It also has been a long real estate cycle. For capital flowing into primary markets, you're looking at prices far above the 2007 peaks. So we're waiting on another turn for what real estate is going to do next. There's a lot of capital on the sidelines, and is it going to be alternative asset investments' is it going to be secondary markets?

If you talk to any economist, they'll tell you the economy is stable, but there could be a geopolitical event. When you look at the real estate aspect, it's a matter of what those investors are going to do with regard to taking on more risk and maybe moving outside of their investment strategies.

GlobeSt.com: Are investors willing to take on a little more risk this year?

DiRocco: I think they are. We asked respondents where they thought the best opportunities for 2018 are. Fifty percent said primary markets—no surprise there—while 41.6% said secondary, which represents a little bump-up from last year. It's not that they haven't made those moves already; it's really how you define “secondary” and how you move into markets like Minneapolis or Pittsburgh.

The result that conflicts with that, slightly, is when we asked whether they were ready to move into alternative investments, on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 indicating absolute confidence, the average came in at around 55. So there really wasn't a great confidence in those types of investments.

At the same time, we asked investors how they would invest $1 billion; what sector or sectors did they believe would be the best performer. Industrial came in at number one, but ranked second was healthcare. That's interesting, because healthcare does fall into what I would call the “alternative” bucket. But I think the respondents realized that there are something like 76 million Baby Boomers out there, and regardless of high-cost or high-deductible insurance plans, we still need healthcare. And they're looking at different options for integrating healthcare into the live/work/play environment.

GlobeSt.com: Younger survey respondents appear to be a little more optimistic overall. What's behind that?

DiRocco: When we asked about confidence in the US economy, senior executive and young professionals were very close in their scores. If you step outside that and look at the employment outlook, for example, younger respondents were more optimistic. We asked about the outlook for finding employment over the next five years, and the young professionals averaged an 80.3. That result stood out. There is employment out there, but that seems very optimistic when you look at some of the other pieces. Both senior and younger groups had pretty low confidence in the outlook for the current administration to be more productive in 2018 compared to 2017.

Depending on the question, they may generally agree with senior executives or they may disagree, but the feedback we're getting from young professionals is fantastic. It gives us this demand perspective, which you then mix together from responses from executives who are more on the supply side.

GlobeSt.com: One area in which CRE is expecting positive momentum from the White House is infrastructure investment. Since the survey was conducted, President Trump has outlined his plan. Is it in line with what the thought leaders surveyed by Altus were expecting?

DiRocco: The 2018 Real Confidence Executive Survey didn't question thought leaders on the how the Trump administration would structure an infrastructure bill in 2018. However, I believe that the Trump campaign infrastructure promise of $1 trillion in federal spending and then producing nothing throughout 2017, weighed heavily on their response to Trump's 2018 productivity forecasts in our survey. According to Real Confidence Executive results, real estate decision makers had limited confidence that the administration would be more productive in office than 2017 scoring only a 49.1, on a scale of 0 – 100, absolute confidence. Although, out of a variety of possible objectives, including immigration and border taxes, 42% somewhat agreed that he might have the ability to reach an infrastructure agreement in 2018.

Unfortunately, that was probably answered under the assumption of a more federally funded agreement and less requirement from both public and private capital which will be more challenging to pursue. The $100 billion in incentives is minimal to stimulate demand from states, as many are still in financial difficulties and won't be able to meet the required dollar ratio. This change is dramatic compared to past federally funded infrastructure deals that are usually federally finance dominated or at least split equally with states or investors. The future of its success is questionable, but it opens up the opportunity for private capital, and with all that is available and looking to invest, it might be a new opportunity for some institutional players.