depositedhar/Depositphotos.com
The setting was informal, but the subtext was clear: the rules of engagement between real estate managers and their institutional investors are being rewritten. At the recent Real Estate Investment Day in Frankfurt, organised by Targa Communications, a discussion between Rodney Bysh, CEO of Feldberg Capital, and Dr. Marian Berneburg of EZVK, the Protestant Church's €14.5 billion pension fund, offered a quietly revealing portrait of a shift in the nature of the relationship. The session, billed as "Investor & Manager in Dialogue," delivered more than platitudes—it exposed the recalibration of expectations in a post-2022 market still struggling to define its new equilibrium.
Dr. Berneburg, responsible for all alternative assets at EZVK, was clear: his remit is simple. "To earn long-term returns above our actual annual needs." But that simplicity hides complexity. What he wants from managers is not just performance, but longevity, alignment, and competence through the cycle. "We need people that help us achieve that aim by knowing what to do with the asset... and by avoiding risk, providing new opportunities. Once we find a partner like that, we try to hold that partner with us as long as possible." This is, in short, a pitch for operational stability over transactional flair.
Bysh was candid in return. Producing good risk-adjusted returns is necessary, but not sufficient. Managers also have to fund and retain talent, manage costs, and navigate an evolving capital-raising landscape. "You’ve got to earn enough to pay for the talent. And to raise capital every year—because performance often means selling assets— you’ve also got to deliver liquidity and results consistently." The implicit message: asset management is expensive. And yet, it remains undercompensated.
Here, both speakers found common ground. The late 2010s, said Berneburg, encouraged managers to chase acquisition fees and ignore the fundamentals of asset management. "Investors weren’t willing to pay for asset management anymore. It would have taken too much out of their running return. But once capital appreciation stopped doing all the work, suddenly asset management mattered again. And many managers weren’t resourced for it."
"Execution is the new alpha"
Bysh agreed, noting that today, execution at the asset level is the new alpha. "You need people on the ground, solving problems when things go wrong. Everything takes longer now. It’s harder. You can’t run lean and expect results."
EZVK, said Berneburg, is rethinking its relationship model. During the 2010s, it built a diversified book through commingled funds. "There was a perception of safety in the herd. But the past two years have shown us the limitations of that model." He pointed to cases where resolving troubled assets became harder, not easier, because of the presence of multiple LPs with divergent priorities.
As a result, EZVK is pivoting towards fewer, deeper relationships. "We’ve grown into a size where we can afford to be alone on an investment. It’s about trust, transparency, and understanding the other party’s motivations. If we have that, we don’t need 20 other investors for protection."
This reorientation is mirrored by what Bysh sees in the market: a move toward separate managed accounts and more narrowly defined mandates. "Investors are more educated now. They want to partner on a focused strategy, build a team around it, and monitor it closely. Fundraising has become more technical, and success depends on trust, not salesmanship."
Both agreed that the traditional model—outsourced AM, hard sales tactics, soft partnerships—is giving way to more mature structures. As Berneburg put it: "We don’t want to be sold to. We want to speak to the person who knows the asset and understands the investment."
Exit Strategies and the Professional Divorce
Perhaps most striking was Berneburg’s insistence on planning for the failure of a partnership as much as its success. "It helps to think ahead to when things don’t work anymore. For us, knowing how to separate cleanly gives us more confidence to commit. It’s not an inseparable marriage—we have to be ready for divergence."
Bysh acknowledged the point, adding that some managers cling to underperforming assets because they fear the consequences of selling. "But if the investor wants to redeploy that capital—say, from a shopping centre to a data centre—then the manager has to have the discipline to exit."
This was not a fiery exchange. But the quiet implications are powerful. The investor–manager relationship is becoming more adult: transparent, transactional when needed, but grounded in trust and alignment. And when it fails, both parties want a clean, efficient exit.
In a market where capital is still scarce and reputational currency matters more than ever, the Bysh–Berneburg dialogue offered a valuable reminder: in today's real estate environment, competence is critical, but trust is what endures.