海外之声 | OMFIF高级经济学家：债券收益走软，促投资者转向房地产（中英双语）
观点速递
本文作者是IMI高级经济学家本·罗宾逊，原文选自货币金融机构官方论坛（OMFIF）于2018年5月出版的The Bulletin，OMFIF是一家总部位于伦敦的全球金融智库。
作者提出目前数据显示债券的收益不如以前令人乐观，这使得很多投资者考虑另谋投资方向。最近出台的改革措施，在资产配置方面赋予欧洲公共投资者较大的灵活性，此举也促使公共投资者转向其他资产，特别是房地产和基础设施。主权基金和养老基金正在把目标投向更大和更复杂的投资对象，并且通过与有限合伙人合作来达成一定规模的交易。
中文译文如下：
基金配置策略渐显灵活性
债券收益走软，促投资者转向房地产
本·罗宾逊
译者：沈冠华
审校：陆可凡
2018年5月
普华永道的数据显示，在各种5年期、10年期和20年期的常见投资类别中，债券一直是表现最差的资产，位列大宗商品和对冲基金之后。对于固定收入平均配比占投资组合总值40%的公共养老基金来说，其收益压力很大，致使投资者转向其他资产。
对于总资产主要依靠原油收入的主权基金来说，2014年以来油价剧跌，使其不得不奋力保值。主权基金的债券配比均值为25%，虽低于养老基金水平，但对投资者来说仍无异于雪上加霜。
以上情况加上发达经济体已经实行十年的量化宽松和低利率政策，以及生产力增长缓慢和人口老化问题，公共投资者不禁热议应该选择哪类资产和策略。
最近出台的改革措施，在资产配置方面赋予欧洲公共投资者较大的灵活性，此举也促使公共投资者转向其他资产，特别是房地产和基础设施。
从7月起，总资产价值超2000亿美元的瑞典养老金缓冲基金将获准投资40%以上的“非流动性”资产，而目前对未上市资产设定的上限为5%。高评级固定收入产品的配比下限也由投资组合总值的30%下调至20%。
4月，在多年的游说下，挪威财政部示意将允许管理资产额超1万亿美元的挪威央行投资管理公司投资未挂牌的可再生基础设施。
以上一连串举动的发生有其背景。2009年以来，房地产和基础设施在主权基金和公共养老基金中的价值分别上涨120%和165%。国际货币金融机构官方论坛对管理资产额达4.6万亿美元的公共投资者进行的调查显示，70%以上的投资者在过去三年中增持或大幅增持了（高达6%）这些资产。
实物资产在整个投资组合中的角色发生了变化。它们已不再被单独看待，也不再被视为核心型策略或核心增益型策略的一部分。增值型策略和机会型策略的重要性正在上升，进而影响到投资者对资产类型和获得方式的选择。
出于分散投资和高收益的考虑，加之相对挂牌的公共资产来说波动不大，一些投资者正在加持私人房地产资产。因此，他们有机会接触到更多样的项目，并且有可能专注于次级房产和其他小众投资。
1
投资目标更复杂
主权基金和养老基金正在把目标投向更大和更复杂的投资对象，并且通过与有限合伙人（注1）合作来达成一定规模的交易。私募股权正在失去吸引力，因为把闲置资金都囤积在私募的成本也很大，仅在房地产领域囤积的资金就约为3000亿美元。
相反，随着投资者试图选择一些特定的精选项目，直接贷款和直接股权日益普遍。他们试图克服由于其他投资者竞争激烈而导致核心的传统一级资产成本过高的问题。
许多机构正在收回资产管理工作。这迫使外部管理人为了招揽生意更新他们的价值主张，调整基金结构，增加透明度和灵活性并降低成本。这样做往往会获得不错的效果。
国际货币金融机构官方论坛的调查显示，未来三年内，主权基金和养老基金计划将基础设施的投资增加至3340亿美元，将房地产的投资增加至1300亿美元。但是，怎么为投资需求（估算显示，未来二十年仅基础设施领域的资金需求就超过90万亿美元）匹配空余资金仍然是最大的问题。
实物资产是长线投资，政治、法律和监管确定性十分关键，信息透明、基准分析和对冲产品也很重要。其他地区面临低收益的投资者希望他们对实物资产的需求能够倒逼这样的改革，从而使他们能够投资更多资产。
注1：Limited Partnership。有限合伙两个或以上合伙人合作经营业务，其中一个或以上合伙人只需承担相等于投资额的责任。有限责任合伙人不能收取股息，但可直接分享收入及分担开支。
英文原文如下：
Flexibility in allocation strategy
Build up in real assets as bond returns flag
Ben Robinson, Senior Economist at OMFIF.
