To begin with, the United States economy entered 2026 on a trajectory of moderate expansion, with GDP growth projected at 2.5 percent. However, within the last month, that baseline has since been disrupted. The escalation of military conflict in the Middle East and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz have introduced a supply-side shock that is simultaneously inflationary and growth-negative, altering the macroeconomic outlook in ways that complicate the Federal Reserve’s already delicate policy calculus. What began as a geopolitical event has quickly become another emerging economic variable, and its persistence will determine whether 2026 represents a temporary disruption or the beginning of a more consequential slowdown. Yet, to focus exclusively on the Strait of Hormuz is to risk misreading the longer-term picture of risk. Within the US, one must account for domestic forces such as a leadership transition at the Federal Reserve in May and deepening stress in private credit markets may prove more consequential for real estate and capital allocation than the energy shock itself.

The most immediate impact we are seeing now is through energy markets. Crude oil approaching $100 per barrel has pushed average gasoline prices to $3.90 per gallon, approximately one dollar above mid-February levels. For American households, this translates into an estimated $100 billion annual drain on purchasing power, largely offsetting the fiscal stimulus embedded in recent tax legislation and neutralizing a tailwind that policymakers had anticipated would support consumer spending through the year. More importantly, the energy price shocks invoke a larger problem: lower and middle-income households, who allocate a disproportionately large share of income to fuel, bear the heaviest burden. This risks deepening existing consumption inequality and accelerating deterioration in discretionary spending precisely when consumer confidence is already fragile. However, it is worth noting that oil shocks, while severe in their near-term impact, are historically mean-reverting. Forward curves already imply market expectations of price normalization inside the year, but the same cannot be said of the structural forces building in domestic politics and credit markets.

Second, the approaching transition in Federal Reserve leadership represents a risk that is chronically underweighted in consensus forecasts. Chair Powell has indicated his intention to remain until the conclusion of the ongoing Justice Department investigation, but his term will end regardless, and the selection of his successor, Kevin Walsh, if approved, carries implications for monetary policy credibility and independence. A politically aligned appointment could introduce upward pressure on inflation expectations, compress real yields, and destabilize the long end of the Treasury curve in ways that would be deeply damaging to interest-rate-sensitive assets, particularly real estate investment trusts. The Trump administration’s public pressure campaign against Powell has already injected uncertainty into forward guidance interpretation. If that political influence intensifies or succeeds in reshaping the composition of the Federal Open Market Committee, the institutional framework that anchors inflation expectations could be meaningfully weakened. In the long run, this poses a more durable threat to real estate valuations than a temporary energy disruption, because it strikes at the credibility of the rate path itself rather than simply the level of rates at any given moment.

Domestic policy more broadly warrants equal analytical weight. The tariff regime, which predated the conflict and was already sustaining producer price inflation above historical norms, is subject to ongoing legal and legislative uncertainty following the Supreme Court’s partial invalidation of IEEPA-based tariffs. The Trump Administration’s pivot to Section 122 and Section 232 authorities introduces a new layer of unpredictability for supply chains, construction costs, and the financing environment for development projects. For real estate specifically, tariffs on steel and aluminum have raised nonresidential construction costs by an estimated 3 to 5 percent, constraining new supply and compressing development margins in ways that are unlikely to reverse quickly regardless of how the Hormuz situation resolves. Overall, the political dilemma behind tariff policy is driven by objectives that are largely independent of macroeconomic conditions, making it a more persistent structural headwind than a geopolitical shock with a defined, if uncertain, resolution horizon.

Perhaps the most underappreciated systemic risk in the current environment is the condition of private credit markets and their potential spillover into real estate and REIT performance. Private credit has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with business development companies and direct lending vehicles now accounting for a substantial share of commercial real estate financing at the transitional and value-add end of the capital stack. The structural opacity of this market, where assets are marked to model on a quarterly rather than daily basis, has historically obscured deteriorating credit quality until stress becomes acute. With triple-C rated bank loans trading at spreads approaching 1,900 basis points and private credit sponsors projecting default rates of approximately 8 percent over the next twelve months, the conditions for a disorderly unwind are increasingly present. Recovery rates in private credit are structurally lower than in public markets, meaning that headline default rates translate into loss rates that could materially exceed the excess spread these instruments provide over public alternatives.

