VOL. XCIV, NO. 247

★ WIDE MOAT STOCKS & COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES ★

PRICE: 0 CENTS

Wednesday, January 7, 2026

Brookfield Corporation

BN · New York Stock Exchange

Market cap (USD)$109.6B
SectorFinancials
IndustryAsset Management
CountryCA
Data as of
Moat score
65/ 100

Weighted average of segment moat scores, combining moat strength, durability, confidence, market structure, pricing power, and market share.

Request update

Spot something outdated? Send a quick note and source so we can refresh this profile.

Overview

Brookfield Corporation is a global investment firm organized around Asset Management, Wealth Solutions (insurance/retirement), and operating businesses spanning renewable power, infrastructure, private equity, and real estate. Its core moat is a scale-and-ecosystem model: a large, predominantly long-dated/perpetual fee-bearing capital base and a broad operating footprint that supports sourcing and execution. Many operating assets are long-lived real assets with regulated or long-term contracted (often inflation-linked) cash flows. Wealth Solutions adds a long-duration insurance capital base that Brookfield aims to invest using its broader real-asset capabilities; key risks are fee pressure/fundraising cyclicality, regulation, and asset valuation sensitivity to rates and demand.

Primary segment

Asset Management

Market structure

Oligopoly

Market share

HHI:

Coverage

6 segments · 8 tags

Updated 2026-01-05

Segments

Asset Management

Alternative asset management (private markets: infrastructure, renewables, private equity, real estate, credit)

Revenue

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

BXKKRAPOARES+2

Wealth Solutions (Insurance)

Insurance and retirement solutions (annuities, pension risk transfer, property & casualty, life)

Revenue

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

weak

Share

Peers

APOKKRPRUMET+1

Renewable Power and Transition

Renewable power generation and energy transition assets (hydro, wind, utility-scale solar, distributed energy)

Revenue

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

NEEENEL.MIORSTED.COEDPR.LS

Infrastructure

Core infrastructure ownership and operations (utilities, transport, midstream, data infrastructure)

Revenue

Structure

Oligopoly

Pricing

strong

Share

Peers

AMTCCIENBTRP+2

Private Equity (Operating Businesses)

Control private equity / operating businesses (business services and industrials)

Revenue

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

BXKKRAPOCG+1

Real Estate

Commercial real estate ownership, operations, and development (office, retail, hotels, residential)

Revenue

Structure

Competitive

Pricing

moderate

Share

Peers

BXPLDSPGVNO+1

Moat Claims

Asset Management

Alternative asset management (private markets: infrastructure, renewables, private equity, real estate, credit)

Oligopoly

Long Term Contracts

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Management fee streams are largely contractual: long-term private fund commitments are typically ~10 years, and the fee-bearing capital base is predominantly long-dated/perpetual, improving revenue predictability.

Erosion risks

  • Fee compression from LP bargaining power
  • Fundraising drawdowns in risk-off cycles
  • Regulatory/LP scrutiny on fees and conflicts

Leading indicators

  • Fee-bearing capital growth
  • Net fundraising (subscriptions minus redemptions)
  • Fee-related earnings trend

Counterarguments

  • Large peers offer similar products and global coverage; differentiation can narrow
  • Fee streams are resilient but still depend on fundraising and performance over time

Ecosystem Complements

Network

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Brookfield combines a large investment team with a large global operating footprint, supporting sourcing, underwriting and post-acquisition value creation (proprietary deal flow + operating expertise).

Erosion risks

  • Key-person risk in investment teams
  • Conflicts of interest perception between GP/LP and principal capital
  • Integration complexity across many strategies

Leading indicators

  • Share of investments sourced off-market
  • Fund performance vs benchmarks/peer quartiles
  • Retention of senior investment professionals

Counterarguments

  • Other mega-managers also operate multi-strategy platforms; sourcing advantages may not be durable
  • Scaling can add bureaucracy that offsets claimed synergies

Brand Trust

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Scale and longstanding track record support institutional trust (critical in alternatives where mandates are won through multi-year diligence and performance history).

Erosion risks

  • Underperformance in flagship strategies
  • Reputational damage from fund losses or governance issues
  • Competition for talent impacting results

Leading indicators

  • Flagship fund fundraising velocity
  • Client retention and re-ups
  • Consultant/LP due diligence outcomes

Counterarguments

  • Brand helps, but allocator decisions are performance-driven and can shift quickly
  • AUM scale can be a disadvantage if returns dilute

Wealth Solutions (Insurance)

Insurance and retirement solutions (annuities, pension risk transfer, property & casualty, life)

Competitive

Float Prepayment

Financial

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Insurance liabilities provide a long-duration capital base that can be invested; value creation depends on disciplined asset-liability management and investment returns relative to liability costs.

