The Coming Bust In Commercial Real Estate: Why Developers Are Desperate For the Dole

Both Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal published stories on Monday warning of increasing trouble in the land of commercial real estate. It's going to be pretty bad, there's no doubt about it. But why is it bad and who is it really going to hurt? The Bloomberg headline claimed defaults could triple, but how much you care about that depends on where you sit in the food chain.

REIS, a consulting firm boasting a peripatetic chief economist with the best enunciation I have ever heard, evidently supplied data to Bloomberg showing that commercial loan defaults will rise dramatically if property-level net operating incomes ("NOI") drop by even 5%. That's a rosy forecast, given what's going on with the economy. For the time being however, let's assume they're correct because there is really no dispute that NOI will weaken in this environment.

All things being equal, when NOI drops, the value of the underlying property also drops. Let's say you own a property with $6 million in NOI. And let's also say the "market" capitalization rate for that property is 6%, which is about where cap rates were, broadly speaking, during the boom. That means you have a property worth $100 million ($6MM in NOI/.06). However, if your NOI drops 5% to $5.7MM, your property is now worth only $95 million ($5.7MM/.06).

Could this really be what persuaded a bunch of New York City real estate tycoons to beg for a meeting, hats in hand, with a Senator from Brooklyn? Unfortunately, it wasn't, because the above example assumes all else is equal, which is not the case. What if you threw in a few more wildcards, like the collapse of the CMBS market and rising cap rates? Then you'd have a story, and blessed be the prophets, it's all right here on REIT Wrecks!

So what's going on with the CMBS market? The short answer is nothing, really, and that's a big part of the problem. During the boom years, CMBS grew to become a $225 billion source of capital to the commercial real estate market. Some were optimistically predicting that it would crash through $300 billion in annual issuance by 2008. What actually happened couldn't have been more different, but it did crash.

Annual US CMBS Issuance
The CMBS market actually collapsed, and commercial real estate lending volumes continue to contract. In fact, those 2008 deals you see on the chart, all $12.1 billion of them, were largely the result of lenders desperately trying to unload the loans they made in 2007. One of the last of those deals, J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2008-C2, closed in May of 2008 and 20% of its commercial real estate loans defaulted within just 6 months.

Clearly, huge demand for CMBS led to a decrease in underwriting standards, including (among other things), a relaxing of traditional loan-to-value criteria. Moody's estimated that the gap between the Moodys LTV and underwritten LTVs reached record in the first quarter of 2007 (nearly 45%). The Moody's estimate of actual LTV also reached a record of 106.5%.



These poorly underwritten loans are still out there and in a few of short years, many of them will start to mature. Unfortunately, no lender will touch them now because they are practically radioactive. At the same time that a huge source of capital has disappeared from the market, borrowing costs have soared, making whatever capital there is out there relatively expensive. You can enlarge the chart a bit by clicking on it. Nevertheless, the lines going up and to the right tell the story: money is more much more expensive.

Commercial Real Estate Borrowing Costs
This is happening at the same time that cap rates, which were compressed down around that 6% mark, are now correcting. Cap rates averaged 8.3% between 1986 and 2008, but they fell below 6% in the first quarter of 2007.


Historical Cap Rates

This is a toxic mix for those New York City real estate tycoons, and the reason they made the trip to see Chuck Schumer from Brooklyn is simple: they are all about to lose a TON of money.

If NOI decreases by 5%, that's a few less dinners at the Palace Hotel. However, if that happens at the same time that cap rates revert to historic averages and borrowing standards suddenly tighten, they can forget about dinner at the Palace because they'll all be sleeping outside on the sidewalk.

Here is that $6 million in NOI at a 6% cap rate during the boom years. Everything looks great, and we've got our $100 million:

Commercial Real Estate Valuations - Pre Crisis
Ok, but what happens now that things have changed? If you still want your 15.6% Levered IRR (and that's a big if), what would that deal look like today? Cap rates are definitely headed north, most likely back to their 8.3% average, and loan to values are definitely headed south, probably close to 50% for office and retail (Pro Logis recently did project level industrial debt at 50% LTV).

