Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 99

Illiquid assets and long-term investing

Many people would place ‘capturing the illiquidity premium’ at the top of their list of benefits from long-term investing. However, extracting additional returns from illiquidity is not as simple as just buying and holding any illiquid asset. Returns to illiquidity vary across investors, markets and time. In this article, I sketch out the traits of illiquid assets. Investors should ask two questions before seeking the illiquidity premium. First: Am I suited to investing in illiquid assets? Second: Am I being adequately rewarded?

Trait 1: Illiquid assets involve additional costs and risks

Exposure to illiquidity brings with it additional costs and risks:

  • Illiquid assets cost more to transact. The additional transaction costs often appear as greater ‘market impact’, i.e. the need to pay a price premium to get set, or accept a price discount to exit. Costs of locating, analysing and accessing illiquid assets can also be higher, especially in unlisted markets, including advisory fees and agent commissions.
  • Illiquid assets cost more to hold. Many illiquid assets involve higher ongoing expenses, related to management, monitoring, and capital commitment. For instance, investment managers charge considerably more in unlisted markets.
  • Illiquidity = loss of flexibility. Illiquid assets take longer to transact, and in some circumstances, trading may be prohibitively costly or even impossible. The inability to trade quickly, or at an acceptable price, can result in being stuck with a portfolio.
  • Risk of being a forced seller at the wrong time. Liquidity is like finding a taxi: plentiful when not required, hard to find when really needed. When markets come under pressure, not only does illiquidity tend to worsen, but the chance of some investors losing funding and becoming forced sellers rises. Market crises can go hand-in-hand with redemptions, margin calls, withdrawal of trading capital, and so on. Becoming a forced seller at the wrong time can be very, very costly.

Trait 2: Impact of illiquidity varies across investors

The impact of illiquidity will be typically lowest for those with high discretion over trading, which was nominated in my first article as characteristic of long-term investors. Being able to choose when to trade facilitates waiting patiently for a high return premium before buying. Once invested, it provides the scope to continue holding. Longer holding periods dilute the influence of transaction costs on returns. In rough terms, transaction costs of 10% reduce returns by ~10% over a 1-year holding period; by ~2% over 5 years; by ~1% over 10 years, and so on. Further, an investor with discretion over trading is never a forced seller, while short-term investors are more exposed because they may not always have a choice.

Trait 3: Pricing depends on how illiquidity impacts the marginal investor

The identity of this ‘marginal investor’ is pivotal to who sets the price, as it dictates the magnitude of the opportunity. An important question to ask is: “who is setting prices in this market?” Before expecting an excess return, an investor should be facing off against a marginal investor who is more affected by illiquidity, and places a high value on liquidity.

Trait 4: The marginal investor varies

The identity of the marginal investor varies with market context and the extent to which illiquidity is reflected in prices. At times, a high illiquidity premium can be on offer. At other times, it may be non-existent. It is during liquidity crises that investing in illiquid assets can be most lucrative, as the marginal investor is more likely to be a desperate seller who pays handsome rewards for providing liquidity. For example, a large illiquidity premium seemed evident in bond markets during the GFC, when US Baa corporate bond spreads over treasuries exceeded 7% amidst a near-complete drying-up of liquidity. These spreads subsequently fell back to well below 2%. In contrast, no illiquidity premium currently appears on offer in unlisted infrastructure, notwithstanding being a clearly illiquid asset. Infrastructure prices are being set by funds with long horizons and a flood of capital to invest. Thus the marginal investor is not only highly tolerant of illiquidity, but is willing to pay a price premium (accept a return discount) to get set.

Trait 5: Yields are a key indicator

A good indicator of the compensation for illiquidity is the level of prices relative to income, e.g. the yield. The logic is as follows. The costs associated with illiquidity might be thought of as additional cash outflows; while the additional risks might be viewed as requiring a higher discount rate. Recognition of these features means a lower price per unit of income. If a large illiquidity premium is on offer, illiquid assets should trade on noticeably high yields either relative to their more liquid counterparts, and/or relative to that seen during more liquid times.

Summing up

The answer to the first question of ‘Am I suited to investing in illiquid assets?’ depends on the degree of discretion over trading held by an investor, as well as how costly it is for them to access illiquid assets relative to the marginal investor. Investors who may be poorly suited to investing in illiquid assets might include institutions with limited control over their funding; or smaller investors who lack the capacity to access illiquid assets at a reasonable cost. The answer to the second question of ‘Am I being adequately rewarded?’ hinges on the nature of the marginal investor in a particular market and is evidenced by a sizeable yield premium. The answers are likely to lead to a more dynamic approach, whereby illiquid assets are purchased in times of markets stress when large premiums are on offer, and exited when liquidity is plentiful and the illiquidity premium is skinny.

 

Geoff Warren is Research Director at the Centre for International Finance and Regulation (CIFR). This article is for general information purposes and readers should seek independent advice about their personal circumstances.

This series of Cuffelinks articles brings out the key messages from a research project examining long-term investing, conducted by CIFR in collaboration with the Future Fund. The full report, which comprises three papers, can be found at: http://www.cifr.edu.au/project/T003.aspx

 

  •   6 March 2015
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

The ASX's 16-year drought: a rebuttal

How likely are market crashes?

The growth outperformance myth

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

The investment that sidesteps the new tax traps

Tax rules have changed, but many investors are still using yesterday’s strategies. Insurance bonds may offer advantages for those seeking greater control, tax efficiency and certainty about their wealth.

Testamentary trusts have secured the CGT exemption

Treasury’s latest CGT reform draft delivers a win for testamentary trusts and deceased estates, exempting estate-derived gains from the 30% floor. However, questions on death and divorce rollovers remain unresolved.

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

Latest Updates

Planning

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

Investment strategies

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

Economy

Population growth masks Australia’s productivity problem

For years, investors have benefited from a seemingly reliable growth story. But recent national accounts raise uncomfortable questions about what has really been driving Australia’s economy and whether that can continue unchecked.

Investment strategies

Why tomorrow’s winners may not be today’s index leaders

The stocks that built retirement balances over the past decade now dominate many portfolios. The new challenge is whether these companies can continue meeting the increasingly high expectations embedded in today's share prices.

Investing

What earnings surprises reveal about future returns

Sometimes the most important information in an earnings result isn't the number itself. It's the possibility that the market's assumptions have been fundamentally wrong and future earnings may look very different.

SMSF strategies

Individual SMSF Trusteeship directly liable for ATO fines

A rarely discussed detail buried in SMSF structures could dramatically change who wears the cost when something goes wrong. With penalties rising, a decision many dismissed as administrative may deserve a second look.

Investment strategies

The currency bet you didn’t know you made

Buying global shares means making two bets: on the companies and on the Australian dollar. Most investors consciously choose only the first. Last financial year, the second bet cost 8.5% in returns for many investors.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.