Erosion risks

  • Credit losses and downgrade cycles
  • Regulatory capital requirement changes
  • Interest-rate volatility affecting spreads and policyholder behavior

Leading indicators

  • Insurance assets growth
  • Investment portfolio credit quality and defaults
  • Rating agency outlook/actions

Counterarguments

  • Insurance is structurally competitive; float alone is not a moat without superior underwriting/investing
  • Higher-yield strategies can increase risk (liquidity/credit)

Cost Of Capital Advantage

Financial

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Brookfield positions the insurance portfolio to access real-asset and private investment opportunities, aiming to enhance risk-adjusted returns versus more traditional insurer portfolios.

Erosion risks

  • Competition for alternative assets compressing yields
  • Asset-liability mismatch and liquidity constraints
  • Regulatory limits on asset classes/allocations

Leading indicators

  • Portfolio yield vs liability crediting rates
  • Liquidity metrics and stress tests
  • Allocation to private/real assets and realized losses

Counterarguments

  • Apollo/Athene and KKR/Global Atlantic pursue similar playbooks; advantage may be transient
  • Incremental yield can come with tail risk that shows up in stress periods

Renewable Power and Transition

Renewable power generation and energy transition assets (hydro, wind, utility-scale solar, distributed energy)

Competitive

Long Term Contracts

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Cash flows are supported by contracted generation and long-dated contracts with inflation escalation, reducing exposure to spot power price volatility.

Erosion risks

  • Contract renegotiation/policy risk in some jurisdictions
  • Merchant exposure increasing as contracts roll off
  • Counterparty credit risk in PPAs

Leading indicators

  • Weighted-average remaining contract life
  • Share of generation contracted vs merchant
  • Realized pricing vs inflation and spot markets

Counterarguments

  • Contracted cash flows help stability but do not guarantee superior returns if acquisition multiples rise
  • Large utilities and IPPs also secure long-term PPAs at scale

Capex Knowhow Scale

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Operating and development scale across hydro, wind, and solar supports execution (construction, O&M, procurement) and pipeline advantage versus smaller players.

Erosion risks

  • Technology and supply-chain shifts (module/turbine pricing)
  • Project execution risk and permitting delays
  • Climate variability (hydrology/wind)

Leading indicators

  • MW commissioned / under construction
  • Project-level IRRs vs targets
  • Availability/capacity factor trends

Counterarguments

  • Scale is shared with other global renewable majors; competitive advantage may come down to project-level discipline
  • Rapid technology change can erode incumbency advantages

Infrastructure

Core infrastructure ownership and operations (utilities, transport, midstream, data infrastructure)

Oligopoly

Permits Rights Of Way

Legal

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Many infrastructure assets require hard-to-replicate rights-of-way and operate under regulated or concession regimes, limiting new entrants and supporting stable returns.

Erosion risks

  • Adverse regulatory decisions or political intervention
  • Concession renegotiations
  • Technological substitution in specific sub-sectors

Leading indicators

  • Regulatory rate case outcomes
  • Concession renewal terms
  • Political risk indicators in key jurisdictions

Counterarguments

  • Some infrastructure cash flows are volume-sensitive and exposed to demand downturns
  • Acquisition competition can compress returns even for 'moat' assets

Physical Network Density

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Large physical networks (pipelines, towers, fiber, rail, terminals) create high replacement cost and operational advantages, especially in local/regional markets.

Erosion risks

  • New technologies (e.g., satellite) reducing demand for certain networks
  • Overbuild in fiber/data centers in some markets
  • Rising maintenance capex

Leading indicators

  • Network utilization/tenancy
  • New build vs churn in customers
  • Maintenance capex as % of revenue

Counterarguments

  • Some sub-sectors (data centers/fiber) can see periods of overbuild that reduce pricing
  • Network effects vary widely by asset type and geography

Long Term Contracts

Demand

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

A meaningful portion of infrastructure revenues are supported by long-term, often inflation-linked contracts (or regulated frameworks with escalators).

Erosion risks

  • Contract roll-offs and renewal at lower rates
  • Customer bankruptcies in downturns
  • Regulatory restrictions on escalators

Leading indicators

  • Weighted-average remaining contract term
  • Inflation escalator capture vs CPI
  • Renewal spreads

Counterarguments

  • Not all assets are fully contracted; some have commodity/volume exposure
  • Inflation linkage helps nominal growth but doesn't ensure real returns if costs rise faster

Private Equity (Operating Businesses)

Control private equity / operating businesses (business services and industrials)

Competitive

Operational Excellence

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Brookfield emphasizes operational improvement and turnaround capability as a repeatable value creation tool across its operating businesses and portfolio companies.

