Dear Investor:

Since the September, 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers nearly imploded the global financial system in a far reaching credit crisis, investors have understood that the financial markets are in transition, but have been focused on two divergent prospects. Either the world would again descend into financial chaos, or financial normalization would be followed by sustained economic recovery leading to long term growth. Mutual fund flows over the past two years show that some investors have favored the security of U.S. Treasury notes, bonds and gold, while others emphasize the growth opportunities in emerging markets, commodities and industrial metals. Both sets of investors have enjoyed solid returns over both the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 and since the equity market low point of March 9, 2009. However, recent data and even fund flows have supported the view favoring economic growth. Even though headline figures for U.S. job growth and household formation have remained soft over the past 18 months, global economic data reinforced the trend of the last 6 years, showing a strong growth rate in emerging economies. While many people in developed countries seek a return to the prior economic order of the world, an increasing number of investors and corporations are embracing opportunities to participate in an ongoing reorganization of the global economy.

Crisis Remedies: Past, Present and Future

Opposing outlooks for economic growth have influenced prospective solutions to repairing the economic damage from the crisis, as well as how to safeguard against future failures. However, there has been universal agreement that the principal problems that must be fixed are excessive debt and inadequate stable income. Clearly, income and revenues failed to cover personal, corporate and sovereign debt service, let alone provide for repayment. Since both the solution and future protection can create different winners or losers, various views have been hotly debated focusing on the nexus of financial, regulatory and monetary mechanisms for both capital markets and governments. As a result, the platform of national debates over the merits of near term austerity versus continued monetary and fiscal stimulus has taken on a political dimension. Budget pressures will continue to force countries to adjust their regulatory, monetary and fiscal structures to match the current prospects for their economy, in light of both aspirations and concerns for the future. Inevitably, many countries will feel compelled to reassess their collective world view regarding the respective roles of both the state and private enterprise in providing for the security, health, education and well being of its populace.

Crisis or near crisis events such as the ‘great recession’ of 2008-2009 are often necessary to initiate such difficult debates. Financial imbalances or weaknesses have been revealed around the world by the credit crises. The dispassionate and free roaming nature of global capital flows highlights distinctions in economic strength and capacity of each country’s markets. This past April, the U.S. was the initial beneficiary of the flight to quality and stability during the depth of the crisis, while Greece became the first sovereign casualty, as its fiscal imbalance created by poor tax collection and imprudent spending could no longer

be supported by excessive borrowing. This has spiraled through a fear of contagion within the banking sector and bond markets to other countries around Europe’s core for different local reasons. In addition to financial instability, it has called into question the structure and efficacy of the European Union.

Even in the U.S., we are forced to confront potential imbalances in the entitlement programs which constitute 85% of the U.S. Government’s annual budget, lest our own fiscal shortfalls and long term deficit impair this country’s global standing. Unfortunately, the increased political polarization of our government over the past few decades has prevented our leaders from addressing these issues until now that the structural imbalances have become so critical! High unemployment has reduced incomes in combination with the negative wealth effect from declines in the stock and housing markets, so that tax revenues are lagging far behind government expenditures. As a result, our country’s debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has not been so out of kilter since the end of World War II! Back then, the day was saved by stimulus programs such as the G.I. Bill providing financing for education and housing, the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe giving us huge export markets, while establishing the National Highway System created jobs and laid the foundation for a mobile and efficient economy. A renewed focus on domestic demand after the war, combined with technological innovation (television and transistors) to create new industries, enabled the U.S. to enjoy a sustained period of growth in incomes and output which helped to reduce deficits and spread middle class wealth during the 1950’s. Thus, we should be mindful of how our country has historically succeeded in similar circumstances, as we debate a future course for the U.S.

Once again, the U.S. stands at a crossroads which could influence the course of future economic activity. This time, European nations have initiated a diet of fiscal austerity, slashing annual budgets by up to 5%. Deficit reduction is viewed as an imperative. However, without off-setting economic stimulus the resultant drag on economic growth could prolong a period of low to negative growth for many of those countries constrained by the monetary and currency inflexibility of a unified Euro. While the U.S. has greater flexibility, the Federal Reserve has become the principal branch of our government currently capable of action to provide stimulus to offset the subpar economic recovery. Through its program of quantitative easing, the Federal Reserve is, in effect, inflating equity values in the stock market to substitute for the deflation of home values over the past four years or so. This appears similar with the Fed’s approach during 2002 and 2003 where low interest rates helped to inflate home values to offset the negative wealth effect of a falling stock market during 2001 and 2002. This movable feast of monetary liquidity may also be fueling the rise of commodity markets just like they did in the spring of 1998. Unlike these prior periods which resulted in medium term “bubbles,” unwinding the Fed’s stimulus will have to be more carefully communicated to the markets and executed. It is also safe to say that the central banks of the world probably have more control over the credit markets than they did in 2006 through 2008 as a result of the decimation of the derivative propelled structures which permitted the securitization machinery of Wall Street to disproportionately influence money

supply and fund flows. Thus, we are not overly concerned about the emergence of 1970’s level of inflation on a broad basis.

