Key Takeaways
- • REITs delivered 9.72% average annual net total returns from 1998–2023, outperforming total private real estate by 172 basis points (8.00% return), according to CEM Benchmarking's 2026 study sponsored by Nareit covering nearly $4 trillion in pension assets.
- • Internally managed direct real estate funds posted the highest returns at 10.08% annually, slightly edging REITs, but this strategy requires significant human capital and is typically accessible only to larger pension funds.
- • Fund of funds structures, commonly used by smaller pension funds due to their double layer of fees, underperformed significantly at 5.94% average annual returns—the lowest among all real estate investment styles analyzed.
- • Value-add/opportunistic and core private real estate strategies posted 8% average annual net total returns, underperforming REITs by nearly 2 percentage points despite their higher risk profiles, representing a disappointing performance spread relative to their additional complexity and risk.
- • The 26-year analysis (1998–2023) examined real estate investment styles across public and private sector pension plans, revealing that publicly traded REITs have consistently delivered superior risk-adjusted performance compared to illiquid alternatives for institutional investors.
Summary
CEM Benchmarking's 2026 study, sponsored by Nareit, provides comprehensive performance data across real estate asset classes over a 26-year period from 1998 to 2023, drawing on a dataset covering public and private sector pension funds with nearly $4 trillion in combined assets under management. The research delivers critical insights for institutional investors evaluating real estate allocation strategies within pension portfolios.
The headline finding demonstrates REIT outperformance across the broader real estate landscape. REITs posted average annual net total returns of 9.72% compared to 8.00% for total private real estate, representing a 172 basis point performance advantage. This spread reflects consistent execution and liquidity benefits of public market vehicles over the extended measurement period. The study analyzed both as-reported and adjusted total returns—with adjustments made for reporting lags inherent to illiquid asset classes—and found minimal variance between the two methodologies.
Within the private real estate universe, performance differentiation across investment styles was marked. Internally managed direct funds generated the highest returns at 10.08% annually, slightly exceeding REITs. However, this strategy's capital intensity and human resource requirements limit implementation to larger pension funds with sufficient AUM and operational infrastructure. Conversely, fund of funds structures—commonly employed by smaller institutional investors—delivered only 5.94% average annual returns, the weakest performance among all styles examined. The double layer of fees embedded in fund of funds vehicles significantly eroded net returns for allocators lacking scale.
Value-add and opportunistic private real estate strategies returned 8% annually, underperforming REITs by approximately 200 basis points despite their characterization as higher-risk, higher-return vehicles. This performance spread raises material questions regarding whether the added complexity and illiquidity of private real estate structures are compensated by returns commensurate with their risk profile. Core private real estate strategies delivered similar 8% returns, indicating limited performance differentiation between core and value-add approaches in realized pension fund outcomes.
The CEM study provides institutional investors with empirical evidence spanning over two decades, suggesting that listed REIT exposure delivers competitive or superior returns relative to direct and fund-based private real estate strategies when adjusted for fees, liquidity, and operational complexity. For pension funds evaluating real estate allocation strategies, the data supports a reassessment of the historical bias toward private vehicles and the hidden costs of illiquidity and layered management fees.
The headline finding demonstrates REIT outperformance across the broader real estate landscape. REITs posted average annual net total returns of 9.72% compared to 8.00% for total private real estate, representing a 172 basis point performance advantage. This spread reflects consistent execution and liquidity benefits of public market vehicles over the extended measurement period. The study analyzed both as-reported and adjusted total returns—with adjustments made for reporting lags inherent to illiquid asset classes—and found minimal variance between the two methodologies.
Within the private real estate universe, performance differentiation across investment styles was marked. Internally managed direct funds generated the highest returns at 10.08% annually, slightly exceeding REITs. However, this strategy's capital intensity and human resource requirements limit implementation to larger pension funds with sufficient AUM and operational infrastructure. Conversely, fund of funds structures—commonly employed by smaller institutional investors—delivered only 5.94% average annual returns, the weakest performance among all styles examined. The double layer of fees embedded in fund of funds vehicles significantly eroded net returns for allocators lacking scale.
Value-add and opportunistic private real estate strategies returned 8% annually, underperforming REITs by approximately 200 basis points despite their characterization as higher-risk, higher-return vehicles. This performance spread raises material questions regarding whether the added complexity and illiquidity of private real estate structures are compensated by returns commensurate with their risk profile. Core private real estate strategies delivered similar 8% returns, indicating limited performance differentiation between core and value-add approaches in realized pension fund outcomes.
The CEM study provides institutional investors with empirical evidence spanning over two decades, suggesting that listed REIT exposure delivers competitive or superior returns relative to direct and fund-based private real estate strategies when adjusted for fees, liquidity, and operational complexity. For pension funds evaluating real estate allocation strategies, the data supports a reassessment of the historical bias toward private vehicles and the hidden costs of illiquidity and layered management fees.
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.