May, 2018.
Bonds have been the worst-performing asset among habitual investment classes, after commodities and hedge funds, over five-, 10- and 20-year horizons, according to PWC data. For public pension funds, which have an average allocation to fixed income of almost 40% of the total portfolio, this has created significant pressure on their returns, forcing investors to seek alternatives.
Sovereign funds, which are dependent on oil revenues for a large part of their total assets, have struggled to preserve their value in the face of the dramatic decline in oil prices since 2014. Sovereign funds’ average 25% allocation to bonds, while lower than pension funds’, is still large enough to present further headaches for these investors.
This combination of forces, exacerbated by a decade of quantitative easing, low interest rates, slow productivity growth and aging populations in advanced economies, has led to heated debate over which asset classes and strategies public investors should pursue.
Recent reforms allowing great flexibility in asset allocation for European public sector investors have helped intensify the shift into alternative assets, particularly real estate and infrastructure.
From July, the Swedish pension buffer funds, which hold combined assets of more than $200bn, will be allowed to invest up to 40% in ‘illiquid’ assets, up from the current 5% cap on unlisted assets. The minimum allocation to top-rated fixed income products has also been reduced to 20%, from 30% of the total portfolio.
In April the Norwegian finance ministry signalled its intention to allow Norges Bank Investment Management, which has more than $1tn in assets under management, to invest in unlisted renewable infrastructure, following years of lobbying by the fund.
These developments are part of a broader trend. The value of real estate and infrastructure within sovereign fund and public pension fund portfolios has risen by 120% and 165%, respectively, since 2009. According to an OMFIF survey of public investors with around $4.6tn in AUM, more than 70% have increased or significantly increased (by up to 6%) their allocation to these assets in the last three years.
The role of real assets within the total portfolio has shifted. These are no longer viewed solely or primarily as part of a core or core-plus strategy. Value-add and opportunistic strategies are gaining in importance, affecting the types of assets investors are pursuing and the way they access them.
Some investors are targeting a higher share of private real assets, driven by factors including diversification, higher yields and lower volatility than listed public assets. This allows investors to access a wider range of projects and to specialise in non-prime real estate and other niche investments.
1
More complex investments
Sovereign and pension funds are pursuing larger and more complex investments and collaborating with limited partners to reach deals of sufficient scale. Interest in private equity is waning as the large build-up of ‘dry power ’-estimated at around $300bn in the real estate sector alone – adds to the costs.
Direct debt and equity are instead becoming more widespread as investors seek exposure to specific, carefully selected projects. They are trying to overcome the high costs of more traditional prime assets in core locations, which have been driven by strong competition from other investors.
Many institutions are bringing more of their asset management in-house. This is forcing external managers to update their value proposition by offering new fund structures, greater transparency and flexibility, and lower costs, to remain competitive. The potential rewards are substantial.
Over the next three years, sovereign and public pension funds plan to increase their investments by $334bn in infrastructure and $130bn in real estate, according to the OMFIF survey. However, matching the supply of readily available sums of cash with investment needs – estimated at more than $90tn over the next 20 years for infrastrcture alone – remains the biggest stumbling block.
In view of the long-term nature of real asset investment, political, legal and regulatory certainty is vital. Improved information, benchmarking and hedging products are also needed. The hope among investors facing low returns elsewhere is that the scale of their demand for real assets spurs on these reforms, expanding the range of investable assets.
内容整理 叶祎然
图文编辑 叶祎然
审校 田雯
监制 朱霜霜
点击查看近期热文
欢迎加入群聊
为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。
入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。
欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。
关于我们
中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。
研究所长期聚焦国际金融、宏观经济理论与政策、金融科技、财富管理、金融监管、地方金融等领域，定期举办高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》《金融科技二十讲》等一大批具有重要学术和政策影响力的产品。
2016年，研究所入围《中国智库大数据报告》影响力榜单列高校智库第4位，并在“中国经济类研究机构市场价值排行榜（2016）”中名列第32位。
国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn
微信号：IMI财经观察
（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）
理事单位申请、
学术研究和会议合作
联系方式:
只分享最有价值的财经视点
We only share the most valuable financial insights.