Ultimately, It’s About Jobs

The just agreed upon extension of Bush-era tax levels, plus other targeted deductions should have a beneficial impact over the next 12-24 months. However, the potential for sustained job growth as a result of productive capital deployment by either business initiatives or government stimulus is uncertain. Historically, one of the greatest economic triumphs of 20th century America has been our capacity to create productive employment. Job growth helped in the assimilation of immigrants, giving common purpose and aligning the melting pot of diverse cultures, experiences and talents that has helped this country to lead the rest of the world. Currently, non-farm payrolls stand at 130.54 million people, down from the peak of 137.95 million in December, 2007. Although slightly higher than the recent low of 129.59 million last December, current payrolls are virtually flat with the number employed (130.53 million) in December, 1999! During Alpine’s fiscal year, the U. S. added an average of +49,000 new jobs per month, which compares poorly with the monthly averages sustained between September, 2003-September, 2007 (+160,000) and March, 1993-March, 2000 (+252,000) when the economy was strong. Meanwhile, our population has continued to grow between 0.9-1.0% per year as the census just reported 9.7% growth over the past decade. While slower than the long term historical rate, this suggests that the monthly job growth must be well over 100,000, just to keep the unemployment rate flat.

It is worth noting one startling trend in terms of overall unemployment. The data suggests that specifically civilians unemployed for greater than 27 weeks (or roughly half a year) have historically stayed below 15% to 20% of all claimants during most recessions and only once exceeded 25% in the early 1980’s. Unfortunately, long term unemployment now accounts for almost 42% of all unemployed. This reflects not only the slow recovery from the most recent downturn, but perhaps a structural mismatch between the skill set of our work force and jobs which are available. It is notable that the gap between unemployed and underemployed (includes part-time or marginally employed but seeking work) has expanded from roughly 3% during 2000 to 2001, to 7 ¹/2% today. This suggests that people who have lost jobs are not finding employment which matches their prior job history, so they settle for alternative situations. Updated adult education and retraining programs could adapt many of the underemployed if new skills sets can be linked to new jobs.

Over time, Alpine would hope a balanced program tilted toward greater stimulation in the early years to generate jobs with austerity targets focused on later years could provide confidence by benchmarking progress. Furthermore, public private partnerships and long term leasing (30 to 50 years) of highways, bridges, and other infrastructure could accelerate a rebalancing of our nation’s and states’ balance sheets, while adding jobs and enabling future efficiency. Emphasizing capital spending on education, scientific

research with a focus on alternative energy sources and healthcare could help the U.S. maintain economic primacy.

Emerging Economies: Fast Forward to the Future

In contrast to the fiscal cash flow and structural deficit problems of the U.S., Europe and Japan, most emerging market countries have benefited from lower indebtedness, higher domestic savings and competitive costs of production. The “Asian Contagion” and “Tequila Crisis” of recent decades, followed by the decline of the internet bubble actually constrained these countries’ banks and financial markets from rewarding excessive risk. Unlike the developed countries which are still fighting a deflationary trend, fast growth has pressured the central banks of Brazil, India, Indonesia and, most recently, China to tighten monetary conditions in order to constrain inflationary pressures. This suggests that they are moving past the recovery phase of the business cycle into a middle period of stable job creation, capacity utilization and wealth creation. Hopefully, the U.S. is only 12-24 months behind the leader’s pace, followed perhaps by Japan and the U.K., while the Euro region may be much further behind in recovery.

It is clear that we are witnessing a two-speed world, where slow recoveries in countries which are facing possible deflation sit in contrast with countries which are reshaping their export-oriented economies to meet the demands of large numbers of upwardly mobile people finally capable of sustaining domestic consumption. Rising local incomes, huge infrastructure expenditures, and growing concerns for the health, welfare and service requirements of expanding middle class consumer populations are creating new jobs to fulfill domestic demand. We do not try to predict the future, but understanding trends is important, and Alpine believes that consumption patterns are evolving rapidly in emerging countries. In 1990, the U.S., Europe and Japan accounted, respectively, for 27%, 34% and 14% of global GDP. By 2008, these geographic contributions were reduced to 24%, 30% and 8%, respectively. All 13% of the aggregate decline in GDP contribution from these countries has been taken up by emerging market output, from 21% in 1990, to 34% today. As a by-product of this trend, emerging market consumption as a share of global private purchases has grown from 17% in 1990 to 27% in 2008, and 29% today. The U.S. was 31% of global consumption in 1990, peaked at 38% in 2002, then slowed to 30% in 2008 and today. Alpine believes the divergence of global growth rates and consumption patterns will likely continue over this next decade.

