UTF Vs. ASGI: Why A 6% Discount And Rate Cut Cycle Make UTF The Obvious Choice

Why It Matters

The pricing gap and expected rate‑cut cycle could boost UTF's total return, reshaping allocations within the closed‑end fund and utility investment landscape.

Key Takeaways

• UTF trades 6% discount to NAV.
• ASGI trades 7% premium to NAV.
• UTF leverage benefits from falling rates.
• Utility assets provide defensive cash flow.
• High leverage raises solvency risk.

Pulse Analysis

Closed‑end funds (CEFs) often trade at discounts or premiums to their net asset value, creating arbitrage opportunities for savvy investors. A discount, like UTF's 6 % gap, signals that the market may be undervaluing the fund's underlying utility assets, while a premium, as seen with ASGI, suggests over‑optimism or limited supply. Understanding these pricing dynamics is crucial for portfolio managers who seek income‑oriented vehicles, because the discount can enhance yield and provide upside if the NAV converges.

Leverage magnifies both returns and risks, and UTF's 29.7 % borrowing level makes it especially sensitive to interest‑rate movements. As central banks ease policy, the cost of debt declines, directly improving UTF's net distribution and price performance. Conversely, a pause in rate cuts would blunt this advantage, leaving the fund reliant on its defensive cash flows. Investors therefore watch the Fed's policy trajectory closely, as each basis‑point shift can materially affect UTF's forward yield relative to peers.

Regulatory and sector‑specific risks remain a counterbalance to the upside narrative. Utilities face tariff caps, environmental mandates, and potential liquidity constraints in their asset base, which could strain UTF during market stress despite its discount. ASGI's modern infrastructure focus introduces exposure to technology cycles and capital‑intensive projects that may not benefit equally from lower rates. Ultimately, the decision hinges on whether investors prioritize immediate yield enhancement from a discounted, leveraged utility fund or accept a premium for growth‑oriented infrastructure exposure.

UTF Vs. ASGI: Why A 6% Discount And Rate Cut Cycle Make UTF The Obvious Choice

Feb. 14, 2026 2:05 AM ET · By Dmytro Lebid

Summary

• Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund receives a ‘Buy’ rating, while abrdn Global Infrastructure Income Fund is rated ‘Hold’ due to valuation.

• UTF’s 6 % discount to NAV, leveraged structure, and focus on traditional utilities offer an attractive entry amid expected rate cuts.

• ASGI’s portfolio is concentrated in modern infrastructure and trades at a record premium to NAV, making it less attractive for new purchases.

• UTF’s stable cash flows, defensive holdings, and potential benefit from falling rates outweigh risks from leverage and regulatory intervention.

---

Investment thesis

In this article I compare two popular closed‑end funds (CEFs) that invest in utilities: Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Fund Inc. (UTF) and abrdn Global Infrastructure Income Fund (ASGI).

Both funds aim to provide income and capital appreciation through investments in utility and infrastructure assets, but they differ markedly in pricing, portfolio composition, and leverage.

---

Quick Insights

• Why is UTF preferred over ASGI for new investments?

  UTF trades at a 6 % discount to NAV and stands to benefit from cheaper leverage as rates fall, while ASGI trades at a 7 % premium and appears overbought.

• How do interest‑rate movements impact UTF’s forward returns?

  UTF’s 29.71 % leverage means falling rates should reduce borrowing costs, enhancing returns, but a Fed pause could limit this benefit.

• What are the key risks to UTF’s investment thesis?

  UTF faces risks from high leverage, potential regulatory limits on utility tariffs, and illiquid holdings that could impact solvency during market stress.

---

Analyst’s Disclosure

I have a beneficial long position in the shares of UTF either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure

Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third‑party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.