Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 264

Shifting asset allocations by Sovereign Wealth Funds

Sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), the 100-pound gorillas of the investment world, are pulling away from real estate and infrastructure and deploying more capital into listed deals and technology.

(An accepted definition of an SWF is a special-purpose investment fund owned by the general government for macroeconomic purposes. They manage assets to achieve financial objectives using a set of investment strategies. The definition excludes foreign currency reserves held by central banks and state-owned enterprises, government-employee pension funds and assets managed for the benefit of individuals).

Changes in SWF asset allocation

Using a three-year database of investments by more than 60 SWFs, the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds and Bocconi University recently released a report (‘Dealing with Disruption’, issued 16 July 2018) that found that the number of private deals dropped from 196 in 2016 to 184 in 2017, while the number of listed investments rose from 94 to 119.

SWFs have long been active participants in private markets. Their scale, long-term investment horizon and little need for liquidity was seen as a good match to private market investments such as real estate and infrastructure.

But as the Report points out, SWFs appear to be facing challenges deploying capital. Abundant liquidity and strong competition for high quality assets from a growing array of institutional investors looking for real estate and infrastructure assets is pushing valuations higher.

In 2017, the number of direct real estate and infrastructure investments made by SWF’s declined from a total $25.2 billion in 2016, split between 76 deals in real estate, and 33 in infrastructure, to $23.6 billion, comprising only 42 deals in real estate and 28 in infrastructure (Figure 1).

In the real estate sector, there was almost a 40% decrease in the number of SWF investments in private markets between 2016 and 2017, while in infrastructure, the number of deals fell by 15%.

Figure 1: SWF Direct Investments in Real Estate and Infrastructure vs Total

Global protectionism encourages investment in other places

In infrastructure, rising global protectionism also threatens to stymie foreign direct investment by SWFs in strategic sectors. The Report acknowledges SWFs:

“… are encountering greater resistance from regulators, preventing them from investing in major infrastructure assets. Regulatory regimes in the US and Europe are installing more stringent screening processes for foreign direct investments in strategic infrastructure assets.”

Asia and Latin America are now on the radar for SWFs looking for established infrastructure companies with predictable cash flows. In 2017, SWFs completed 17 direct investments in emerging-market infrastructure, of which 10 were cross-border, for a total value of $3.8 billion versus 11 deals in developed markets totalling $4.2 billion.

The Report noted that:

“… while it might, on the face of it, appear to be a higher-risk strategy, emerging markets can carry lower potential political risks as there are fewer concerns about foreign investment in infrastructure and SWFs can pair with a domestic promotor. Deals are often less complex, with fewer parties involved, and lower costs reducing third-party operating risk.”

Across their direct investment platform, the median equity investment by SWFs was $50 million, just over half the $90 million recorded in 2016. Excluding real assets, such as real estate and infrastructure projects, this trend was even more marked. The median equity investment was $27 million, plummeting from that of previous years: $60 million in 2016 and $58 million in 2015.

Increasing sophistication of SWFs

While there are certainly headwinds in private markets, SWFs have been taking advantage of the weak US dollar, strong global growth, and expectations that tax reform in the US would push stock markets to record highs, and increasing their direct investments into listed companies. In 2017, SWFs bought publicly listed shares in 119 transactions – 39% of the total – up from 94 deals in 2016, which represented 32% of the total.

With the growing size and sophistication of SWFs, they are now less likely to be simple investors in funds. They are increasingly collaborating with other investors, including their peers and private equity firms on investments, enabling them to harness external expertise across sectors. In an era where generating above-market returns requires a much more active management of investments,

“SWFs are now genuinely participating in, and setting the strategic agenda of, their portfolio companies, using their global influence to drive investment performance and working actively with (and learning from) more experienced joint-sponsors and partners in a deal.”

In 2017, the trend reached a new high as SWFs completed 203 investments in a consortium or partnership, more than double the number of solo deals (Figure 2).

Figure 2: SWF Direct Investments – Partnerships and Consortia

SWFs are also investing more in technology and particularly earlier stages of the private equity cycle. There was a material uplift in investments in innovative sectors in 2017, with 29 deals in technology and 16 in healthcare, up from 15 and 6 respectively in 2016. The breadth of disruptive technology stretches from augmented reality and artificial intelligence to new materials, biotechnology, innovative pharmaceuticals and new medical devices.

SWFs continue to grow their asset base, up 13% in the year to March 2018 to US$7.45 trillion, as reported in the 2018 Preqin Sovereign Wealth Fund Review. With that amount of firepower, any changes in how and where they deploy their capital will have implications for global financial markets and all investors.


Adrian Harrington is Head of Funds Management at Folkestone, a sponsor of Cuffelinks. This article is in the nature of general information and does not consider the circumstances of any investor.

For more articles and papers from Folkestone, please click here.


Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates


The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.


RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.


4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.


Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.


Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.


Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.



© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.