While direct exposure to emerging countries should be beneficial, many companies in the developed economies are participating in global growth. U.S. companies as diverse as G.M., Procter & Gamble and Pepsi generated over one-third of their sales from emerging markets last year. Global brands are keen to participate as the impact of globalization and technological integration continues to evolve. Historically, such companies enjoyed enhanced productivity and lower cost goods, then the rebalancing of local labor demand, and now a shift in consumption patterns. The prospects of rising domestic wealth suggests investment patterns could shift as well. This has already been felt in the capital markets, but this may well accelerate. The market capitalization of emerging markets in the

MSCI World Index in 1990 was 2% and grew to 12% by 2008. Even though the disparity between market capitalization and the shared proportion of both global consumption and GDP has improved, it may be significantly realigned over the next decade as a result of rising domestic investment patterns in addition to international investment flows and economic growth. Thus, capital market participation in the emerging countries will likely continue to grow. This will create investment opportunities for companies in both the developed and emerging markets.

Alas, capital market concerns are not behind the U.S. yet. Debt maturities and sovereign refinancings loom ahead. Nonetheless, the liquidity crisis seems to be in the past. Alpine will continue to focus on both growth and value opportunities for investment. Broad macro themes, be they domestic or global, will be studied; market inefficiencies or perceived mispricing will be analyzed; technological or scientific advancements and innovation of products, processes or methodologies will be understood; while corporate transformations which rework old business models to better function today will be examined. Such levels of research are all part of Alpine’s focus. We will continue to explore varied opportunities for our Funds, and appreciate your interest in discovering and participating in the potential of these investments.

Before closing, I am delighted to introduce shareholders to our new shareholder service provider, administrator and custodian, State Street Corporation and our new transfer agent, Boston Financial Data Services (BFDS). State Street is listed on the New York Stock Exchange with a market capitalization of more than $23 billion. State Street and BFDS are widely regarded for their advanced technological systems, depth of experienced personnel and State Street’s strong global custody network. Alpine believes that by consolidating both our open-end and closed-end funds multiple service providers with one entity, we will be able to ensure a high level of service while minimizing operating costs for the Funds shareholders. The conversion of all accounts and records took place in early December, so do not hesitate to contact info@alpinefunds.com with any questions, comments or concerns. As always, we appreciate your interest and support.

Sincerely,

Samuel A. Lieber

President

Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. Please refer to the individual fund letters for risks specific to each fund.

The letter and those that follow represent the opinion of Alpine Funds management and are subject to change, are not guaranteed, and should not be considered investment advice.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Please refer to the schedule of investments for fund holding information. Fund holdings and sector allocations are subject to change and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject to risk.

The MSCI World is a stock market index of 1,500 ‘world’ stocks. It is maintained by MSCI Inc., formerly Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is often used as a common benchmark for ‘world’ or ‘global’ stock funds.

An investor cannot invest directly in an index.

These being closed-end funds and do not continuously offer shares.

Dear Investor:

We are pleased to present the 2010 annual report for the Alpine Global Premier Properties Fund (AWP). For the year ended October 31, 2010, the net asset value per share increased from $7.26 to $8.43, producing NAV appreciation of 16.1% and a total return of 28.31%. The stock price of AWP closed the fiscal year at $7.04, 21.5% ahead of the prior year’s closing share price of $5.79 providing a total return of 34.36% This represented an improvement in the underlying discount to NAV from -20.25% on October 31, 2009 to -16.49% at this year’s fiscal end. The average discount to NAV over the course of the fiscal year declined from -19.69% in 2009 to -16.49% in 2010. In addition, during the fiscal year the Fund paid 38.4 cents in regular monthly dividends plus a special year end dividend of 26.56 cents, for a total of 64.96 cents, which in combination with the price appreciation produced a total return at stock price of 34.36%. We believe that the discount is relatively high in light of both the 34.36% total return and 11.22% dividend yield over the course of the fiscal year ending October 31, 2010.

The Fund’s performance for the fiscal year compares favorably with the S&P Developed Property Total Return Index’s total return of 23.96%, although it lagged somewhat behind the MSCI US REIT Index of 43.39% for the twelve months ended October 31, 2010. As of October 31, 2010, the respective dividend yields from the constituents of these two indices were 3.51% and 3.61%.

