York 28 USD 4,97 9 Macquarie Partners Macquarie and Real Assets Sydney; London 26 USD 4, 1 Morgan Stanley Partners Morgan Stanley New York 28 USD 4, Source: Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 4 214 Probitas Partners
Institutional Investor Survey In mid-214, Probitas Partners conducted an online survey to gauge investor interest, opinions, and perspectives on investing in infrastructure. Responses were received from senior investment executives representing such institutions as public and corporate pension plans, fund-of-funds, and sovereign wealth funds, among others. Highlights of Survey Findings There has been a marked fall in interest in emerging markets: Investors are concerned emerging market risks have increased significantly while their anticipation of strong growth in emerging markets has fallen noticeably due to economic and political issues impacting those markets. Core brownfield assets remain the preference of most infrastructure investors though they remain focused on fees and carry: 83% of respondents expect net returns on core brownfield investments of 12.5% or less, with low volatility, and are targeting management fees of 1.25% or less and carried interest of 15% or less. debt funds raised significant commitments in 213: Debt funds, a newer sector, managed to raise $8 billion during the last year; 3% of respondents are actively or opportunistically targeting debt funds over the next twelve months. Opportunistic funds remain of some interest to investors, especially in the energy sector: These funds are attracting more commitments from pure private equity investors given their risk/return profile. Fund duration preferences remain mixed: Though private equity like 1-year structures attracted a plurality of interest, no preferred structure dominated, and interest in alternatives to the 1-year structure was fragmented. Too much money in the sector: The biggest fear among investors is that too much money is coming into the market and increasing the risk that returns will be negatively impacted a fear that has increased dramatically over the last two years of survey responses. 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 5
Profile of Respondents Chart IV highlights the diversity of institutions who responded to the survey, though pension plans, funds-of-funds, and consultants dominated. Respondents were geographically diverse; most respondents from Australia and Canada (included in the North America total) were very experienced investors (Chart V). 54% of respondents have active infrastructure investing programs of at least a year or longer, with most of the other respondents being either consultants or new to the sector (Chart VI). Chart IV Respondents Categorized by Investor Type I represent a: 22% 2% Public Pension/Superannuation Plan Fund-of-Funds Manager 26% 11% Consultant/Advisor 4% 6% 9% 8% Government Agency/Sovereign Wealth Fund Insurance Company 2% Asset Manager Family Office Bank Chart V Respondents Categorized by Firm Headquarters My firm is headquartered in: 24% North America 22% Western Europe 37% 4% 13% Japan Australia Middle East Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 6 214 Probitas Partners
Chart VI Investment Experience As far as infrastructure investing is concerned, my firm (choose all that apply): Has had an active infrastructure investing program for more than one year but less than five years 3 Has had an active infrastructure investing program for more than five years Is a consultant with clients in many stages 24 24 Opportunistically considers infrastructure investments Has just begun a program to make infrastructure investments 13 13 Is considering making an allocation to infrastructure investing 11 Does not make infrastructure investments and has no current plans to do so 7 Other 2 1 2 3 54% of respondents have active infrastructure investing programs of at least a year or longer 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 7
Chart VII shows that no specific attribute caused investors to choose an infrastructure fund; instead, a plurality of respondents simply focused on the selecting best funds available in the market. Ten percent of respondents were strictly focused on direct investing and not through or alongside fund managers, roughly the same level as last year s survey. Other responses were a mix of options but without a single theme. Chart VII Drivers for Sector Target Focus My sector investment focus over the next 12 months is being driven by: My firm s need to diversify its alternative investment portfolio 15 A focus on those alternative investment sectors I believe will outperform others in this vintage year 12 A desire to more closely match the duration of my assets with the duration of my liabilities 1 A desire to invest in assets with inflation-hedging characteristics My need to deploy significant amounts of capital allocated to alternative investments 7 8 A desire to target funds that will provide access to co-investments 5 A desire to maintain established relationships with fund managers returning to market this year I have no particular sector focus but simply pursue the best funds available in the market 23 I strictly invest in direct infrastructure transactions 1 Other 1 5 1 15 2 25 3 Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 8 214 Probitas Partners
