Dario Schiraldi's Perspective: Reshaping Indian Real Estate Portfolios with REITs and INVITs
VMPL
New Delhi [India], May 14: Why institutional investors are turning to listed real estate and infrastructure trusts for liquidity, income resilience, and inflation protection.As India's real estate and infrastructure landscape undergoes a structural shift, institutional investors are rethinking how to access the sector with greater efficiency, transparency, and capital flexibility. At the forefront of this evolution are Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and Infrastructure Investment Trusts (INVITs)--emerging as preferred instruments for those seeking steady income, liquidity, and protection from rising inflation.
"REITs and INVITs mark a fundamental redefinition of real estate exposure in institutional portfolios," says Dario Schiraldi, Deutsche Bank's former Managing Director and current CEO of VIDA Holding. "They provide structured access to income-generating assets while preserving the liquidity and transparency institutional investors require in a rapidly evolving macro environment."
The Emergence of REITs and INVITs in India
Overall, the traditional investment landscape in India was influenced by real estate assets and investments in assets through direct ownership, but this approach was very capital-consuming, illiquid, and very difficult to understand. REIT and INVIT structures were introduced by SEBI in 2014 and 2016, respectively and changed the direction of the investment landscape. These vehicles pool capital from multiple investors to acquire and manage revenue-generating assets such as office parks, logistics hubs, highways, and transmission lines, offering exposure to physical infrastructure in a liquid and regulated form.
These instruments are gaining strong traction among pension funds, insurance firms, and family offices seeking reliable cash flows and institutional-grade governance.
Why Are Institutional Investors Adopting REITs and INVITs?
1. Predictable Income and Inflation Resilience
REITs and INVITs typically invest in mature, income-generating assets with long-term contracts. Whether rental income from commercial real estate or toll revenue from expressways, these flows translate into stable distributions for unit holders. As leases and usage fees often contain inflation-linked clauses, investors benefit from real income protection--critical in an environment where traditional fixed-income instruments face yield compression.
"In an inflationary world, REITs and INVITs provide yield continuity while helping preserve purchasing power," Dario Schiraldi, Deutsche Bank's former leader explains. "They're not just yield enhancers--they're portfolio stabilisers."
2. Liquidity and Transparency
REITs and INVITs, unlike direct property transactions, are all traded on stock exchanges and therefore can provide daily liquidity and price discovery. They are in a great position to offer both flexibility and accountability for institutions. Thanks to SEBI's regulatory oversight, you can count on the highest standards of governance, transparency, and independence when it comes to asset valuation.
3. Diversification and Scale
Investing in REITs and INVITs provides broad sector and geographic exposure, due to the pooling of a wide range of assets within a single trust, which mitigates concentration risk. They present a scalable solution for investors seeking large-scale real estate allocation without direct asset management burdens.
Market Performance and Momentum
As of 2024, India hosts three listed REITs: Embassy Office Parks, Mindspace Business Parks, and Brookfield India Real Estate Trust. These have consistently delivered 6-8% annual yields, supported by steady office leasing demand in key metros. On the infrastructure side, INVITs like IRB INVIT and India Grid Trust have proven that user-based models--toll roads and power transmission--can generate predictable long-term cash flows.
These vehicles are becoming core holdings for investors balancing long-duration liabilities or seeking alternatives to volatile equity and debt markets.
Key Considerations and Risks
Despite their appeal, REITs and INVITs are not risk-free. Unit prices remain susceptible to market sentiment and interest rate cycles. Asset quality, lease duration, and sponsor credibility must be carefully evaluated. Operational missteps or underperformance in underlying infrastructure projects can impair returns.
"Thorough due diligence remains essential," Dario Schiraldi cautions. "Institutional investors must assess both the quality of underlying assets and the governance standards of the managing entities."