Investment Landscape

Over the past five years, Alpine has observed what could best be described as a two-speed world in which the developed economies have produced only modest rates of growth in comparison with so called emerging economies which were growing their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at roughly two to three times as fast. Since the ‘great recession’ of 2008/2009 this divergence has accelerated. The large developed markets have in fact experienced deflationary trends associated with deleveraging high-priced assets through (often dilutive) re-equitization, forced sales or bankruptcy/foreclosures. However, cheap money (low interest rates) has protected asset values and rekindled signs of recovery. In contrast, a number of emerging markets have benefited from strong growth leading to rising employment, income and consumption trends which have been followed by increased inflationary pressures. A number of emerging markets, including Brazil, India and, notably, China, have responded by raising interest rates and/or taxing capital flows, so capital values have been constrained, despite positive demand/supply imbalances. Domestic demand in emerging countries is focusing a greater percentage of GDP growth away from exports as local incomes can now fuel aspirations for a better life in many of the rapidly expanding young populations throughout the emerging world. As a result, underlying demand for real estate from both tenants and investors is expanding in spite of higher cost of capital due to inflation propelled bond yields in many emerging countries. This is in stark comparison with rather stagnant tenant demand for property in most major cities of the developed world. However, real estate markets in the developed economies are benefiting from improved liquidity and investor demand for property, with transactions returning to levels last experienced early in the last cycle.

In all but the strongest markets, prices are below replacement cost, so new development is still two-four years out with the exception of residential property. Given the historic low level of interest rates and a normalized spread of 300 to 400 basis points above medium term (five to ten year) debt, the initial yields, or capitalization rate derived from premier income producing properties have fallen back to the levels last seen in the debt fueled growth environment of 2005 - 2007. Investor assumptions regarding tenant future demand, the pace at which vacancy is absorbed, and the potential for new supply must be considered in light of possible increases in interest rates over the expected investment period. It should be noted that an inflationary period with rising interest rates in the developed markets in future years could be detrimental if it forces cap rates higher before the end of the investment holding period. Occupancy rates in most markets are slowly improving from the cyclical trough of 2009, but different markets around the world may face varied levels of potential new supply over the next few years. Thus, the relationship between economic growth which could underpin rising tenant demand and the timing of new supply could have a significant influence over rental trends around the world.

Growth through accretive acquisitions has been a source of growth for many public real estate companies for decades. Over the past two years, many REITs, first in Australia, then the U.S., U.K., and Singapore recapitalized their balance sheets in anticipation of great buying opportunities. To date, a number of attractive transactions have taken place in these markets, although perhaps none could be described as great, despite the large number of questionable loans and real estate financings which are approaching maturity.

The intersection of the debt capital markets and the real estate market runs through major banks, and this is where we see the prospect for new supply of reasonably priced potential purchases for well capitalized companies and investors. British and U.S. banks are most likely to increase the flow of bad loans off their books and into the property market beginning this year, although we expect European and Japanese banks may move more slowly. The banks would also likely provide significant financing for mergers and acquisitions of corporate portfolios, for both private and publicly traded entities. Alpine anticipates that large, well capitalized buyers, often in conjunction with an equity partner such as a pension or sovereign wealth fund, could be aggressive buyers. However, holding periods for many direct real estate investors may require more patience than historic five to seven years due to modest medium growth prospects and/or low initial returns.

Emerging markets are typically characterized by a limited supply of high quality properties which often leads to rent/price spikes during surges in demand. This naturally sets the stage for new development to not only meet demand, but match the requirements of a broader spectrum of tenants and investors. In markets where vacancy rates shot up into the double-digit levels during the ‘great recession’, the current rapid rate of economic progress has led to relatively quick absorption of vacant quality space, pushing occupancy levels and rents higher. In many markets, rents have returned to levels which make new development increasingly profitable, however, the first major projects will not be delivered for at least two years, and others under design now may take three to five years. Cities such as

Sao Paulo, Hong Kong and London which have all enjoyed strong rental demand, while others including Beijing, Shanghai, Oslo, Paris, Washington, New York and New Delhi which have benefited from stabilization, so all could see solid rental growth, barring any major economic disruptions. Rents should trend favorably over the next three to five years throughout both the developed and emerging market countries, potentially justifying the relatively low acquisition yields of properties today. However, the velocity of tenant demand may only be strong enough in certain emerging markets to sustain rental growth through a longer period of new development which might traverse an interest rate cycle.

Investment Strategy

The Alpine Global Premier Properties Fund’s investment strategy has been to focus on both undervalued, “cheap” property stocks and simultaneously seek out other equities with strong growth profiles or potential. In a world of sub 4% dividend yields, we focused on a handful of companies that offered significant yield opportunity due to what we believe to be mispricing in the marketplace, as well as REITs which may offer limited appreciation potential, but pay significant dividends, in a relatively stable interest rate environment. Domestic examples of this strategy include unloved shopping mall companies, such as Alexander’s, CBL and General Growth, and leveraged office owner, Brookfield Properties, all of which we felt traded substantially below their realizable net asset value. Over the past couple of years, we have also sought high dividend yields from mortgage REITs in the U.S. which we feel benefited from a very low interest rate environment and relatively steep yield curve. In contrast to high dividend payers, we sought greater growth from the recovery of the real estate market through companies such C.B. Richard Ellis, the real estate broker and Ocwen Financial Corp., the mortgage servicer, and lodging REITs, such as DiamondRock Hospitality and Host Hotels. Similar strategies were employed abroad, although the lack of foreign equivalents for high yield REITs have given the U.S. mortgage REITs a unique prominence in the portfolio.