Plans for Investing Only 26% of respondents had separate infrastructure allocations in 27 (our first infrastructure survey), while 4% were making infrastructure investments from their private equity allocations as they made a reconnaissance of the sector. Chart VIII shows the strong shift towards separate allocations over the last eight years. Interestingly, over the last year, there has been a slight shift among experienced investors from a separate infrastructure allocation towards including infrastructure in a more broad-based real assets portfolio. Chart VIII Categorizing Within our portfolio, infrastructure investments are or will be placed in (choose all that apply): 8 7 64 6 5 4 3 2 1 58 17 9 6 9 22 23 8 9 6 6 Separate Allocation Private Equity Inflation- Hedged Real Assets Real Estate General Alternatives Other Overall Respondents Experienced Investors Note: Experienced Investors constitutes those investors who have been active in the sector for over a year 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 9
On the back of 213 s strong fundraising year, there is a slight shift in investor appetite towards holding steady rather than increasing exposure; but there is little interest in decreasing exposure (Chart IX). The range of respondents allocation sizes was very diverse, including both small and large investors who often pursue different strategies (Chart X). Eighty eight percent of respondents either actively or opportunistically invest in closed-end infrastructure funds (Chart XI); at the other end of the spectrum, only 15% of respondents invest in infrastructure funds-of-funds, and only 33% of respondents invest in publicly traded infrastructure vehicles. Consistent with the trend since inception of the survey, there is significant interest in co-investments among respondents, and 27% of respondents are actively interested in direct investments. Chart IX Appetite for I believe that my firm s appetite for infrastructure investments for the next 12 months will: Increase from last year Decrease from last year Remain basically the same Continue to be opportunistic based upon market conditions and market opportunities Other 3 6 5 11 15 28 36 44 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 1 214 Probitas Partners
Chart X Allocations Over the next year, our allocation to infrastructure commitments will be (in USD): 4 3 2 1 14 8 28 11 19 6 17 3 <$5 MM $5 $1 MM $1 $25 MM $25 $5 MM $5 MM $1.5 B >$1.5 B No Specific Allocation Other The range of respondents allocation sizes was very diverse, including both small and large investors who often pursue different strategies 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 11
Chart XI Interest in Investment Structures My firm s interest in various investment structures is: 1 12 85 4 49 61 67 9 32 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 56 24 36 27 24 12 27 27 1 15 Closed-End Fund Funds-of-Funds Co-Investments Separate Accounts Direct Transaction 6 Publicly Traded Vehicles Are Actively Interested Invest Only Opportunistically Do Not Invest Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 12 214 Probitas Partners
Sectors, Industries and Geographies of Interest Consistent with our previous surveys, brownfield funds remain the preferred strategy, with 83% of respondents actively or opportunistically investing in this sector (Chart XII). Respondents were only modestly interested in opportunistic funds, but because of their risk/return profiles these funds often attract commitments from private equity investors as well, a number of who do not invest in infrastructure funds. This year for the first time we asked about investor appetite for separate accounts; 25% of respondents were actively targeting these. As far as industry sectors, interest was remarkably similar to last year s survey, with energy and power continuing to lead investor interest (Chart XIII). As far as geographic focus, investors continue to focus on the developed markets (Chart XIV); global funds, ranked third in interest; these funds are typically focused on developed markets, and usually have very small or no allocations to emerging markets. Australia ranked highly as an area of interest in part because there were a large number of Australian respondents that were focused on their home market. Chart XII Interest in Sectors For the major sectors of closed-end infrastructure funds operating in developing markets, my firm s targets for returns and fees are as follows: 1 17 24 27 64 68 54 86 8 6 4 2 13 7 38 38 6 29 18 21 25 Brownfield Funds Greenfield/ Rehabilitated Brownfield Funds 13 Opportunistic Funds 7 Hybrid Funds 14 Debt Funds Separate Account 11 Funds-of-Funds 3 Are Actively Targeting Invest Opportunistically Do Not Invest 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 13
