The top 50 Asia-based institutional investors in private real estate funds collectively represent approximately $6.9tn in assets under management, of which over $118bn is allocated to the real estate asset class. Thirty-six percent of these investors are insurance companies, while 20% are banks. Sovereign wealth funds and public pension funds represent another 12% and 8% of this investor pool respectively, with the remainder comprised of various investor types including wealth managers, investment companies, corporate investors, asset managers, investment banks, government agencies, and private sector pension funds.
South Korea-based institutions represent 30% of the top 50 Asia-based investors in private real estate funds, followed by Japan-based firms which account for 20%. A further 16% are located in China, while Singapore and India are home to 12% and 10% of these investors respectively. The remaining 12% of institutions are based in Taiwan, Malaysia and Thailand. An overwhelming majority of the top 50 Asia-based institutions in private real estate prefer to invest locally, with 94% favouring Asia-focused private real estate vehicles. Within Asia, 22% of investors prefer the Far East region, 20% are interested in Greater China, and 14% invest in South Asia. Twenty-five percent of the top 50 Asia-based institutions invest with a global scope, while a further 45% have geographic preferences for Europe and North America respectively.
The fund strategy most attractive to the top 50 Asia-based institutions investing in private real estate is core, with 72% of these investors interested in such vehicles. Opportunistic and value added funds are the next most preferred, with 60% and 52% of these institutions targeting these strategies respectively. Forty-six percent of this investor pool has an appetite for core-plus funds, 40% are interested in debt funds, and 24% favour distressed vehicles. Secondaries and funds of funds vehicles are the least preferred fund types among the top 50 Asia-based private real estate investors, with only 6% and 4% willing to commit to these respective strategies.