Equity Performance

Among the world’s different local property stock indices, the strongest returns in terms of U.S. dollars over the twelve months ended October 31, 2010 were the Philippine Property Index, up 66.35%, the Thai Property Index up 61.65%, the MSCI US REIT Index up 43.39%, Brazil’s BM & F BOVESPA Real Estate Index up 38.31% and the FTSE STRAITS TIMES Singapore Real Estate Index up 31.20%. By way of comparison, the global properties securities index is measured by the S&P Developed Property Index was up 23.96%, while the international segment as measured buy the S&P Developed Ex-US Property Developed Index gained 16.37%. It’s worth noting that while the Thai Property Index slightly lagged the overall Bangkok Stock Exchange of Thailand Index, which was up 67.32%, both the MSCI U.S. REIT Index and the Brazilian BM & F BOVESPA Real Estate Index significantly outperformed their broader domestic series which were respectively, up 16.52% for the S&P 500 and 18.95% for the Brazil’s BOVESPA Stock Index.

Among top property stocks in the portfolio, General Growth Properties, rose by 347.51% during the fiscal year as a shareholder friendly bankruptcy judge enabled the company to extend its short term debt maturities, raise equity to pay down its excessive debt, and spin off a loss making land and development subsidiary. Even though we were confident of the underlying value in late 2008 when the shares were acquired, we have been pleasantly surprised that so many hurdles were cleared so quickly, thus we sold down half the Fund’s stake before fiscal year end even though more value may be realized over time. ARA Asset Management from Singapore, not only manages prominent REITs and private equity funds in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and China, but also historically has paid attractive dividends. ARA produced a 126.61% fiscal year return. Parque Arauco, a Chilean shopping mall owner rose 112.97% as the company is expanding its operations into Peru and Columbia, while U.S. mall owner, CBL and Associates gained 112.68%, and Evergrande Real Estate Group, a standout among home builders in China rose by 103.04% for the Fund during the fiscal year ending October 31, 2010.

The Fund also had some notable disappointments for the fiscal year as a number of Chinese holdings, including Shenzen Investment (down 27.06%), CC Land Holdings (down 27.18%), and Hopson Development Holdings (down 39.54%) were notably impacted by heightened restrictions on property in China. Of these three, only the Fund’s position in CC Land has been retained since the specter of further government measures to control prices will last into 2011, although the majority of property constraints have already been implemented. The only other notable detractor this year was HIRCO, which fell -54.20%. The Indian township developer experienced slow sales and has sought to restructure its management, which may require patience for sales to rebound. Fortunately, these poor performers all had a minimal contribution effect on the Fund. So let us now discuss the impact of top holdings.

Among the Fund’s ten largest positions at the end of fiscal 2010, the vast majority produced strong double-digit total returns which in tandem with the size of the portfolio’s positions had a meaningful contribution to overall returns. It is worth noting that only two stocks have been retained in the top ten from last year, notably Capital Commercial Trust, the second largest holding in the portfolio and Japan Logistics Fund in the number ten slot. Last year there were four U.S. stocks in the top ten and one from Brazil. This year there are three Brazilian stocks and three U.S. stocks among the top ten. Singapore also has two stocks, up from one last year. This fundamentally reflects the diversified geographic exposure of the portfolio, notably in the U.S. which declined from 32.7% last year to 29.8% as of October 31, 2010, and in Brazil which rose from 14.9% of the portfolio to 18.4%. The portfolio’s weighting in Singapore also grew from 7.7% to 9.3%, followed by Japan, China and the U.K., were all lower with 5.1%, 4.8% and 4.4%, respectively.

Among the ten largest stocks in the portfolio, PDG Realty assumed top rank delivering a 53.68% total return for a contribution of over 1% of the Fund’s overall return for fiscal year 2010. PDG is the largest publicly traded residential developer in Brazil, with a primary focus on entry level housing, most of which is priced to utilize the

