A popular asset class until last year, infrastructure has fallen out of favour quite spectacularly as interest rates rise and investors worry about the impact on net asset values (NAV). While it might be some time before a rally arrives, funds in this sector still have much to recommend them for the long term, including high yields, good levels of inflation linkage and government-backed revenues.

Sector giants International Public Partnerships (INPP) and HICL Infrastructure (HICL) have hardly ever been this cheap, but choosing between them isn’t a simple task. As the chart below shows, over the past five years their performances have been similar, although HICL Infrastructure did better at times during 2022.

The two trusts have many features in common, so you need to look below the surface to gauge which of them might be more suitable for your investment approach.

Two evolving portfolios

Both trusts invest in core infrastructure, which HICL defines as “essential infrastructure assets that deliver resilient cash flows from a protected market position” and “sit at the lower end of the risk spectrum”. And both have exposure to private public partnerships (PPP), through which revenues come from the public sector so are less exposed to economic fluctuations.

But like most infrastructure trusts, over the past few years, both portfolios have evolved, reducing their exposure to PPP and ‘social’ infrastructure assets, for example in the health and education sectors, in favour of more economically sensitive projects, such as those in the utilities sector.

Despite their names, HICL is more exposed to PPPs than International Public Partnerships, which has significant investments in regulated assets instead. Regulated assets’ revenues are pre-determined for a given period via sporadic regulatory settlements.

IPP’s key assets in this area are Cadent, the UK’s largest gas distribution network, and Tideway, which is in charge of building and maintaining the new 25km London ‘super-sewer’ under the Thames. The trust recently published an update to reassure investors that the financial difficulties experienced by Thames Water are not impacting Tideway, which is a separate company and has arrangements in place to protect its revenues in such circumstances.

The past few years HICL has shifted towards a higher exposure to demand-based assets, particularly in the transport sector. For example, traffic levels have an impact on the revenues of the trust’s second-largest investment, the A63 motorway in France.  

HICL’s shift away from PPP, health and education is because no new PPP projects are being commissioned in the UK and the price of secondary transactions is rising, detracting from returns. Earlier this year, Stifel analysts argued that moving towards economic assets offers benefits including higher potential for returns and longer portfolio lives. But it also slightly changes the trusts’ risk profiles, leaving them more exposed to economic conditions and regulatory changes. “Given the weaker economic outlook, this is a bit of a concern,” they noted.

As well as having fewer PPP projects, International Public Partnerships has greater exposure to construction projects – 14 per cent of its portfolio compared with 3 per cent of HICL’s. Both trusts are UK-focused, although HICL is slightly more internationally diversified with a 64 per cent exposure to the UK against International Public Partnerships’ 76 per cent.

Mick Gilligan, head of managed portfolio services at Killik, adds: “[Many infrastructure investors will] prefer assets that have low levels of economic sensitivity and execution risk, and high levels of inflation linkage. In effect, closer to an inflation-linked bond than to an equity. On this basis, HICL is more attractive than International Public Partnerships.”

Discount rates under pressure

While the composition of its portfolio means International Public Partnerships is arguably slightly riskier than HICL, there are other considerations including the discount rate they use – International Public Partnerships’ is 7.5 per cent, on average, while HICL’s is 7.2 per cent.

Because of the long lives of their assets, both trusts are heavily impacted by an increase in their discount rates. According to their last financial statements, a percentage point increase in discount rate was expected to result in 11.6 and 8.9 per cent NAV decreases for HICL and IPP, respectively.

This helps to explain why these trusts react so negatively to higher interest rates, with their share prices showing high levels of correlation with gilt yields (‘Why it’s hard to find funds that benefit from higher rates’, IC, 23 June 2023). Higher rates put pressure on the risk premium offered by these funds, and International Public Partnerships has a bit of extra breathing room. In its latest portfolio update at the end of May, the trust acknowledged the increase in government bond yields since the publication of its December 2022 NAV, although it added that “historically discount rates have not moved in lockstep with government bond yields”. 

Both HICL and IPP might yet have to increase their discount rates further this year, after increasing them by 60 basis points (bps) and 54bps, respectively, over the course of last year.

But this might not be as bad as the discounts in the sector would imply. At the end of June, Stifel analysts estimated that the market was pricing in discount rates of 8.8 per cent for HICL and 9.5 per cent for International Public Partnerships, which they deemed “relatively high”.

The negative effect of discount rates is partly compensated for by inflation-linked revenues. HICL boasts an inflation correlation of 0.8, meaning that every percentage point increase in inflation is expected to result in a 0.8 per cent increase in its cash flow. International Public Partnerships has an inflation correlation of 0.7.  

To gauge which of the two trusts looks more attractive at any given time, Gilligan uses a model that adjusts the discount rate to take into account factors such as any leverage or cash at the holding company level, fees and the premium or discount. The model calculates the “steady state return” or the rate of return that investors should receive based on the current share price. As at 4 July, this was 7.9 per cent for HICL and 8.4 per cent for International Public Partnerships.

“We like the relatively low-risk nature of both trusts and hold both in portfolios,” says Gilligan. “We tend to have a higher weighting in whichever [one] is showing a higher steady state return, which is currently International Public Partnerships.”

‘Disappointing‘ dividend growth

HICL had a slightly wider discount and higher yield than International Public Partnerships. As of 7 July, but despite its high levels of inflation-linkage, the trust doesn’t plan to increase its dividend target in respect of its financial years to March 2024 and 2025, meaning that the real value of its shareholders’ investment income will decrease significantly. After years of steady dividend growth, HICL has held its dividend at 8.25p a share since its financial year to March 2020.

The trust’s board says that this is to future-proof the portfolio as the trust gradually moves to assets other than PPP that offer better growth prospects but tend to provide lower yields at first. The trust’s biggest asset, Affinity Water, which accounts for about 7 per cent of its portfolio, is not currently paying dividends to shareholders and is unlikely to do so until 2025. But HICL hopes to resume dividend growth in future.

International Public Partnerships targets annual dividend growth of 2.5 per cent, which is more promising, although still well below the current inflation rate.

Jefferies analysts say that the dividend plans of both funds are disappointing. By estimating future dividend cover based on cash flow projections, they believe that whether HICL will be able to resume dividend growth “is largely contingent on inflation outperformance”, while International Public Partnerships “could consider a higher run-rate of dividend growth”.

Yet both trusts could be good additions to a portfolio and their current discounts to NAV look like a solid opportunity to get them on the cheap. They provide a degree of inflation protection and a solid level of income at low risk. Which one you choose partly depends on your investment preferences – HICL looks a bit more like a bond proxy while International Public Partnerships has slightly more potential for growth.