What makes transitional CRE lending different?
Transitional CRE lending is in some ways an antithesis to traditional (i.e., core) lending. Core lending has a backward-looking bias and generally assumes that stabilized core assets will remain competitive into perpetuity. We believe this reasoning has proven challenging for many long-term holders of CRE in the recent market. Over the past three years, the CRE sector at large has experienced a dramatic repricing with macro tides receding to reveal numerous examples of underappreciated risks within core assets. The unfortunate reality for CRE is that many are aging assets susceptible to obsolescence across multiple dimensions, including: (i) deteriorating physical quality or outdated amenities/technology, (ii) cash-flow deterioration due to tenant loss (which could be due to (i) above or shifting dynamics such as work-from-home), and (iii) a shift in highest and best use, such as an outdated office building better suited for conversion to apartments. As the world continues to change rapidly, the way we work, live, and shop will continue to be catalysts for further transitions in CRE.
Generally, obsolescence occurs gradually over time, but a core asset can swiftly become transitional if a single-tenant property loses its sole occupant. By definition, a core asset is also stabilized, which limits its potential for further upside primarily to macroeconomic conditions (i.e., cap rate compression), while the downside risks (i.e., idiosyncratic in addition to macroeconomic) remain inherently larger. Through this lens, we believe transitional CRE lending offers a differentiated risk-reward profile, as the opportunities for value creation are distinct and significantly greater.
What are transitional lending’s potential risks?
Transitional lending carries real risks — from execution missteps to market dislocations — and we believe success depends on how thoughtfully those risks are underwritten. While the asset class offers the potential for attractive risk-adjusted returns, it demands rigorous evaluation of idiosyncratic risks: collateral quality, business plan feasibility, tenant credit, market fundamentals, and sponsor capability.
We believe this is where a bottom-up, owner’s mindset is essential to underwriting. In our view, CRE assets should be underwritten individually to best ascertain intrinsic value, as underwriting to the average can substantially miscalculate the true worth of stronger assets and overvalue weaker ones. Finally, transitional CRE debt’s downside risks can be better mitigated through robust loan structuring and meaningful alignment with borrowers, which begins with sizing of the loan to a defensible basis.