government’s “minha casa, minha vida” mortgage subsidy program. Capital Commercial Trust of Singapore benefited significantly from improving office demand, rising 63.85% in contributing over 1% to the Fund’s total return for the fiscal year ending October 31, 2010. The Fund’s investment in CBL and Associates, a southeastern U.S. mall developer, produced a dramatic 112.68% total return for the one year period ending October 31, 2010 as investors became increasingly confident of its ability to retain tenants in its malls and maintain solid dividends. Speaking of dividends, MFA Financial, a residential mortgage REIT, gained 21%, although the majority of the total return was produced by double-digit dividend yields for the report period. Amongst the Fund’s top returns was our sixth largest holding, the previously mentioned ARA Asset Management of Singapore which produced a 126.61% total return, contributing above 1.5% to the overall portfolio return. Multiplan is one of the top Brazilian shopping mall development companies, which are all rapidly expanding their portfolios in response to the surge in consumerism and car ownership in Brazil. The Fund’s position rose by 52.44% during the year ending October 31, 2010. Stockland Corp., Ltd. of Australia produced a total return of 15.08%, of which a significant portion came from dividends. This owner of diversified high quality retail office and residential properties has been the Fund’s major Australian holding, although it was reduced to 2.4% of the portfolio from 3.5% last year as we perceived a rising interest rate environment in Australia would not be positive for many of these stocks over the medium term, even though long term prospects are favorable. The Fund’s eighth largest holding, MRV Enginaria, moved up one notch from ninth last year courtesy of a 55.70% total return. MRV is the largest residential developer in Brazil focused predominantly on low income housing. Brookfield Properties Corp. gained 77.83% during fiscal 2010 as perceptions improved that this owner of premier North American office properties, such as New York’s World Financial Center, Houston’s Allen Center, Toronto’s Bay Adelaide Center and Calgary’s Bankers Hall, would be able to manage its debt maturities and prepare for future growth. The Fund’s tenth largest holding, Japan Logistics Fund gained a relatively meager 14.26% despite its strong balance sheet as many other Japanese REITs experienced difficult operating conditions stemming from falling rents and excessive debt financing.

Notable Portfolio Changes

It is important to note that the Fund’s exposure to financial companies, in particular mortgage REITs, is significantly smaller than it was last year, at 12.2% down from 21.6% at the end October, 2009. Specifically, residential mortgage REITs were reduced from 35% of the U.S. component of the portfolio to 26% today and while commercial REITs were more modestly reduced from 16% to 12% of the Fund’s current U.S. holdings. Principally, this has been in response to somewhat tighter spreads between the yields available in the mortgage securities market today and the cost of funding. Thus, the profitability of mortgage REITs could be somewhat impacted if this trend were to continue, so we are adopting a more defensive stance and further diversifying these holdings in line with the growing market capitalization of the sector. That said, the double-digit dividend yields of these REITs remains robust and the longer term potential of mortgage REITs to continue as dominant portfolio owners of mortgages and mortgage securities in the United

States offers the potential for significant portfolio expansion and further enhanced tradable liquidity over future years. In effect, mortgage REITs are filling the void previously dominated by Savings & Loans in the 1980’s, private equity and hedge fund portfolios during the 1990’s into 2000’s and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the last decade. These REITs are a likely heir apparent unless a new structure is devised for portfolio ownership of residential mortgages. It should be noted that the Fund’s commercial mortgage positions were not cut back as severely as they have been able to grow their portfolios and thus begun to realize their dividend paying potential at high single-digit levels. They too are filling a gap in the capital markets’ capacity to provide long term mortgage funding.

Portfolio Dividends

As many of you know, many publicly traded companies, including REITs were severely impacted by the ‘great recession’ and liquidity crisis of 2008/2009, and as a result, many significantly cut their dividends which impacted this Fund’s ability to maintain double-digit dividend yields. This Fund has relied upon core portfolio yields as well as a rotation strategy or dividend capture method to generate a high level of dividend income. The core portfolio of real estate stocks has generated approximately 70% of total dividend income collected over the past year. The Fund generated approximately 29% of total dividends through a rotation process where specific stocks were identified from a broad cross-section of the market with the intent to hold for an intermediate period. The proportion of core portfolio income and dividend rotation could change somewhat over the next couple of years as dividend growth has begun to occur in real estate and industrial companies. We believe this will accelerate over the next few years, which could have particular benefit on the core portfolio holdings.

As the business cycle extends, the risk of rising interest rates typically increases. Without depending upon permanent or structured debt financing to expand the portfolio for dividend collection, AWP would not be pressured by rising debt cost, which might accompany economic recovery in the U.S. Thus, only if extreme market conditions, such as all markets experienced with the tsunami of 2008/2009 in which share prices are dramatically eroded and the dividend paying potential of companies is diminished, could we anticipate any threat to the dividend. Thus, our hope is to increase net asset value per share through the growth potential of the Fund’s portfolio holdings, and raise the dividend along with the underlying dividend performance of the portfolio.

Special Dividends

In the spirit of shareholder transparency, we wish to comment on special dividend payments. For the end of the calendar year 2009, the Fund paid a 26.56 cents special dividend. As of December, 2010, we anticipate paying another special dividend of 30.5 cents. Both last year’s and this dividend are partly derived from an aspect of the U.S. tax code which focuses on a classification called passive foreign investment companies (PFIC). PFIC income is not actual income from a company but rather a derivation of the company’s stock appreciation during the Fund’s fiscal year. PFIC classification may apply to any foreign stock subject to certain asset and income tests.