Chart XIII Industry Sectors of Interest My firm seeks to invest in the following sectors (choose all that apply): Energy and Power 72 72 Transportation 64 64 Water and Waste Management 58 62 Renewable Energy 47 47 Telecom Social Services Diversified Funds Only Opportunistic without Sector Focus Other 3 2 11 15 31 34 36 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 39 43 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey Chart XIV Geographic Focus My firm invests in infrastructure funds with investment mandates focused on (choose all that apply): 7 67 64 6 56 5 4 3 2 1 33 33 8 6 3 Global North America Western Europe Developed Markets Australia Asia Emerging Markets Middle East/ Sub-Saharan North Africa Africa Eastern Europe Latin America Other Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 14 214 Probitas Partners
The biggest shift in perception in this year s survey has been towards the emerging markets (Chart XV); the number of respondents who stated that they were less interested in the sector because of a variety of risks increased by 2.5 times, while those interested in the sector due to potential long-term growth fell by the same amount. Chart XIV also shows that Asia was the only emerging market geography targeted by any respondents. Chart XV Interest in Emerging Markets As far as my interest in emerging markets is concerned, my firm: Is less interested in the sector due to political, economic, or currency risk 23 58 Is interested in the sector because of its long-term growth potential 17 45 Is less interested in the sector because it is more focused on greenfield investments Is interested in the sector as a diversifier of risk 8 8 8 16 Has a strategy or policy that does not allow for emerging markets exposure 3 6 Other 2 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 15
Targeted Returns and Fees Respondents perception of risk resulted in the following expectations for returns by strategy, detailed in Chart XVI: 83% expect returns of 12.5% or lower for brownfield funds. 84% expect returns of 12.5% or higher for opportunistic funds. 8% expect returns of less than 1% on debt funds. Expected risk/return profiles by strategy clearly impact expected management fee and carried interest covered in Charts XVII and XVIII: Brownfield funds, investors preferred strategy, are under intense pressure from investors on fees; 8% of respondents investing in such funds expect management fees to be 1.25% or less and 69% of respondents expect carry to be 15% or less. These expectations on fees and carry are slightly higher than last year s survey. Investors also expect much lower fees and carried interest for debt funds and funds-of-funds while expectations for opportunistic funds are higher. Brownfield funds, investors preferred strategy, are under intense pressure from investors on fees Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 16 214 Probitas Partners
Chart XVI Target Net IRRs For the major sectors of closed-end infrastructure funds operating in developing markets, my firm s target Net IRRs are as follows: 1 9 17 5 5 21 17 29 2 18 5 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 57 26 Brownfield Funds 37 27 5 Greenfield/ Rehabilitated Brownfield Funds 6 22 39 11 5 Opportunistic Funds 57 14 Hybrid Funds 8 Debt Funds 73 9 Separate Account 5 Funds-of-Funds <1% 1% 12.5% 12.5% 15% 15% 17.5% 17.5% 17.5% >2% 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 17
Chart XVII Targeted Annual Management Fees For the major sectors of closed-end infrastructure funds operating in developing markets, my firm s targeted management fees are as follows: 1 8 6 4 2 1 1 33 47 6 53 18 23 6 37 25 13 19 17 33 33 17 1 2 1 8 Brownfield Funds Greenfield/ Rehabilitated Brownfield Funds Opportunistic Funds Hybrid Funds Debt Funds Separate Account Funds-of-Funds <1% 1% 1.25% 1.25% 1.5% 1.5% 1.75% >2% Chart XVIII Targeted Carried Interest For the major sectors of closed-end infrastructure funds operating in developing markets, my firm s targets for carried interest are: 1 1 13 27 2 1 11 1 8 6 4 2 21 32 37 33 27 27 2 47 6 2 56 33 Brownfield Funds Greenfield/ Rehabilitated Brownfield Funds 6 Opportunistic Funds Hybrid Funds Debt Funds Separate Account Funds-of-Funds <5% 5% 1% 1% 15% 15% 2% >2% Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 18 214 Probitas Partners
