He also termed Sebi’s move to expand the scope of strategic investors for InvITs “a good step”, though the extent of demand from this segment remains to be seen, given associated restrictions.
On Sebi’s decision to classify Reits, but not InvITs, as equity instruments, Chandna said that while InvITs and Reits are broadly similar, structural differences make equity classification for InvITs more complex. Unlike Reits, which are fewer in number, uniformly focused on commercial real estate and publicly listed, InvITs, around 27 in number, are largely privately listed and span diverse sectors such as roads, warehousing, energy, telecom and optical fibre, with wide variation in size and asset profiles. “Any move to reclassify InvITs as equity instruments would therefore require a more nuanced approach and is likely to take time, if it happens at all.”