A Strategic Asset Class for the Future
India's rapid urbanisation, digital economy expansion, and infrastructure push--driven by programs like Gati Shakti--are setting the stage for exponential growth in tangible assets. REITs and INVITs offer an elegant solution for channelling long-term capital into these sectors while delivering liquidity, transparency, and consistent income.
"The Indian real estate market is at an inflexion point," Schiraldi concludes. "Organised investment structures like REITs and INVITs empower institutional investors to participate in India's growth story without sacrificing control, diversification, or governance. This is not just an evolution--it's a redefinition of real estate investing."
As India modernises its infrastructure and deepens its capital markets, REITs and INVITs are poised to play a central role in institutional portfolios. Investors seeking durable yield, regulatory clarity, and scalable access to tangible assets represent not just an opportunity, but a necessity in the next generation of portfolio strategy.
(ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by VMPL. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Consultative regulation-making that should go further
In May this year, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued a policy framework for how it will publish regulations, directions, guidelines and notifications. This follows a similar move by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), in February, which published regulations setting out the procedure it would follow to issue regulations. Regulators such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and SEBI, have been created by Acts of Parliament and have quasi-legislative powers. Within this context, strong procedural safeguards and robust checks and balances are essential to uphold the rule of law. The recent frameworks, which outline the procedures that the RBI and SEBI must follow when making law, are a welcome start. When proposing any new regulations or amendment to existing regulations, the RBI will now conduct 'impact analyses' and SEBI will state the 'regulatory intent and objectives'. Both regulators will also invite public comments for 21 days. Moreover, they will now periodically review their own regulations. These reforms signal a welcome shift toward more transparent and consultative regulation-making. Yet, they can, and should go further. Two additions will make these processes more robust, and ensure greater transparency and accountability. First, regulators should clearly identify the economic rationale for their interventions, and second, they should institute mechanisms to ensure accountability for periodic reviews and responses to public comments. The issue of market failure The RBI's impact analyses and SEBI's statements of objectives must be grounded in economic rationale that identifies the problem that their proposed regulation will address. In 2013, the Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC) emphasised that 'laws must be defined in terms of their economic purpose'. Regulatory practices in other jurisdictions also support the FSLRC's suggestion. For example, executive memoranda in the United States mandate that regulators undertake a cost-benefit analysis before proposing or adopting a regulation. Regulators there must also ensure the 'least burden on society', adopt an approach that maximises benefits, and assess the feasibility of alternatives to direct regulation. As another example, under the European Union's Better Regulation Framework, impact assessments involve identifying the problem, potential solutions and their impact, and mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the results. Currently, RBI's framework calls for 'impact analysis' considering 'economic environments'. SEBI must explain its objectives. However, neither are explicitly required to provide the economic rationale of any proposed regulation or identify the underlying market failure. This can be contrasted with the framework implemented by the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), which must state the issue that its proposed regulation seeks to address. Financial sector regulators such as the RBI and SEBI should: identify the market failure that necessitates regulatory intervention; demonstrate how the proposed regulation will address such failure; conduct a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the expected impact of the proposed regulation, and formulate a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact of the regulation. Strengthening accountability The track records of the regulators in consultative regulation-making are not encouraging. It was found by two researchers that between June 2014 and July 2015, the RBI had sought public comments on 2.4% of its circulars while SEBI had done the same on less than half of its regulations. Even though this suggests that there are limited opportunities for stakeholders to submit their views on proposed regulation, one is optimistic that this will now change. However, the regulators must be transparent in their approaches toward consultative regulation-making. The reporting of the following information on an annual basis will strengthen accountability: the number of public consultations vis-à-vis the number of proposed regulations or amendments; responses received; suggestions that have been accepted and rejected; rationale for acceptance and rejection; the impact of public feedback on the proposed regulation or amendment, and, finally, all associated timelines. