You have to recognise the material impact that gearing has. I'd hazard a guess that ~70 - 80% of the return differential between AMP and most of the others is leveraged vs unlevered positions. AMP only have small amounts of leverage on for comparatively short periods of time (generally as a way to secure an asset then reduce debt quickly from equity inflows), whereas the other funds all have higher core leverage as a permanent position.
Here is the unlevered market returns from commercial real estate over time. Once you start delivering returns materially above these levels, one of two things is happening. Genuine alpha, or leverage. Genuine alpha tends to be intermittent. But huge cyclical returns can be made from being on the right side of leverage in a bull market. Sentinel is a prime example.
Charter Hall has done well in the office funds because core office market (Syd/Melb) have killed in on undersupply. Industrial has been taking advantage of the transition to e'tailers and upswing of interest in 'last mile logistics' as well as industrial as a yield play. These assets are in high demand, so have made a lot of paper profits.
Ultimately, Charter Hall and AMP are both high quality operators with the material scale of operations and hands on management. They are high on my preferred list of operators. I don't use them personally, but only because all my unlisted commercial real estate exposure is offshore and I am currently wary of where the Australian cycle is at. Mid 2009 was the peak point at which people should have been buying, and it is what I was recommending to my clients at the time. But as the cycle has matured, I have been recommending property less and less, with increasing bias to quality, lower risk offerings.