Erosion risks

  • Execution risk on turnarounds and integrations
  • Leverage and refinancing risk in downturns
  • Sector-specific disruption in portfolio companies

Leading indicators

  • Same-store operating FFO growth
  • Portfolio company EBITDA margins
  • Debt maturity and refinancing spreads

Counterarguments

  • Many large PE firms claim operational playbooks; edge may be hard to sustain
  • Returns can be driven more by multiple cycles than operations

Ecosystem Complements

Network

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Global sourcing networks and reputation as a repeat buyer can generate proprietary or advantaged deal flow for take-privates and complex transactions.

Erosion risks

  • Increased competition from strategic buyers and other sponsors
  • Reputation damage reducing willingness of sellers to transact
  • Higher cost of capital reducing deal activity

Leading indicators

  • Share of deals sourced bilaterally
  • Transaction pipeline and close rate
  • Average entry valuation multiples

Counterarguments

  • Most large sponsors have global origination teams; 'proprietary' deal flow can be overstated
  • In hot markets, auctions dominate regardless of reputation

Real Estate

Commercial real estate ownership, operations, and development (office, retail, hotels, residential)

Competitive

Geographic Natural

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Prime real estate in global gateway cities is scarce; trophy assets and irreplaceable malls can sustain long-term demand and pricing relative to commodity locations.

Erosion risks

  • Structural demand shifts (e.g., remote/hybrid work) impacting offices
  • Higher rates increasing cap rates and refinancing costs
  • Retail traffic migration and tenant bankruptcies

Leading indicators

  • Occupancy and renewal spreads
  • Same-store NOI growth
  • Refinancing spreads and loan-to-value

Counterarguments

  • Even trophy assets can face valuation drawdowns in rate shocks
  • Location helps, but leasing markets can weaken materially in recessions

Operational Excellence

Supply

Strength

Durability

Confidence

Evidence

Value-add execution (leasing, redevelopment, operational uplift) is central to the transitional and development portfolio, with capital recycled through monetizations.

Erosion risks

  • Execution and development cost overruns
  • Capital market freezes limiting exits/refinancings
  • Local oversupply in some property types

Leading indicators

  • Leasing velocity and tenant demand
  • Development pipeline returns vs budget
  • Disposition volumes and cap rates

Counterarguments

  • Operational edge can be competed away by other sophisticated owners
  • Real estate returns can be dominated by macro rates and liquidity cycles

Evidence

sec_filing
Brookfield Corporation - 2024 Annual Information Form (Exhibit 99.1 to Form 40-F)

Diversified and long-term base management fees on capital that is typically committed for 10 years with two one-year extension options.

Direct support for long-duration contractual fee arrangements in the core private fund business.

sec_filing
Brookfield Corporation - 2024 Annual Information Form (fee-bearing capital)

Fee-bearing capital ... increased ... to $539 billion in 2024; of this, 87% is long-dated or perpetual in nature, providing resiliency and predictability to our revenues.

High share of long-dated/perpetual fee-bearing capital increases durability of management fee revenues.

sec_filing
Brookfield Corporation - 2024 Annual Information Form (platform scale)

The collaboration between the 2,500+ investment and asset management professionals ... and approximately 250,000 operating employees ... provides Brookfield with ... unique access to proprietary investment opportunities.

Explicit claim of ecosystem synergy between investment platform and operating businesses, supporting differentiated sourcing and execution.

sec_filing
Brookfield Corporation - 2024 Annual Information Form (AUM scale)

Our asset management business is a leading global alternative asset manager, with over $1 trillion of assets under management ... as at December 31, 2024 ....

AUM scale supports brand/credibility with institutional allocators and distribution partners.

sec_filing
Brookfield Corporation - 2024 Annual Information Form (Wealth Solutions overview)

The business seeks to match its liabilities with a portfolio of high-quality investments in order to generate attractive, risk-adjusted returns.

Describes the core insurance economic engine (liabilities funded and invested to earn a spread).

Showing 5 of 18 sources.

Risks & Indicators

Erosion risks

  • Fee compression from LP bargaining power
  • Fundraising drawdowns in risk-off cycles
  • Regulatory/LP scrutiny on fees and conflicts
  • Key-person risk in investment teams
  • Conflicts of interest perception between GP/LP and principal capital
  • Integration complexity across many strategies

Leading indicators

  • Fee-bearing capital growth
  • Net fundraising (subscriptions minus redemptions)
  • Fee-related earnings trend
  • Gross/realized carried interest
  • Share of investments sourced off-market
  • Fund performance vs benchmarks/peer quartiles
Created 2026-01-05
Updated 2026-01-05

Curation & Accuracy

This directory blends AI‑assisted discovery with human curation. Entries are reviewed, edited, and organized with the goal of expanding coverage and sharpening quality over time. Your feedback helps steer improvements (because no single human can capture everything all at once).

Details change. Pricing, features, and availability may be incomplete or out of date. Treat listings as a starting point and verify on the provider’s site before making decisions. If you spot an error or a gap, send a quick note and I’ll adjust.