The thing that I really hate about MIG and MAPCA is that the...

The thing that I really hate about MIG and MAPCA is that the owners (us) and the mangers (MBL) have incompatable objectives. We want profit, while they want growth, since they are paid a % of the assets, the largest of many creative fees.

When MBL find a goat track in Kazakstan or an airport in Burundi they will buy it through via captive cash cows MIG or MAPCA. They'll have a rights issue to force shareholders to cough up. Is is it the shareholders interests? Who cares? MBL couldn't give a toss as long as the assets grow they make more $$$.

I'm amazed that anyone with half a brain touches these stocks. You mentioned the WSF example. This is what the economist magazine said a few weeks back:

"Australian investors, who know Mr Lowy well, love this model and finance it with enthusiasm. But American investors are sceptical. Mr Lowy wooed them once, but after a lukewarm reception he delisted his American trust last year.

Persuading America
The coolness is partly a reflection of Americans' bad experience in the 1980s investing in real-estate investment trusts (REITs) that were “externally managed”—ie, similar to the Westfield model. At that time, several of the external managers siphoned returns from the REITs, by overcharging or dumping bad properties into them. As a result, the REITs badly underperformed. Ever since, Americans have stuck to property funds in which ownership and management are under one roof, apparently believing that this is the only way to avoid conflicts of interest."

The bad hangover investors got from the US REITs will also afflict shareholders of MIG & MAPCA.