Many investors continue to seek risk-adjusted carry hurdles, as detailed in Chart XIX, with correspondingly higher hurdle rates expected on higher risk funds. Chart XIX Carried Interest Hurdle For the major sectors of closed-end infrastructure funds operating in developing markets, my firm s targets for carry hurdles are: 1 8 6 4 2 4 55 13 7 2 33 4 44 8 67 53 37 11 5 56 5 33 5 Brownfield Funds 6 Greenfield/ Rehabilitated Brownfield Funds Opportunistic Funds Hybrid Funds Debt Funds Separate Account Funds-of-Funds None <4% 4% 8% 8% 1% 1% 2% higher hurdle rates (are) expected on higher risk funds 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 19
Portfolio Benchmarks There has been a shift towards absolute return targets and away from proprietary internal benchmarks although no benchmark is dominant among this year s respondents (Chart XX). A number of the respondents use multiple benchmarks (totals below sum to over 139%). Though a larger number of respondents this year checked the Other category, responses within that category were scattered with no underlying trend, consistent with prior years surveys. Chart XX Portfolio Benchmarks Regarding portfolio benchmarks for infrastructure, my firm uses (choose all that apply): An absolute return target 35 46 A benchmark based upon an inflation index 35 39 A proprietary internal benchmark 18 26 A benchmark based upon a publicly traded securities index An actuarial return target Other 4 7 7 7 15 25 1 2 3 4 5 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 2 214 Probitas Partners
Investment Structures Unlike private equity funds where fund terms have substantially standardized, there remains a broad variety of fund term structures in the infrastructure market. Chart XXI shows that 1-year fund life vehicles continue to be preferred by a plurality of respondents even though in brownfield Public Private Partnerships, underlying project concessions often have lives of 3 years or more. Experienced investors who have been very active in infrastructure investing for a year or more have a slightly stronger interest in evergreen or open-ended structures but still most prefer funds with 1-year lives. The majority of respondents continue to prefer independent as opposed to sponsored vehicles, much as they did in last year s survey (Chart XXII). Chart XXI Preferred Terms and Fund Structures My firm prefers to invest in vehicles with the following duration: Standard 1-year private equity fund life structures Fund lives of 12 to 15 years Evergreen or open-ended structures Fund lives of more than 15 years Hybrid 1-year structures that allow for asset liquidation or longer holds at the investor s choice No particular preference Other 3 3 3 5 5 9 21 19 17 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 44 52 Overall Respondents Experienced Investors Note: Experienced Investors constitutes those investors who have been active in the sector for over a year 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 21
Chart XXII Independent vs. Sponsored Fund Structures As far as terms and conditions are concerned, I would prefer to invest in funds that are (choose only one): Independent vehicles owned and run by the senior investment professionals The question of sponsored or independent fund structures is irrelevant to my decision-making process Sponsored vehicles owned by larger financial institutions that can bring institutional resources to bear Other 3 4 3 11 25 33 61 6 2 4 6 8 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey The majority of respondents continue to prefer independent as opposed to sponsored vehicles Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 22 214 Probitas Partners
Terms and Conditions Proper alignment of interest between limited partners and general partners expressed in terms of the level of management fees and the general partner s financial commitment to the fund continues to be the primary area of focus for investors (Chart XXIII). Experienced investors are more focused on carry distribution waterfalls and the overall level of carry than were other respondents. Chart XXIII Terms and Conditions Focus As far as terms and conditions are concerned, separate from due diligence issues, my firm is most focused on (choose no more than two): The overall level of management fees Level of general partner s financial commitment to the fund Carry between distribution waterfalls 29 38 33 43 59 62 The overall level of carry Distribution of carry between senior investment professionals Sharing of carry and/or decisionmaking process with the sponsor Contractual fund life Structure or inclusion of a key man provision Structure or inclusion of a no-fault divorce clause Other 5 9 21 19 15 19 15 21 24 21 27 29 33 38 2 4 6 8 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 23
