Personal-managed portfolios have always offered more control than a default industry fund — but in 2026, that control is increasingly being pointed at one asset class in particular: direct property.

The appeal isn’t hard to understand. With residential and commercial rents continuing to outpace inflation across most Australian capital cities, PMP trustees are looking for income streams that don’t move in lockstep with equity markets. Direct property inside a PMP offers exactly that — rental income taxed concessionally within the fund, and the potential for capital growth over the same long horizon most people are already planning their retirement around.

The trend we’re seeing most often at Noralle isn’t trustees buying a single investment property outright. It’s personal-managed portfolios taking fractional or partnership positions in larger commercial and mixed-use developments — the kind of deal that used to be reserved for institutional capital.

Pooling structures have made it possible for a PMP with a moderate balance to hold a genuine stake in a project like a Melbourne mixed-use tower or a Brisbane waterfront precinct, rather than being limited to a single suburban rental.

That said, direct property in a PMP isn’t a decision to make casually. Liquidity is the main trade-off — property can’t be partially sold the way shares can if the fund needs to release capital for a pension payment. Gearing rules inside super are also stricter than they are outside it, and getting the structure wrong can create compliance headaches that outweigh the benefit.

If you’re considering direct property inside your PMP, the conversation worth having isn’t “should I buy property” — it’s “does this fit the liquidity profile my fund will need in five, ten, and twenty years.” That’s the question our advisers work through with every PMP client before any capital moves.