Manulife US Reit’s manager should invite MAS to act as “special scrutineer” of its strategic review
Risks associated with external Reit managers are mitigated by well-resourced local sponsors, but a tougher stance may be warranted for Reits with foreign sponsors
DURING an informal meeting more than a decade ago, the chief executive of a large Singapore property group admonished me for complaining about locally-listed real estate investment trusts (Reits) being externally managed.
If Reits were required to have internal managers, the CEO said, Singapore’s major property developers might not have placed their best income-generating assets under these structures. The lucrative stream of fee income that externally-managed Reits offered was necessary in order to draw high-quality sponsors with pipelines of good assets.
This seemed a rather self-serving viewpoint to me. The way I saw it, externally-managed Reits were likely to prioritise their fee income and push for asset growth. On the other hand, internally-managed Reits seemed more likely to focus on distribution per unit (DPU) growth and resilience.
TRENDING NOW
Simba admits exceeding spectrum limits amid failed M1 deal; parent company Tuas’ full-year profit surges 277%
‘Our bread and butter’: Family-run Loo’s Hainanese Curry Rice hands reins to third generation
StarHub, Keppel confirm talks over potential M1 deal
Grab executives buy back shares after stock hits 3-year low on Atome deal