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Some of this information can be found in the agendas for SEBI's board meetings. But typically, as in SEBI's latest board meeting, the summary of public comments is 'excised for reasons of confidentiality'. In addition, the RBI and SEBI must define the intervals at which they will review their regulations. This is relevant in the context of promises toward deregulation. Once again, this is may be contrasted with the IFSCA's framework, which mandates a review every three years. Regulators should, at pre-defined and reasonably frequent intervals, assess whether current regulations are achieving their intended objectives and addressing the problems they were designed to solve. A hurdle Good regulatory practice warrants meaningful justification for regulatory intervention, and the RBI and SEBI have taken the initial steps in that direction. Notably, limited state capacity is a significant hurdle to implementing regulatory impact assessments and consultative practices. Moreover, piecemeal reforms by individual regulators may not be sufficient to ensure consistent adherence to good regulatory practice. Parliament could contemplate enactment of a law, similar to the Administrative Procedure Act in the United States, with standardised procedures for regulation-making, which includes impact analysis, public consultation and periodic review. The United Kingdom and Canada have issued guidelines for regulation-making by agencies. Such an approach would institutionalise transparency and accountability for all regulators in India. Natasha Aggarwal is a Senior Research Fellow at TrustBridge Rule of Law Foundation. The views expressed are personal
Economic Times
11 hours ago
- Economic Times
Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Capital markets regulator Sebi has issued a corrigendum to its recent interim order in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case. The market regulator clarified that a key document in its investigation was incorrectly referred to as a 'board note' in the original order but should have been described as an 'engagement note.'In its June 6, 2025, corrigendum, Sebi explained that the term 'board note' will now be read as 'engagement note (signed by the CFO and two senior executives)' in the interim order issued in late regulator had initially stated that KPMG's appointment to review the derivative issues was based on a board note. The corrigendum clarifies that it was actually based on an engagement note — a document typically signed by top company officials but not necessarily a formal board-level insider trading case revolves around allegations that these executives sold shares of IndusInd Bank while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) regarding significant derivative losses at the to Sebi's order, IndusInd Bank's internal review had identified a negative financial impact of Rs 1,572 crore — approximately 2.35% of its net worth. However, this information was not disclosed to the public until March 10, investigation revealed that Kathpalia and Khurana sold shares — 1.25 lakh and 3.48 lakh, respectively — before the public announcement. By doing so, they avoided losses estimated at nearly Rs 20 has frozen their bank and demat accounts to the extent of the gains and barred them from trading in securities until further notice.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Sebi issues correction in IndusInd Bank insider trading case
Sebi has issued a corrigendum in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case, clarifying that a key document referred to as a 'board note' in its interim order should have been called an 'engagement note.' The case involves allegations of UPSI-based share sales by top executives before disclosing Rs 1,572 crore in derivative losses, helping them avoid nearly Rs 20 crore in losses. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Capital markets regulator Sebi has issued a corrigendum to its recent interim order in the IndusInd Bank insider trading case. The market regulator clarified that a key document in its investigation was incorrectly referred to as a 'board note' in the original order but should have been described as an 'engagement note.'In its June 6, 2025, corrigendum, Sebi explained that the term 'board note' will now be read as 'engagement note (signed by the CFO and two senior executives)' in the interim order issued in late regulator had initially stated that KPMG's appointment to review the derivative issues was based on a board note. The corrigendum clarifies that it was actually based on an engagement note — a document typically signed by top company officials but not necessarily a formal board-level insider trading case revolves around allegations that these executives sold shares of IndusInd Bank while in possession of unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) regarding significant derivative losses at the to Sebi's order, IndusInd Bank's internal review had identified a negative financial impact of Rs 1,572 crore — approximately 2.35% of its net worth. However, this information was not disclosed to the public until March 10, investigation revealed that Kathpalia and Khurana sold shares — 1.25 lakh and 3.48 lakh, respectively — before the public announcement. By doing so, they avoided losses estimated at nearly Rs 20 has frozen their bank and demat accounts to the extent of the gains and barred them from trading in securities until further notice.