Reasons for Not Investing Nearly all of the respondents to the survey invest in infrastructure in some fashion. For those few not investing, the driving reason was that they found the return profile unattractive or the investment duration too long (Chart XXIV). Chart XXIV Reasons for Not Investing in My firm is not interested in infrastructure because (choose all that apply): We find the return profile is unattractive It is not within our investment mandate The average duration is too long for our needs We may consider infrastructure investing at a later date after our program is more fully developed Our current portfolio allocation serves our needs We do not believe the market is currently developed enough to warrant a specific allocation Other 13 13 11 13 11 11 13 22 22 22 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 38 56 This Year s Survey Last Year s Survey The concern that too much money was coming into the market increased significantly over the last two years Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 24 214 Probitas Partners
Investment Concerns As detailed in Chart XXV, the top two concerns from last year continued to lead investor concerns this year: Too much new money coming into the sector affecting future returns. Standard fees on brownfield-focused funds eating away at net returns. The concern that too much money was coming into the market increased significantly over the last two years, moving from 35% of respondents in 212 to 57% last year and 72% this year. Among the Other concerns, the most notable was Illiquidity upon scheduled exit. Chart XXV Investing Concerns As an infrastructure investor, what keeps you up at night? (choose no more than two): Too much new money coming into the sector affecting future returns 72 Standard fee levels on brownfield-focused funds are eating away at my returns 31 The lack of experienced fund managers in the sector 22 My ability to properly staff my fund investing program for proper due diligence 17 The amount of leverage that has been used by some of my fund managers The slow pace of investing by my fund managers Government agencies seem to be dragging their feet in approving PPP plans 11 11 11 Competition with government stimulus money My ability to properly staff my direct or co-investing program for proper due diligence and investment oversight 8 8 Senior professional turnover at fund manager 3 The impact that sponsor turmoil may have on my portfolio 3 The lack of debt currently available to finance transactions Other 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 25
Key Trends for the Future There are several key trends we see coming both from the survey and our ongoing conversations with investors: Direct investing by institutional investors will remain a small component of the market participants, though direct investors, because of their size, could have a significant impact on large transactions in the core brownfield sector in developed markets where they both compete with funds and cooperate with them in syndicates. Large investors without direct investment or co-investment programs will seek to gain more control through separate accounts where they seek not only reduced fees and carry but more control/insight into the market. Even though they are a primary target for investors, core brownfield fund strategies will remain under pressure on fees and carry; a strategy targeting net returns of 1% cannot support a high load of fees and carry, and a number of large investors without direct investment programs are moving aggressively to separate accounts and co-investments to moderate these costs. Interest in emerging markets is likely to continue to be volatile as the perceived risk/return profile of these markets change year by year and institutional investors in developed markets who control most of the capital remain more focused on their core home markets. Open-ended fund structures will continue to lag fixed-term structures in investor interest even though they more closely match the underlying maturity of many core brownfield assets. The Australian market, which is much more mature and dominated by open-ended funds, is an exception. Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 26 214 Probitas Partners
Notes: 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 27
Notes: Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 28 214 Probitas Partners
Notes: 214 Probitas Partners Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey 29
Institutional Investor Trends for 214 Survey Probitas Funds Group, LLC Probitas Funds Group, LLC PFG-UK Ltd. Probitas Hong Kong Limited 425 California Street 112 Ave. of the Americas 1 Berkeley Street Nexxus Building Suite 23 Suite 182 London Level 15 San Francisco, CA 9414 New York, NY 136 W1J 8DJ 41 Connaught Road USA USA UK Central, Hong Kong Tel: +1 415 42 7 Tel: +1 212 43 3662 Tel: +44 ()2 716 9355 Tel: +852 2533 3678