Adjusting for the new reality, that $100 million deal is $36 million in the hole. If NOI drops by 5%, the problem gets a whole lot worse. This is the wall against which many equity investors and developers have backed themselves into, particularly those with near-term debt maturities.

Commercial Real Estate Valuations - Post Crisis
While REIS was emphasizing NOI growth, or lack thereof, in the Bloomberg story, the canary in the coal mine for the Wall Street Journal was Foresight Analytics warning about near-term debt maturities. The Journal's story emphasised 2009 maturities that could have trouble getting refinanced. However, while there will definitely be demand for refinancing next year, it will start to get really interesting in 2010. About $180 billion in 2005-2007 CMBS loans will start to mature then, and a little more than half of those are variable rate deals. These are the Alt-A's of the commercial world, and they were underwritten for a completely different solar system.

The good news is that if you're a lender in the above example with a well-underwritten 70% LTV loan, things aren't looking nearly so bad. You're only down about 10%, and you get the asset to play with, while the developer/owner is completely wiped out. This could lead to the ultimate irony for all those that have been burned on Mortgage REITs: those loan defaults aren't looking so bad after all!

REIT List

Disclosures: None at the time of publication
, , , ,

Labels: , , , , ,

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Advancing another step forward, is this the fundamental reason to favor the commercial mortgage reits that wrote the largest percentage of existing mortgages prior to 2005 - the earlier the better?

I don't believe most 10Q's address the LTV%. Can you clarify if that can be extrapolated?

Thank you.
Gene

December 23, 2008 10:32 AM  
Anonymous Peter Maclennan said...

This is a very well written article on the hardships that commercial owners will have in the next couple of years.

The change in value analysis you did is similar to analysis I did in my article over at Peter Pays Paul

Great article! Keep up the great writing.

December 23, 2008 1:15 PM  
Blogger mike said...

The problem isn't so much maturities, although some IO paper will mature around then. Traditionally, a CRE loan was a 10 year balloon, paying according to a 30-yr amortization schedule. What started in 2004-5 was that lenders were tacking on a 3 year interest-only period up front before the loan began to amortize. That is what is changeing in 2009-10, as debt service resets from just I to P&I, and is akin to the reset provision on a teaser ARM.

December 23, 2008 6:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

home loan ARM resets are not akin to a commercial loan in any way i can think of. home loans are underwritten to the IO payment, or to the current ARM benchmark rate. when a home loan goes from I to P&I, the home owner may not be able to make the increased payment since they only needed to qualify for the IO payment or current ARM rate.
as you just mentioned, commercial loans are typically 10 year loans, that are fixed rates (nothing adjusts). They may also include an IO period. if they included an IO period, they were not underwriten to the lower IO payment like home loans were (unless the loan was a full term IO loan, which is a whole other problem). the loans were underwriten to the full P&I payment that is fixed. so if property cash flows dont change, there shouldnt be a problem to make the increased payment.

I am not sure why you guys are so concerned about these partial term IO loans, so i figured i would actually look at a random 2005 CMBS deal, isolate all the partial term IO loans that are now paying full P&I and look at their most recent actual DSCR numbers. The deal has 33% of the loans that fit this criteria. the lowest actual DSCR i found was 1.14,..next lowest was a 1.24,..the rest were north of 1.35. with the weighted average current actual DSCR being 1.66, and none of the loans is in special servicing. the loans all looked fine so far to me.

The IO loans you should be concerned about is the full term IO loans that were underwriten to DSCRs less than about 1.40. this became fairly common during 2006 and 2007. if the new world order of underwriting goes back to 1.25+ dscr on fully amortizing basis, that could drop some property values by about 17% just due to the change in underwriting standards.

the recent Moodys LTV increase only tells me is that cap rates declined during the period. The question going forward is where should cap rates be. obviously they dropped low, but so did loan coupon rates, and leverage increased. no reason for cap rates to be at 9% if you can get 75+% money at 5.5% rate...as was the case in 2006/2007.

