Transcript
A (0:03)
Hello and welcome to the Infrastructure Investor Podcast. I'm James Lineker, I'm an editor here at PEI Group and I'm sitting in Berlin towards the end of the Infrastructure Investor Global Summit with Bruno Alves, editor in Chief at Infrastructure Investor, Klapi Qantis, who is the Deputy editor, Daniel Kemp, who is the APAC editor for PEI Group. So that's Infrastructure Investor and other titles, and Natalie Tidman, the editor, Infrastructure Investor Deals. So we've got the dream team of the Infrastructure Investor editorial team here today and we're reflecting on what we've learned in the conference so far. It's been a jam packed session, there's been some great conversations, loads of very interesting takeaways. Bruno, if I start with you, what have you made of a conference and what will you take away from it?
B (0:53)
Yes, I'm going to actually bring a bit of a conference classic to the table, which is strategy drift. Now, before you all go off to sleep, it's actually been quite an interesting journey here because we had Scott Peak from Brookfield on day one commenting on how 50% of the investable universe didn't exist 10 years ago. And then on day two, basically we had Sean Klimchak on stage and he's the global head of infrastructure for Blackstone. And he was basically saying that what keeps him up at night is what he called the private equitification. That's a mouthful of the asset class and it's what he called the like. Every time you see like infrastructure like, then you should start getting worried because it's when the asset class is kind of mudding the waters. And then Today on day three, you have a couple of LPs up on stage actually saying that they understand why managers have to evolve and strategies evolve. But you know that the line between evolution and strategy drift is quite thin and to kind of urging managers to keep the characteristics that make infrastructure the asset class that it is. Otherwise they say if you blur the lines with RE or with pe, then for them it's less interesting and their allocation to infrastructure starts getting diluted and so they divert money away from the asset class. So I thought that was quite interesting. It's a bit of a classic, but I think there's more concern now.
A (2:18)
Absolutely. Dan, you were picking up on this as well actually, weren't you?
C (2:21)
Yeah, so I actually moderated a panel today about Core plus Infrastructure which touched on a lot of similar themes. So it had a range of people on that panel who would all call themselves Core plus infrastructure investors, but there were some playing at the core end of Core plus who had maybe previously core investors and have just moved slightly up the risk spectrum. And there were others who were quite openly talking about the fact that what they do involves a private equity style skill set and we're playing much higher up the risk curve, yet they would still also call themselves a Core plus investor. And we had quite an interesting debate about whether the rise of that Core plus segment, whether the label actually means a lot anymore, and whether it's being the demand for is being driven by investors themselves, or whether it's the manager side perhaps drifting a bit and bringing the market along with them. We didn't really get to a definitive answer, frankly, but it's clear that the definition of what is infrastructure has broadened out massively in the last 10, 20 years.
