Key Takeaways
- • Great-West Life suspended redemptions on its Real Estate Fund in December 2008 and is now considering partial redemption options 18 months later, contingent on aggregate investor demand and available liquidity.
- • The fund holds 155 properties valued at $3.37 billion (gross market value as of March 31, 2010) with only $425 million in cash available at quarter-end, creating a potential shortfall if redemption requests exceed available liquidity.
- • Commercial real estate market deterioration—evidenced by rising vacancy rates and declining rental rates—has eroded property values since the financial crisis, rendering the fund's assets difficult to liquidate at acceptable prices.
- • Great-West may implement pro-rata redemption caps, allowing each investor to withdraw only a percentage of their holdings rather than full amounts, to avoid insolvency and preserve fund integrity.
- • The situation underscores structural incompatibility between illiquid real estate assets and liquid fund vehicles (mutual funds and segregated funds), a flaw that keeps such funds rare in Canada.
Summary
Great-West Life is moving toward reopening redemptions on its frozen commercial real estate fund, nearly 18 months after suspending investor withdrawals at the height of the 2008-2009 financial crisis. However, investors should not expect straightforward access to their capital. The fund's structure—holding primarily illiquid real estate assets—means redemption terms will likely include pro-rata restrictions tied to aggregate investor demand and available cash.
The Great-West Life Real Estate Fund manages a substantial portfolio: 155 properties with a gross stated market value of $3.37 billion as of March 31, 2010. Despite aggressive selling efforts since the December 2008 freeze, the fund held only $425 million in cash at quarter-end. This liquidity constraint creates a binding constraint on redemption policy. If investor redemption requests exceed available cash, the fund faces two unpalatable options: either refuse redemptions entirely (risking further investor harm and reputational damage) or implement partial redemption haircuts, allowing each investor to withdraw only a percentage of their holdings. This hybrid approach protects the fund from insolvency while distributing losses across the investor base.
The underlying problem reflects broader weakening in Canadian commercial real estate markets. Vacancy rates have risen and rental rates have compressed since the crisis, leaving office towers and retail complexes worth materially less than pre-crisis valuations. This illiquidity trap—where assets decline in value precisely when forced sales become necessary—is a fundamental structural weakness. As Dan Hallett, a fund analyst at Highview Financial Group, noted, "It's amazing these type of funds still exist because the structures don't make any sense. When things turn quickly in the economy and people want quick access to their money, you clearly run into problems."
The episode illustrates why real estate funds remain rare in Canada. Applying mutual fund and segregated fund structures—designed for relatively liquid securities—to inherently illiquid real estate creates misaligned incentives and operational fragility. Investors seeking exposure to real estate typically receive more transparent liquidity terms through alternative vehicles, while fund sponsors avoid the reputational and legal costs of extended freezes and partial redemptions.
The Great-West Life Real Estate Fund manages a substantial portfolio: 155 properties with a gross stated market value of $3.37 billion as of March 31, 2010. Despite aggressive selling efforts since the December 2008 freeze, the fund held only $425 million in cash at quarter-end. This liquidity constraint creates a binding constraint on redemption policy. If investor redemption requests exceed available cash, the fund faces two unpalatable options: either refuse redemptions entirely (risking further investor harm and reputational damage) or implement partial redemption haircuts, allowing each investor to withdraw only a percentage of their holdings. This hybrid approach protects the fund from insolvency while distributing losses across the investor base.
The underlying problem reflects broader weakening in Canadian commercial real estate markets. Vacancy rates have risen and rental rates have compressed since the crisis, leaving office towers and retail complexes worth materially less than pre-crisis valuations. This illiquidity trap—where assets decline in value precisely when forced sales become necessary—is a fundamental structural weakness. As Dan Hallett, a fund analyst at Highview Financial Group, noted, "It's amazing these type of funds still exist because the structures don't make any sense. When things turn quickly in the economy and people want quick access to their money, you clearly run into problems."
The episode illustrates why real estate funds remain rare in Canada. Applying mutual fund and segregated fund structures—designed for relatively liquid securities—to inherently illiquid real estate creates misaligned incentives and operational fragility. Investors seeking exposure to real estate typically receive more transparent liquidity terms through alternative vehicles, while fund sponsors avoid the reputational and legal costs of extended freezes and partial redemptions.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.