December 23, 2008 10:40 PM  
Anonymous mike said...

Anonymous dude, I suspect you work for a ratings agency, because no one on the business side would cite them seriously at this point. I track this stuff for a living. If you look at the 20,000 loans which comprise the CMBX deals, a loan whose i/o period ended is about 4 times more likely to be in special servicing. DSCRs may or may not have been based on budgeted numbers; you can't tell from the deal data, but pro forma DSCRs are b.s. as is becoming obvious

December 24, 2008 9:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

kederisdid i say something positive about a rating agency to make you think i work for one?? i only pointed out that the moodys LTV is basically useless since its based on some assumed fixed cap rates from years ago. I am not trying to champion the credit quality of these loans. i just think people are looking in the wrong places and trying to help.

of course a loan which has ended its IO period is more likely to be in special serv, thats because one that has not ended its IO term still has a larger DSCR. what you need to compare is loans that have ended their partial term IO vs loans that never had IO at all to begin with. that might be more useful info. maybe you could also look at partial term IO loans that have not ended their io term and compare vs loans that never had any IO period. you may find the partial term loans perform better.
i dont want to do your surveillance job for you, but hopefully you have some help from someone that is senior in credit that can help you get useful data.

the DSCR numbers i am looking at are the actual most recent reported DSCRs from the servicers, not the deal underwritten ones. feel free to look at loans that have not reached their partial IO term date, you will see they have a deal underwritten DSCR of maybe 1.25, vs the current actual reported DSCR of maybe 1.50. since you do this for a living you should know why its actually higher than reported in the deal.

December 24, 2008 4:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The financing and underwriting is only one side of developers' problems. As a retail broker, I have seen a lot of developments in poor locations, with poor visibility, in either over built trade areas or in trade areas dependent upon huge housing growth. There was a build it and they will come pay the proforma rent mentality from developers.A lot of poor development(and poor underwriting) has taken place because commercial real estate was viewed as a commodity. Therefore, some of these projects won't lease and will go back to the bank irregardless of what happens on the financing side.

December 25, 2008 6:09 AM  
Blogger Deal Junkie said...

Hey anon retail broker, if someone/the bank is willing to provide capital, the developer will build it, okay? That’s just the nature of the business. It’s like Hollywood, probably only 10% of the movie they make each year is watchable, yet the producers continue to make them. Sorry, can’t let a broker criticize the developer.

December 27, 2008 2:31 PM  
Anonymous mike said...

Anonymous, I agree with your Christmas day comment, but am more familiar with the rating and structuring side than with underwriting. The problem is that Moody's and the others would model a stressed LTV, in other words the LTV in a recession scenario, and then not use it to rate the deal, or do so applying a generous haircut. So, top ten loans would have stressed LTVs of 120+, yet 87% of the balance would be rated AAA, even though the loans would be underwater in a recession environment such as the present. There are many great examples of bad underwriting, but take Riverton Apts., a $225MM loan, as a case in point. The actual DSCR is 0.38x but the DSCR was underwritten to projected cash flows in 2011. Something stinks there, don't you think?

December 28, 2008 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

my comments werent in regards to pro forma dscrs. some of the loans where pro forma was done, there obviously will be problems. (riverton being a good example)

btw, the Moodys LTV is not an LTV during a recession scenario, its simply an LTV based on cap rates from years ago before cap rates went lower. simply put> lower cap rates = higher moodys LTV. for me personally, its a useless measure. for people who feel that cap rates are for some reason supposed to be fixed, they may find it usefull.

the merits of the rating agencies ratings are a whole different ball of wax. whether or not 11.5% sub to AAA is rational, there are plenty of arguments both ways on that. we are in a 100 year financial storm right now, and from that perspective almost any sub level will be of concern.

happy holidays

December 29, 2008 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your cap rate chart is very useful - is there somewhere we can find the actual data?

THanks

January 23, 2009 8:31 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home