The implications for real estate and REITs are direct and consequential. Private credit has served as a critical bridge financing mechanism for assets transitioning between stabilized and distressed classifications. A contraction in this market, whether driven by rising defaults, investor redemption pressure, or lender risk aversion, would tighten the overall availability of capital for transitional real estate, widening cap rates and suppressing transaction volumes precisely when the public REIT market is already navigating rate uncertainty and compressed valuations. The parallel to the 2006 to 2007 subprime dislocation is imperfect but instructive: in that episode, stress in a relatively opaque, mark-to-model segment of the credit market propagated slowly before becoming systemic. The quarterly marking convention in private credit today produces a similar dynamic, where losses accumulate beneath the surface before being recognized, and where the eventual repricing may be abrupt relative to the gradual deterioration that precedes it.

Taken together, the picture of Q1 2026 that emerges is one of compounding and interacting risks rather than a single dominant threat. The Strait of Hormuz crisis is real and its near-term economic consequences are obviously measurable, but it operates within a bounded range of scenarios with a plausible resolution path. Domestic political influence on monetary policy, the structural persistence of tariff-driven cost inflation, and the slow-motion stress building in private credit markets are forces without a clear resolution timeline and with the capacity to reshape the investment landscape in real estate for years rather than quarters. The strategic imperative for investors and allocators is to look beyond the immediacy of the energy shock and position for an environment in which policy credibility, financing availability, and credit quality become the defining variables of performance. In that environment, balance sheet strength, low leverage, and exposure to sectors insulated from discretionary consumer spending and transitional financing risk will prove to be the most durable sources of resilience.

CMBS distress exited Q3 2025 at reduced levels, from the previously reported $69.5B, and ended the year at a relatively modest $67.2B worth of securitized loans in circulation that were either entering special servicing or touted to be sold at a loss. Data provided by Bloomberg, which analyzes CMBS loans posting 30+ day delinquencies by asset class, showed a slight convergence at the end of Q3 2025 between office and mixed-use properties which have historically exhibited mirrored credit deterioration patterns. The inflection point arose in the post-pandemic period, as office and mixed-use delinquency trends initially began their convergence before office ultimately deteriorated more materially. The proverbial “bubble” surrounding AI also has yet to materialize as industrial exhibits pronounced resiliency and remains at only 58bps delinquent heading into FY 2026 relative to all other property types.

Liquidity in the debt markets has historically been injected by the “Big 3”, and continued to follow suit throughout Q4 2025. Banks, following loosened regulatory constraints, continue to make a rebound post-GFC. FY 2025 showed a more conspicuous nod to that notion, being that loan sizes of $1B - $10B accounted for ~34% of all banks’ balance sheets and ~28% was made up of loan proceeds within the $100M - $1B range. Investment by asset class is concentrated in more predictable property types with multifamily being the main focus followed closely by mixed-use. Continued investment growth is largely driven by the rumored reduction in bank capital requirements actually materializing. Insurance companies and LifeCo accounted for ~5.6% of all loan originations in FY 2025. Higher all-in yields and continued stabilization of asset valuations were the main driver of their participation within the commercial real estate credit markets. CMBS issuance hit a post-GFC record with Single-Asset Single-Borrower (SASB) securitizations being the main driver (~75% of overall volume) coupled with credit profiles that are backed by institutional sponsors with well-performing assets and portfolios. SASB issuance reached $23.4B by the end of 4Q 2025 with a pronounced concentration on office assets. Debt funds continued to play a major role in commercial real estate financings throughout 2025 with most strategies leveraging the higher rate environment to lock in loans for properties that lost a substantial amount of value from prior rate hikes, with the hopes that rate cuts continue and subsequently increase residual values for their underlying collateral. In aggregate, debt funds missed their $105B equity fundraising targets by ~$33B, for a total of $72B raised for capital deployment in FY 2025. Comparatively, this equity raise shows a growth of ~35% YoY from previous FY 2024 total of $47B and represents a record in total capital raise since the switch to non–bank lending arose.

