Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 80

Listed versus unlisted infrastructure

There are key differences between investing in exchange-listed infrastructure securities versus unlisted infrastructure assets. These differences have important implications for investors and give rise to some commonly-held misconceptions.

The value of a typical infrastructure asset, or any long-dated asset, is determined by just two factors:

  • The cashflow forecast to be generated by the asset.
  • The risks associated with those cashflows actually materialising.

For an investor, the value of any asset is also impacted by the factors that stand between them and the cashflow generated by that asset. In relation to collective investment vehicles, there are three main factors:

  • Leakage of cashflows to the asset’s controlling entity, e.g. fees paid to a fund manager.
  • Reinvestment of the asset’s cashflows in the capital stock, e.g. for an airport, the use of asset cashflows to fund expansionary capital expenditure.
  • The use of cashflows by the controlling entity to acquire other assets, e.g. a fund investing in unlisted infrastructure assets acquiring another asset.

A common misconception is that a listed infrastructure investment is more risky than an identical unlisted investment because of the inherent volatility in the former’s daily pricing. This view is both disingenuous and incorrect, as it confuses volatility in pricing with the volatility in cashflow. While some investors are attracted to the apparent comfort of a quarterly (or worse semi-annual) valuation of their unlisted assets, this ignores day-to-day developments.

Leaving aside the illusory benefit of not being subject to daily pricing, one would expect that a long-term investor might gain an advantage by investing in an unlisted infrastructure fund. In theory, the assets owned by such a fund should be cheaper than their listed equivalents as it is generally accepted that investors are prepared to pay a premium to have the ability to buy or sell an asset at any time. Indeed, it is somewhat counterintuitive to think that an inability to buy or sell an asset reduces the risks associated with it. Despite this, overwhelming evidence suggests that the imbalance between demand from funds looking to invest in unlisted infrastructure and supply of appropriate investment opportunities has led to the opposite being true.

For instance, the following graph, showing the ratio of various entities’ Enterprise Values to their Regulated Asset Bases (RAB), which can be thought of as their net tangible assets, describes the history of utility acquisitions in the UK over the last decade. Each dot represents a deal done in the unlisted market, while the continuous lines show the equivalent trading multiples of the only two regulated utilities still trading at the end of the period in question:


Source: Magellan

Regulated assets in the UK are allowed to earn a return on their RAB. The regulatory regime in the UK is highly developed and utilities generally earn a small premium to the underlying cost of capital. Consequently, one would expect that the fair value of these utilities would be at a small premium to their RAB, which is indeed where we typically observe the listed assets to trade. However, the graph clearly shows a consistent pattern - unlisted asset transactions taking place at a 30% premium to underlying RAB. Note the rise and fall of Severn Trent’s share price in 2013, when news of a potential, but ultimately unforthcoming, takeover was made public.

The benefits of listed infrastructure funds

We believe that listed infrastructure assets benefit in comparison with unlisted assets:

  • Listed infrastructure assets have been, and remain, cheaper than their unlisted equivalents.
  • Fees charged by listed infrastructure funds are lower than those charged by unlisted infrastructure funds. Given that the infrastructure sector, when properly defined, should only provide modest, high single-digit returns over time, the difference in fees can be very meaningful.
  • The listed market offers a significantly increased opportunity set.
  • Daily liquidity allows investors to utilise more effective dynamic asset allocation, particularly in rapidly changing macroeconomic circumstances.
  • Listed assets are able to provide greater diversity of asset exposures due to investment size limitations. This can be particularly important when a substantial proportion of an unlisted infrastructure fund is exposed to a single regulated asset (and is therefore heavily exposed to a potentially unfavourable regulatory decision at some time in the future).
  • Regulated utilities, which make up the majority of the infrastructure investment universe, have little opportunity for the sort of value creation normally expected in private equity vehicles. This is because regulators generally do not allow such businesses to generate high levels of excess returns. As a result, it is favourable to achieve as cost-effective an exposure to the asset class as possible, i.e. through listed assets, as opposed to unlisted assets.
  • Better transparency, given the strict conditions for disclosure imposed on listed entities.

There are, however, advantages in investing directly in unlisted infrastructure assets for certain institutional investors, i.e. owning positions in those assets directly on their books rather than through the medium of a fund managed by a third party. In particular, owning a large position in an asset directly reduces agency risk (the risk that the investor will not enjoy the full benefits of the asset’s cashflows). However, realistically speaking, only very large investment institutions with specialised internal infrastructure teams can expect to be successful when competing for such assets. Only a relatively small number of investment institutions globally would be adequately resourced for such an endeavour.

Conclusion

Appropriately diversified exposure to the infrastructure sector, when conservatively defined, should provide investors with a return of inflation plus 5-6% before fees. Such a return may be earned through exposure to either listed or unlisted infrastructure assets. However, the listed market offers investors superior post-fee return prospects, particularly given current and foreseeable market conditions.

 

Gerald Stack is Chairman of the Investment Committee and Head of Research at Magellan Financial Group and Portfolio Manager of the Magellan Infrastructure Fund. He has extensive experience in the management of listed and unlisted debt, equity and hybrid assets on a global basis. This material has been prepared by Magellan Asset Management Limited for general information purposes only and must not be construed as investment advice. It does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs.

 


 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

8 benefits of listed over unlisted infrastructure

Why infrastructure stocks can withstand higher interest rates

Your super fund will pay you to leave - UPDATED

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Latest Updates

Planning

Will young Australians be better off than their parents?

For much of Australia’s history, each new generation has been better off than the last: better jobs and incomes as well as improved living standards. A new report assesses whether this time may be different.

Superannuation

The rubbery numbers behind super tax concessions

In selling the super tax, Labor has repeated Treasury claims of there being $50 billion in super tax concessions annually, mostly flowing to high-income earners. This figure is vastly overstated.

Investment strategies

A steady road to getting rich

The latest lists of Australia’s wealthiest individuals show that while overall wealth has continued to rise, gains by individuals haven't been uniform. Many might have been better off adopting a simpler investment strategy.

Economy

Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia?

As inflation eases, the Albanese government is switching its focus to lifting Australia’s sluggish productivity. Can corporate tax cuts reboot growth - or are we chasing a theory that doesn’t quite work here?

Are V-shaped market recoveries becoming more frequent?

April’s sharp rebound may feel familiar, but are V-shaped recoveries really more common in the post-COVID world? A look at market history suggests otherwise and hints that a common bias might be skewing perceptions.

Investment strategies

Asset allocation in a world of riskier developed markets

Old distinctions between developed and emerging market bonds no longer hold true. At a time where true diversification matters more than ever, this has big ramifications for the way that portfolios should be constructed.

Investment strategies

Top 5 investment reads

As the July school holiday break nears, here are some investment classics to put onto your reading list. The books offer lessons in investment strategy, financial disasters, and mergers and acquisitions.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.