Valuations Vs Asset Management

Valuations 100% will make you more competent from an underwriting standpoint. 

I'd go valuations. It would make an easier sell on why you want to get to the acquisitions side later. Just say you have sharp modeling skills but wanted to get closer to the deal. Do well for a year and then spend your entire second year trying to get a great job. Don't leave until you have THE job at THE firm you want.

As someone who worked for a similar pension fund would go the opposite way and say AM is a better start. However not really sure how much of a drop off the lesser pension is. Would consider AM still an investing seat and you would get reps underwriting the existing portfolio. Was never really impressed by the valuations teams when working with them. 

From my understanding asset management is more “front office” and have seen people leverage those to acquisitions positions. I’ve seen more movement between asset management and investments than with valuations and investments. Could be wrong but isn’t valuations more about the internal portfolio / more of an accounting type function?

Asset Management

In AM you should be doing quarterly valuations anyway so you should be essentially doing that entire function. I’d say go AM for a broader experience

Asset management, because acquisitions is more than just underwriting. AM gives you a better intuitive understanding of principles of RE investing, especially as it relates to the creation of business plans which is where your chops as an acq guy comes from. Valuations, like someone said, will make you good at underwriting. It will give you the science to acq, but you get the art of it from a position like AM. And the art is harder to learn than the science.

Lets clear this up on this forum. One of the AM team’s responsibilities, assuming you’re at an institutional firm, is quarterly valuations. Both performing the valuations itself internally and reviewing/disputing with external valuations. There’s also a bunch of other things AM is responsible for, commercial leasing/underwriting/disposition etc that varies firm by firm. 
 

So take that for what’s it’s worth and make your own decision. Most folks on here have minimal understanding on what AM even means at large institutional shop, based on their comments. Just my 2 cents. 

Similar to what's already been said.  Asset Management includes valuation of the assets including interacting with outside brokers who are even closer to the strike prices.  

In your case, I’d choose the valuations role. Valuations at a top pension fund (having exposure to all different asset types/strategies and building modeling skills) vs. AM at a less prestigious pension fund (working on only one asset class, and I assume the Pension fund AM work is more financial reporting related vs AM at PE).

Depends entirely on the two pension funds - AM at a pension fund that acts as a GP or is a very hands on direct investor (CPPIB, OTPP/CF, Oxford, Ivanhoe) would by FAR be the better choice if you want to move to acquisitions eventually as its actually hands on real estate experience.

AM at a pension fund that is exclusively LP money and does no management of the properties themselves is literally just a reporting job (frankly half these pensions' investments teams are mostly a reporting job as well if they don't have dedicated AM and the investments guys do both). There's so much reporting red tape that half to 3/4 of your job at those shops ends up being just gathering information from partners, putting together board reports, reviewing financials against budget, and asking your GPs exceedingly stupid questions that just annoy us and add no value.

I'll caveat that some LP-only shops don't do the last part and actually remain hands off.