Performance analysis

Considering the fundamental financial factors such as NAV, GAV, Property count and Cash holding ratio
this is what is discovered.

The NAV has recorded a negative correlation compared with the LTV, this means smaller funds on the
ones seeking higher risks and high returns. Most of the distributions have shown that funds with higher
than $ 1Bn NAV tends to fall in to core and value added boxes only. The Gross Asset Value (GAV), has
been recording a weakly positive correlation with LTV, some examples of GAV includes debt. This result
indicates a huge difference from what we have recorded in the past. In the previous years the funds
have by far recorded the largest average size compared to the others but currently the fund sizes of
three styles are closer to each other. Like in 2017, no obvious outlier was found. Another important
factor considered is the which one of the size properties is the Property Count (GAV/average lot size)
has been showing a relatively strong correlation when we compare it with LTV, which is important since
it’s important to indicate to the investors the diversification that exists among properties. The first
outlier to be considered which the Fund 42 is, has recorded about 270 different properties. It is also
observed that it has about 5% cash holding, which lowers its real LTV ratio. However, the preference is
not to move funds 42 to the value added box because it is a specialist fund which invests 100% in
healthcare properties.

Based on the analysis that was conducted in 2020, the subtype diversification has the second largest 40
influence on the rate of funds volatility. Another outlier in consideration is Fund 53, is seen to have more
than 390 properties, the most among the funds starting from 2017. This too can’t be removed from the
opportunistic box either because its LTV is too high. Cash holding percentages tends to show a relatively
strong negative correlation more so in 2018 and 2019 with LTV. No obvious outlier is found in this kind
of observation. Despite this differences among the value added funds, Funds 20 and 19 usually have
more cash than their debts. Zero net debt is thus recorded in this two funds. These two funds should
therefore be moved from the value added category to the core.

Cash holding percentage (Cash/GAV×100%) shows a relatively strong negative correlation with LTV. No
obvious outlier is found. However, among the value-added funds, Funds 20 and 19 have more cash than
their debts. So these two funds have zero Net Debt. We should consider moving these two funds from
the value-added category to the core.