back to fundamentals, page-7

Lavender,

It's a good question that you ask.

I currently hold CER (and used to hold CNP). I am currently evaluating a long position in VPG and a couple of other property trusts.

Many across the CNP/CER/VPG threads seem to be of the view that institutional investors/fund managers will not accumulate well maanged companies that have become micro-caps or penny dreadfuls purely based o nthe fact that they are no longer in the ASX200.

Being a realist (and sometimes somewhat cynical), this is mainly true.....but not always. It's true that despite the sophisticated tools and deep reseach available to larger investors, they are for the most part what I term "index huggers" with little true forsight and imagination.

I feel this is symptomatic of the fact that many institutional players are basically banks..... i.e. Colonial, BT, ING, MLC being either owned of in partnership with CBA, Westpac, ANZ and NAB respectively.

As a result most funds/managers have relatively tight mandates. BUT not always!

Some funds that have a style bias (when I say style bias I mean Growth Style, Value Style, G.A.R.P. Style etc. etc.) can tend to have a less str5ict mandate, particular "fund of fund" funds and "manager of manager" funds, where a multitude of managers could be involved within certain portfolios. Some of these managers are characterised by extremely deep research and extremely high conviction concentrated portfolios.

These are the players that take a stab at companies with sound fundamentals or a reasonable break-up value despite what the market has done to them and despite the fact that these companies are NOT in the ASX200.

In summary, companies like oversold REIT's can not afford to NOT be on the radar of institutional investors and are not necessarily beingf avoided by major players in the short, medium or long term.

Cheers.
Coppertop137