However, real estate companies are often structured in a manner which fits the ‘passive’ test, even if the company is very active. It should be noted that PFICs are not unique to this Fund, and are true of most funds which invest outside the United States. Unlike conventional gains, PFIC income cannot be offset by capital losses realized from sales of other positions. If a particular PFIC held by the Fund were to decline in value in the next year, it would cause reductions in distributable taxable income, possibly resulting in the Fund distributing a partial tax return of capital. The manager of the Fund prefers to base the Fund’s distributions on actual earned income from dividends (that is, gross dividend income, less Fund expenses) and to not manage distributions which might not be repeatable in future years. The manager believes in growing the capital base in order to maximize future income growth. For these reasons, and to avoid the negative impact of raising cash or altering the portfolio to pay related special distributions, the Fund’s Board of Directors has chosen to make this special distribution payable 10% in cash and 90% in additional shares. This distribution utilizes an exemption for all registered investment companies (RICs) and REITs that enabled many REITs to distribute shares in lieu of dividends over the previous two years. Please note that if we do not again experience such strong price appreciation next year in many PFICs, there will likely not be a special dividend of this size.

Portfolio Highlight: Brazilian Malls

We feel it is appropriate to close out this year’s report to shareholders with an illustration of some of the long term growth opportunities in the world of real estate today. Imagine the possibility of investing in the top American shopping malls circa 1960, for an analogue to the Brazilian mall industry today. Since 2002, Brazilian household consumption expenditures have risen by 11.7% in local currency based on International Monetary Fund (IMF) analysis. This has been fueled by years of pent up demand and by average annual real (adjusted for inflation) income growth of 5.4% since 2002. The increased ability of Brazilians to now obtain mortgage financing for homes and cars, as well as the use of credit cards, has been a phenomenon of only the last five years. Thus, with the introduction of the first Brazilian malls into the stock market in 2007, we have seen same average annual store sales for this group grow by 9.67% for 15 quarters. At the same time, the expansion of square footage in all Brazilian malls has grown by 8% per annum over the last four years, and is projected to grow by a similar amount over the next three, according to ABRASCE, the Brazilian Mall Association. Thus, Alpine expects the publicly traded Brazilian shopping mall companies should be able to grow their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by almost 55% over the next two years, in comparison with domestic and major international mall companies which are expected to grow by little more than 11% over this same period. In other terms, Merrill Lynch has calculated that by 2012 the implied cap rate of five Brazilian malls will be 11.1% versus a global mall average of 6.5%. Since many of the Brazilian malls have, in fact, presented development plans which extend through 2014, we believe that the long term growth prospects of this sector present a unique opportunity to buy into the real estate value creation process at the ground floor. Since Brazilian malls are listed on the BOVESPA stock

exchange, they must pay out 25% of their income in the form of dividends which we think will offer meaningful dividend growth potential, as well as price appreciation for the Fund over the next few years. For this reason, Brazilian Mall stocks constitute 38% of the Funds 18.4% exposure to Brazil.

Equities Lead Indices

It should be noted that major global real estate indices do not include meaningful exposure to emerging market (EM) stocks in their global composites, although that might have to change. The annualized growth over the five years including 2005 through 2009, of the market capitalization of stocks in the S&P 500 shrank by -1.5% while the MSCI World Index grew by 1.9%. During this period, the growth of all emerging market stocks was evidenced by a compound annual growth rate of 24% for the market capitalization of such stocks. A similar pattern has held true in real estate equities with U.S. equity REITs shrinking by -2.0% per year while, global real estate grew by a healthy 12% compound annual growth rate during this period and emerging market real estate expanded by 34%. By Alpine’s calculations, emerging market equities constitute roughly 25% of all real estate stocks outstanding market capitalization. Nonetheless, the major global real estate indices provided by Dow Jones, S&P, and the FTSE EPRA/NAREIT series all have less than 1% EM exposure through the third quarter of 2010. We believe that for the indices to remain credible, they will eventually begin to include more emerging market exposure. AWP has approximately 28% exposure to emerging markets.

Globally, the fundamental demand equation for real estate is gradually improving in most, if not all, markets. For over 20 years, Alpine has had at least modest exposure (7% minimum) of its international and global portfolios in emerging markets, and the current period is potentially the most favorable for long term investment. Because the growth dynamic is far superior in these regions, we believe that underlying real estate demand will continue to support rising rents, which can produce rising investment yields. This may lead to rising dividend yields for real estate equity investors, but the demand for high quality buildings should sustain development over multiple cycles, emphasizing the creation of real estate value. Alpine continues to believe that there will also be opportunities for companies to grow their assets and income levels in the developed economies of the U.S., Europe and even Japan, even though the next few years may be a bit challenging. We think that those investors who can take a three to five year view may be well served by this portfolio in terms of potential for growth and income to be derived from global real estate equities markets, especially during the early phases of this cycle, when value creation can be the greatest driver of total return.

Sincerely,

Samuel A. Lieber

Portfolio Manager

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. Funds that concentrate their investments in a specific sector, such as real estate, tend to experience more volatility and be exposed to greater risk than more diversified funds. The Fund invests in foreign securities which involve greater volatility and political, economic and currency risks and differences in accounting methods.

