Two of the most common ways to invest in real estate are through REITs or private real estate. While both have similarities, there are some key differences in terms of structure, liquidity, access, risk, and return. 

REITs are similar to mutual funds in how they are traded and valued. However, they must derive 75% of their income from real estate investments and distribute 90% of taxable income to shareholders. There are a variety of REITs that encompass the whole industry such as retail, commercial real estate, senior housing, multifamily, office, etc. 

Unlike private real estate, there is no end date, and they can operate in perpetuity. Private real estate differs from REITs in that they tend to be pooled investment vehicles that give investors fractional ownership. 

While REITs must abide by strict tax laws, there is no similar requirement for private real estate. Another difference is that private real estate tends to not offer income. Instead, their goal is to pool capital to acquire and develop a property, hold it for seven to ten years, sell it at a profit, and return proceeds to investors with the operators taking a cut. 

Finsum: There are many ways to invest in real estate. Two of the most common are REITs and private real estate. Here are some key differences between both options. 

In an article for Vettafi’s ETFDataBase, James Comtois reviews how direct indexing can solve complex financial problems for clients. The strategy is quite powerful as it blends the best parts of index investing with active management, however it’s only appropriate for a small group of investors.

One is high net-worth investors who are looking to reduce their tax bill. This is because direct indexing can be used to harvest tax losses with regular rebalancing. It also allows investors to capitalize on volatile markets. Frequent rebalancing is estimated to add between 20 and 100 basis points of alpha.

Another benefit is for clients with strong preferences. For instance, some investors may feel strongly about not investing in ‘vice’ stocks, so these stocks can be eliminated, while stocks with similar factors scores can be added. This is because with direct indexing, investors actually own the individual holdings rather than buying an ETF or a mutual fund.

Similarly, direct indexing can allow for diversification that goes beyond the index. For example, someone with a business in the tech industry may want to diversify their investments and holdings away from technology stocks. This level of customization is not possible with traditional index investing. 

Finsum: Direct indexing is quite powerful and growing in popularity. But, it’s only appropriate for a select group of investors with specific needs and goals. 

On Twitter, Tesla CEO Elon Musk made critical comments as he shared an article which showed that tobacco companies like Philip Morris had higher ESG scores than the electric vehicle pioneer. Tesla was given an ESG score of 37 out of 100, while Philip Morris was scored an 84.

This isn’t the first time that Musk has spoken out against ESG. In addition to tobacco companies, Tesla also scored lower than fossil fuel companies like Shell and Exxon. Given the growth in ESG funds and influence of asset managers like Blackrock, stocks with higher ESG scores are the recipient of increased inflows.

However, this has also led to opposition as many see ESG rating as faulty and politically motivated. Additionally, companies are accused of ‘greenwashing’ or other behavior to game the ratings system to artificially boost ESG scores. 

For many, this is an indication that ESG investing is misguided as tobacco causes millions of deaths around the globe every year, and companies with a record of contributing to climate change are given better scores than Tesla which is leading the charge in making EVs more popular and cheaper.   

ESG proponents counter that Tesla scores well on environmental factors but falls short in terms of social and governance factors, leading to a poor overall score. 

Finsum: Elon Musk made critical comments about ESG investing following reports of tobacco companies and oil companies with higher ESG scores than Tesla.

In the Financial Times, David Thorpe covered comments from John Roe, the head of multi-asset investing at Legal and General Investment Management, about why investors need to move past the 60/40 portfolio. Until recently, the 60/40 model portfolio was considered the gold standard based on the notion that stocks and bonds are inversely correlated.

According to Roe, this concept doesn’t work in higher-rate and higher inflation environments like the 70s. He added that "The idea is that if a real recession happens, then equities fall in value but bonds rise in value because the expectation is that inflation would be falling. But the reality is that in the 70s and the 80s, when we had a recession but inflation was also quite high, that inverse correlation didn’t always happen.”

He advises investors to also have a healthy allocation to more asset classes including real estate, alternatives, and emerging markets. These investments would outperform if inflation proves to be entrenched. As 2022 demonstrated, both stocks and bonds are liable to underperform when inflation surprises to the upside. 

Finsum: The 60/40 portfolio has been considered the gold standard for investors. However, this is being reconsidered especially as it has shown to underperform in periods of higher inflation.

Last week, the International Energy Agency declared that the world will reach peak oil demand by the end of the decade. It attributes this to an increasing share of energy produced by renewables, the explosion in EV adoption, and continued increases in efficiency. 

Due to these factors, it sees growth in oil demand growing marginally over the next few years before peaking in 2030. This year, the agency sees $2.8 trillion invested in the energy sector with $1.7 trillion going into non-fossil fuel sources like nuclear energy, renewables, and EVs. 

Out of this group, solar is the leader with nearly $700 billion in investments which is nearly equivalent to all of the capital spending on oil. In total, fossil fuel investments which include coal, oil, and natural gas are expected to total $1 trillion. 

In terms of EVs, the agency forecasts that 14 million will be sold this year. It also sees continued adoption with electric buses and trucks gaining market share. 

Overall, the IEA believes that investors and fossil fuel companies need to make appropriate adjustments to account for these shifts in behavior and consumption. 

Finsum: The IEA recently declared that oil demand will peak in 2030 due to increasing EV adoption, growth in renewables, and increasing efficiencies.