7 Real Estate Finance Myths Unveiled: Discover the market factors that really are influencing today’s transactions
October 15, 2012
Much
of the real estate finance industry operates on dogma, most of which is
grounded in sound theory about the factors that drive commercial real estate
markets and risk pricing. During the past 15 years there have been significant
advances in methods for assessing and quantifying risk, which contribute to
more disciplined debt and equity investors.
However, many of the
risk models and decisions taking place in commercial real estate in San Diego today are based on assumptions that are
questionable. Understanding the reality behind some of these myths is important
when making commercial real estate financing decisions.
Myth No. 1: Real estate equity currently is a safe haven
for investors. In the long term, well-located real estate is a solid
investment. However, the short and intermediate outlooks are somewhat more
clouded. The idea that today’s valuations will be maintained is a risky
proposition. Since 1993 real estate values in this country have performed well
in most markets due to a confluence of factors that have made real estate a
favorable asset class. This long bull market must end at some point.
For instance, if a
property owner places two advertisements for the same property — one for lease
and the other for sale — there might be a deluge of interested buyers, but far
fewer potential tenants. Something is wrong with this phenomenon, since
investors buy real estate for its long-term cash flow potential. If interest
rates rise, values will decline, with much of the downward pressure being
caused by floating rate loans that cannot be refinanced or cannot carry their
debt service. And, inevitably, capitalization rates will rise back to
historical levels.
Myth No. 2: Spreads on mortgages in commercial real estate in San Diego are too low. Many commercial mortgage debt
investors are complaining that they are not being fairly compensated for risk.
But this is only partially true. Investors that receive 90 basis points over
U.S. Treasuries for a truly conservative mortgage are being fairly compensated,
since many of those loans have an extremely low probability of ever defaulting.
In actuality, 90 basis points is a fair yield as it is a 22 percent yield
increase over a 4.1 percent treasury. When bonds were 8.82 percent on average
in 1988 and low leverage spreads were at 90 basis points, the reward for
investing in a mortgage was a 10.2 percent premium over the risk-free rate.
Note that 80 percent loan-to-value loans were between Treasury plus 175 and 200
basis points in 1988; now they are Treasury plus 110 to 140 basis points for
most properties.
Complaints regarding spreads
for highly leveraged loans, where debt investors are attempting to get an
additional 30 or 40 basis points of yield, are justified. In these instances,
the lender is taking on an inordinate amount of risk for the incremental yield
offered in today’s market.
Myth No. 3: Mortgage debt is a solid investment right now. While lower
leverage loans are just fine in the current market, higher leverage mortgages
are mispricing risk. A commonly used term these days is debt cap rate, which
generally refers to the mortgage amount as a function of the cash flow. Often
times the debt cap rate reflects a loan amount that is more than the property
would have sold for a few years ago. In many cases, traditional lending tenets
are being tossed aside.
Experts know that
studying commercial real estate in San Diego markets’ history is a poor way to predict
future performance. Subordination levels are in sharp contrast compared to
levels a few years ago. Commercial mortgage-backed securities originators are
touting the new “super senior structures” of their issues. This structure
carves out a junior piece of AAA bonds backed by mortgages that are subordinate
to the rest of the AAA tranches. In theory, the balance of the AAAs is safer.
However, this thinking would be sound if AAAs didn’t continue to take a growing
share of the entire mortgage pool; all this does is recover some of the ground
lost by more-lenient subordination levels. The rating agencies and many bond
buyers are confusing theory with reality, causing errors in judgment.
Myth No. 4: Liquidity will continue to exist. Many
investors wrongly assume that capital, both debt and equity, will continue to
be consistently available. More typical credit cycles have longer periods where
liquidity is scarce, such as the cycle that occurred between 1990 and 1993.