Domestic CMBS markets ended 2025 robustly, with year-end issuance aggregating to a post-GFC record of $124.8B, up ~21% from the prior year’s $103.4B. Q4 2025 alone reflected $32.5B of total securitizations, comprising 11 conduit transactions and 29 SASB reflecting $9.1B and $23.4B respectively. Spreads were mixed with AAA conduit paper tightening less than forecasted, the conduit 10-year coming in +80bps over treasuries, while BBB- conduit spreads widened substantially. Floating rate SASB saw significant trend bias, with AAA paper for office assets priced at SOFR+160-180bps on the tighter end and around S+310 for the riskier deals. The same floating rate SASB office saw BBB- tranche bids ranging from S+260 to S+505 depending on quality of collateral as well as legitimacy of sponsor profiles. Office took first place as the most stressed sector. 11.3% of total securitized debt went into delinquency in 2025 and office assets represented ~49% of the total balance amongst special servicers. The quarter-over-quarter downtick in said delinquency rate of 13bps is relatively de minimis given this alarming statistic, but does present a slight movement toward stabilization. The true eye sore here is unequivocally the compression in office, specifically within DBC (2025-DBC) pricing in its AAA tranches at S+180 vs. NYC 2025-11x at S+180 not only two weeks earlier than the release of the latest Q4 2025 reports. BBB- pricing fears came to fruition when BFLD 2025-660F was printing at S+505, a 245bps gap relative to DBC’s S+260. This pricing disparity on these ostensibly similar office collaterals suggested that the market was far apart on deal structures, LTV’s, and DY’s rather than solely asset class.

As the commercial real estate credit markets close the chapter on FY 2025, the landscape reflects a tale of conservative optimism tested by material structural vulnerabilities. Unprecedented CMBS issuance of $124.8B and a 35% YoY uptick in debt fund capital raises signals to the market that liquidity, although concentrated, is readily available, but remains simultaneously bifurcated between institutional sponsorship and the broader market. The persistent deterioration in office loans will remain the market’s core stress test, and how special servicers, sponsor profiles, and capital allocators navigate that distress will set the tone for overall sentiment. The sizable refinancing wall approaching over the next several years is not simply a liquidity event, it is another reckoning for valuations that were vastly underwritten in a fundamentally different rate environment. Debt funds, banks, and CMBS conduits have all demonstrated a willingness to participate, however, everyone has their limits and those limits will be tested if rate relief proves slower or shallower than the markets’ already understated forecast. The divergence in spread pricing witnessed throughout Q4 is less a technical anomaly and more a signal that the market is demanding greater transparency around deal structure, sponsorship quality, and underlying fundamentals before committing capital at scale. In that sense, 2026 will be less about volume, more about discipline, and whether the participants who drove this year’s records have the conviction, and the balance sheets, to see it through.

Sources:

2nd Market Capital (2026) State of REITs: March 2026 Edition. Available at: https://www.2ndmarketcapital.com/2026/03/19/the-state-of-reits-march-2026-edition/ (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

CBRE (2025) On Again, Off Again: Tariffs and Commercial Real Estate. Available at: https://www.cbre.com/insights/briefs/on-again-off-again-tariffs-and-commercial-real-estate (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

CNBC (2026) Fed Meeting Recap: Powell Says Inflation Is Not Coming Down as Much as Hoped, 18 March. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/18/fed-meeting-today-live-updates.html (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