The techniques and strategies used by the Alpine Global Premier Properties Fund might result in a high degree of portfolio turnover. Higher portfolio turnover rates could result in corresponding increases in brokerage commissions and generate short-term capital gains taxable as ordinary income.

The recent growth in the stock market has helped to produce short-term returns for some asset classes that are not typical and may not continue in the future. Because of ongoing market volatility, fund performance may be subject to substantial short-term changes.

The letter represents the opinions of Alpine Funds management and is subject to change, is not guaranteed and should not be considered investment advice.

Please refer to the schedule of portfolio investments for fund holding information. Fund holdings and sector allocations are subject to change and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject to risk.

This is provided to you for informational purposes only, and should not be considered tax advice. Please consult your tax advisor for further assistance.

Stocks are subject to fluctuation. The stock or other security of a company may not perform as well as expected, and may decrease in value, because of a variety of factors including those related to the company (such as poorer than expected earnings or certain management decisions) or to the industry in which the company is engaged (such as a reduction in the demand for products or services in a particular industry) or due to other factors such as a rise in interest rates, for example.

Risks associated with investment in securities of companies in the real estate industry include: declines in the value of real estate; risks related to local economic conditions, overbuilding and increased competition; increases in property taxes and operating expenses; changes in zoning laws; casualty or condemnation losses; variations in rental income, neighborhood values or the appeal of properties to tenants; changes in interest rates and changes in general economic and market conditions.

REITs’ share prices may decline because of adverse developments affecting the real estate industry including changes in interest rates. The returns from REITs may trail returns from the overall market. Additionally, there is always a risk that a given REIT will fail to qualify for favorable tax treatment.

EBITDA stands for earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and is an approximate measure of a company’s operating cash flow based on data from the company’s income statement. It is calculated by looking at earnings before the deduction of interest expenses, taxes, depreciation and amortization.

Basis point one one-hundredth of a percent used in measuring yield differences among bonds.

Compound Annual Growth Rate is the year-over-year growth rate of an investment over a specified period of time.

Capitalization rate (or “cap rate”) is the ratio between the net operating income produced by an asset and its capital cost (the original price paid to buy the asset) or alternatively its current market value.

MSCI World Index is a stock market index of 1,500 ‘world’ stocks. It is maintained by MSCI Inc., formerly Morgan Stanley Capital International, and is often used as a common benchmark for ‘world’ or ‘global’ stock funds.

BM&FBOVESPA Real Estate (Brazil) Index measures the behavior of the companies that represent the real estate market, and is comprised of companies whose main activity includes real estate construction, management and brokerage services.

Philippine Property Index is a capitalization-weighted index composed of stocks representative of the property sector of the PSE.

S&P Developed Property Index is an unmanaged market-weighted total return index available on a monthly basis. The index consists of many companies from developed markets whose floats are larger than $100 million and derive more than half of their revenue from property-related activities.

S&P Developed Ex-US Property Index is an unmanaged market-weighted total return index available on a monthly basis. The index consists of many companies from developed markets, excluding the U.S., whose floats are larger than $100 million and derive more than half of their revenue from property-related activities.

The FTSE STRAITS TIMES Singapore Real Estate Index is a modified market capitalization weighted index measuring the performance of Real Estate Sector of FTSE Strait Times All Share Index.

The MSCI US REIT Index is a price-only index, which MSCI began calculating on June 20, 2005. Previously, this index (then known as the Morgan Stanley REIT Index) was calculated and maintained by the AMEX.

Thai Property Index (Thailand) is a capitalization-weighted index of all stocks of the SET Index that are involved in the property sector. The index was developed with a base value of 100 on April 30, 1975.

The S&P 500 Index is a broad based unmanaged index of 500 stocks, which is widely recognized as representative of the equity market in general

The FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Global Real Estate Index Series is designed to represent general trends in eligible real estate equities worldwide.

One cannot invest directly in an index.

These being Closed-end funds and do not continuously offer shares.

Common Abbreviations

AB - Aktiebolag is the Swedish equivalent of the term corporation.

AG - Aktiengesellschaft is a German term that refers to a corporation that is limited by shares, i.e., owned by shareholders.

ASA - Allmennaksjeselskap is the Norwegian term for a public limited company.

Co. - Company

Corp. - Corporation

GDR - Global Depositary Receipts

Inc. - Incorporated

Ltd. - Limited

NV - Naamloze Vennootschap is the Dutch term for a public limited liability corporation.

OJSC - Open Joint Stock Company

PCL - Public Company Limited

PLC - Public Limited Company

REIT - Real Estate Investment Trust

SA - Generally designates corporations in various countries, mostly those employing the civil law.

SE - SE Regulation. A European Company which can operate on a Europe-wide basis and be governed by Community law directly applicable in all Member States.

See Notes to Financial Statements.