Real estate fundamentals
for commercial real estate in San Diego are stronger now than in 1988-1989, which
greatly reduces the chance of a near-term liquidity squeeze. It is likely,
however, that in a few years there will be a lower supply of available credit,
especially for leveraged transactions. Refinance risk for loans originated now
is higher than at any time since 1986-1989. This is true for leveraged fixed
rates as well as interest-only floating rates.
Collateralized debt
obligations, or CDOs, which have continued their transformation into a core
asset class in the fixed-income markets, currently incorporate pooled B
financing pieces from CMBS into their offerings. CDOs are complex securities,
even for bond investors, as they contain numerous types of credits including
home equities, corporate credits, and high-yield loans. Since CMBS B pieces
comprised only 6.98 percent of total 2004 collateralized debt issuances, it is
possible that the risk inherent in B pieces is not fully understood. There is a
trend towards dedicated real estate CDOs comprised of aggregated subordinate
debt and mezzanine investments. The idea that pools of unrated securities can
have investment-grade tranches seems counterintuitive despite the fact that
diversification of the pooled B pieces somewhat neutralizes their risk. Many of
the buyers of B pieces are now less concerned about risk so long as they can
transfer it to collateralized debt buyers. If B piece liquidity through
collateralized debt originations diminishes, then leveraged loan supply will
follow suit.
Myth No. 5: All conduits are the same. Many investors in commercial real estate in San Diego believe that all conduit financing is similar
in price and structure, but this is not true. In case you haven’t noticed,
conduits are staffed by people, and so are the rating agencies and bond buyers.
This means that anyone originating or selling mortgages has their own subset of
experiences from which to draw upon. There are startling differences between
securitized lenders in how risk is viewed, structured, and priced. One needs to
truly understand what is happening with numerous players in this market to
achieve efficient execution.
Myth No. 6: Interest rates must rise soon. This is not as
certain as some people seem to think. A popular belief among economists and
others is that we have been living off the dole of the Federal Reserve Board
for too long. The U.S. economy has yet to establish the kind of job growth that
drives gross domestic product to levels that cause the Fed to raise rates
dramatically. Hurricane Katrina may also have an impact on federal policy in
the near term, causing them to pause in their current round of rate increases.
Inflation appears to be
in check assuming that recent oil spikes do not contribute to a spiral of price
increases the way they did in the 1970s. The largest financiers of the federal
deficit, Japan and China, which hold more than $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt,
cannot liquidate their positions without experiencing an enormous bond value
loss. This is because the market likely would panic if the industry suspected
that either entity wanted to reduce its U.S. Treasury holdings. The Fed also
should realize that disastrous consequences could occur if it raises rates too
fast. Consumers are financing much of their spending through home equity
borrowing. This would collapse if rates rose quickly, which also would deflate
home prices to the extent that the solvency of Fannie Mae and other large
investors in adjustable rate residential and commercial mortgages would be at
risk.
Myth No. 7: The bubble in commercial real estate in San Diego will burst soon. It is possible, but not if
rates stay close to current levels. Since rents in many markets have been
somewhat depressed for a while, it is possible that rent inflation will
increase as some markets reach equilibrium. For instance, it is hard to imagine
that class A suburban office rents can drop much more than current levels. Very
little supply has been added in areas that are supply constrained due to lack
of available land or soft leasing. Better information flow regarding absorption
has enabled construction lenders to enforce greater supply financing
restrictions. If rents recover in certain areas, there is upside value
potential.
To navigate the current
market in commercial real estate in San Diego, equity investors should tread water carefully
and debt investors need to be wary of leveraged loans based upon inflated asset
values. Existing borrowers should lock in as much money as their investments can
support for as long as possible — more than 10 years is preferable. If owners
have another method of deploying capital outside of real estate, it is time to
sell, but not to buy more real estate at inflated values.
Source: CCIM
DISCLAIMER: This blog has
been curated from an alternate source and is designed for informational
purposes to highlight the commercial real estate market. It solely represents
the opinion of the specific blogger and does not necessarily represent the
opinion of Pacific Coast Commercial.
Comments
Post a Comment