Real estate lenders are becoming corporate credit investors

For decades, commercial real estate lending was a relatively straightforward discipline, with a lender’s success determined largely by its ability to understand property fundamentals such as location, tenant covenant strength, lease length, vacancy rates and market liquidity. If a lender could accurately assess the quality and value of the underlying real estate, it stood a good chance of achieving a successful outcome. 

Today, the evolution of the lending market is blurring the distinction between traditional real estate lending and corporate credit. While property remains the collateral, many of the factors that now determine loan performance would be more familiar to a corporate lender than a traditional real estate underwriter.

The most successful lenders are therefore no longer simply analysing buildings and rental income but increasingly, they are analysing businesses that happen to own and operate real estate.

One reason is the shift in capital towards more operational assets. Build-to-Rent (BTR), purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA), data centres, self-storage, hotels and healthcare all involve real estate, but asset performance is driven by far more than the quality of the underlying buildings.

A data centre, for example, is not simply a property investment, as its success depends on power availability, connectivity, contracted capacity, customer concentration, operator capability and future capital expenditure requirements. Similarly, a PBSA platform is not merely a collection of student buildings, with education demand, booking pace, cancellation rates and operational execution all having a material influence on performance.

The same applies to BTR, hotels, healthcare and self-storage, where operational performance can have as much influence on value as the bricks and mortar. In each case, the real estate provides the foundation, but increasingly the operating platform creates the value and governs performance.

From real estate underwriting to corporate credit

As these sectors have grown, lenders have found themselves evaluating many of the same issues traditionally assessed by corporate credit investors. Loan-to-value (LTV), occupancy, covenant strength and valuations remain essential, but they increasingly need to be supplemented by questions about the business operating within the real estate.

Lenders need to understand how resilient the cashflow model is, how dependent performance is on management quality, how concentrated the customer base is, whether revenues are sufficiently diversified and whether the operator has enough liquidity. They also need to consider what happens if growth slows and whether management has the capability and funding to execute the business plan.

A lender financing a stabilised office building may still focus primarily on the property, whereas a lender financing a data centre platform, PBSA operator or BTR portfolio is likely to spend significant time underwriting the borrower, operating platform and business plan, with the real estate acting as downside protection if things go wrong.

The rise of private credit has accelerated this shift too. Following the global financial crisis, banks became more constrained by regulation and risk management, while alternative lenders stepped into the market and initially competed largely on leverage and flexibility. Over time, however, the pursuit of higher returns has increased risk appetite, with lenders becoming more comfortable underwriting complex business risk alongside real estate risk.

This is also contributing to more complicated financing structures and facility agreements, further increasing the importance of understanding the underlying business rather than looking at the property in isolation.

Why surveillance has to change too

The clearest evidence of this convergence is the growing importance of operating metrics, not only when making a lending decision but throughout the life of the loan. Traditional real estate metrics remain essential, but for operational assets, however, traditional measures need to be supplemented by sector-specific indicators that explain how the business itself is performing. Importantly, those indicators can often provide earlier warning signs than traditional covenant tests, giving lenders an opportunity to identify deterioration before it becomes a more serious credit issue.

A covenant breach, missed payment or valuation decline often tells a lender that a problem already exists, whereas slowing leasing velocity, weakening booking pace, rising customer churn, deteriorating operating margins or a lack of funding at sponsor level can indicate that a problem is developing.

That distinction should change the purpose of asset surveillance, which can no longer simply be about identifying covenant breaches after they occur. Instead, lenders should be looking for emerging risks before they manifest in the traditional property metrics on which the industry has historically relied.

As asset classes become more operational and financing structures more sophisticated, surveillance is becoming as important as underwriting itself. The lenders best placed to navigate this market will combine traditional property expertise with the analytical disciplines of corporate credit, remaining comfortable discussing rental growth and capital values while also assessing operating margins, customer retention, liquidity and management execution.

Real estate is still the collateral, but in many cases it is no longer the leading driver of the credit thesis. Lenders that understand both the asset and the business behind it will be better placed to identify risk earlier, manage it more effectively and navigate an increasingly complex real estate lending market.

To read the latest IPE Real Assets magazine click here.