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
DeeperDive is a beta AI feature. Refer to full articles for the facts.
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.
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
TRENDING NOW
Air India asks Tata, Singapore Airlines for funds after US$2.4 billion loss
Beijing’s calculated silence on the Iran war
China pips the US if Asean is forced to choose, but analysts warn against reading it like a sports result
Richard Eu on how core values, customers keep Singapore’s TCM chain Eu Yan Sang relevant