A debate has emerged among pensions and investment experts questioning what pension funds define as an ‘infrastructure' investment and whether it should have its own asset class, separate to real estate.
During an after-dinner discussion at the IPE Awards in Vienna, earlier this month, real estate asset management experts suggested the varying definitions have now become so wide there is evidence of traditional sectors, such as technology, crossing into the 'infrastructure' market. But are pension funds aware and, as a result, what should infrastructure investments be defined as?
Only this week, IPE Real Estate.com has also revealed Washington State Investment Board has shifted infrastructure and timberland into a new "tangible assets" class, so we want to know your thinking too. (For more information, go to IPE Real Estate News)
Asset management firms had predicted the shift of these assets into a class of their own, but do you agree with such moves? How do you categorise different forms of real estate within its sector?
We want IPE Real Estate.com readers to share their thoughts and interpretations with the pensions industry, to help assess whether what asset managers deliver is the interpretation pension funds have found.
So if you have any comments you would like to add to this debate, send them to email@example.com, clearly stating if you would like us to withhold your personal details and add a preferred pseudonym.
(N.B. Any comments construed as asset management marketing will not be posted.)