CNBC (2026) Fed Rate Decision January 2026: Holds Key Rate Steady, 28 January. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/fed-rate-decision-january-2026.html (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Construction Dive (2026) Tariffs Drove Construction Input Prices Up to Start 2026, 14 February. Available at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/tariffs-construction-input-prices-january-2026/813419/ (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Construction Dive (2026) Tariffs Lifted Nonresidential Construction Costs 3.2% in 2025, 14 January. Available at: https://www.constructiondive.com/news/tariffs-nonresidential-construction-costs-2025-producer-price-index/811023/ (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Federal Reserve (2026) FOMC Statement, 28 January. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20260128a.htm (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Federal Reserve (2026) FOMC Statement, 18 March. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20260318a.htm (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Federal Reserve (2026) Summary of Economic Projections, March. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcminutes20260318.htm (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Federal Reserve (2026) Transcript of Chair Powell’s Press Conference, 18 March. Available at: https://www.federalreserve.gov/mediacenter/files/FOMCpresconf20260318.pdf (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

JP Morgan (2026) Tariffs and Trade Policy’s Impact on Commercial Real Estate, 10 March. Available at: https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/real-estate/commercial-real-estate/tariffs-and-trade-policys-impact-on-commercial-real-estate (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Nareit (2025) Converging Forces: REITs, Institutional Investors, and Global Real Estate in 2026. Available at: https://www.reit.com/news/blog/market-commentary/2026-reit-outlook-trends-and-strategies (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

Nareit (2025) Dual Divergences Set Stage for REIT Rebound in 2026. Available at: https://www.reit.com/news/blog/market-commentary/dual-divergences-reit-growth-outlook-2026 (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

S&P Global Ratings (2026) U.S. Economic Outlook: March 2026, 20 March. Available at: https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/260320-u-s-economic-outlook-march-2026 (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

St. Louis Fed FRED Blog (2026) FOMC Summary of Economic Projections: March 2026, 23 March. Available at: https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2026/03/fomc-summary-of-economic-projections-march-2026/ (Accessed: 30 March 2026).

That era could very well be on its way to ending. A combination of the Federal Reserve showing signs of lower rates, improving loan portfolio health, and renewed lender confidence is signaling a shift in the CRE debt markets. Banks, it seems, are back, and understanding what that return means for acquisitions, deal structuring, and capital stack construction is essential for any serious CRE professional in 2026

The Tightening Cycle in Context

To appreciate how significant the current shift is, it helps to understand the severity of what preceded it. According to Deloitte’s 2026 Commercial Real Estate Outlook, drawing on data from the Federal Reserve’s Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey (SLOOS), as of April 2023, 67.4% of banks were tightening their CRE lending standards on net. By April 2024, that figure had dropped to 30.3%. As of June 2025, it stood at just 9%, a near-complete reversal of one of the most aggressive tightening cycles in recent memory.

The SLOOS is one of the most closely watched indicators in CRE finance precisely because of this kind of signal. As Deloitte noted, “reduced tightening of lending standards has historically been a reliable precursor to capital value improvements in commercial real estate.” In other words, this isn’t just a footnote in a quarterly survey, it is a leading indicator of where the market is heading.

Invesco Real Estate’s February 2026 commentary confirmed the shift: the January 2026 SLOOS reported a net tightening figure of -3.16% across combined CRE loan types, meaning underwriting standards are now, for the first time since rate hikes began in 2022, in net easing territory. Invesco characterized similar historical inflection points as early signals of new capital cycles, noting that comparable patterns followed the tech downturn of the early 2000s, the post-GFC recovery beginning in 2011, and the COVID-era reopening of 2021-2022.

What’s Driving the Return

There are several factors behind the re-engagement of bank lenders. The first being stabilizing interest rates. The Federal Reserve’s rate-cutting cycle, which began in late 2024, has reduced volatility in the underlying cost of capital. As J.P. Morgan’s Michelle Herrick, Head of Commercial Real Estate, noted in the firm’s 2026 CRE Outlook: “The 2026 market is strong from both a capital and fundamental standpoint, we anticipate more transactions in the coming year.” Stabilized rates have restored banks’ ability to underwrite with confidence, as both debt service coverage ratios and loan-to-value assumptions become more predictable. The improvement of loan portfolio health is also a factor as banks’ internal metrics are recovering. According to data cited in the 2026 CRE lending outlook from Agora Real Estate, bank charge-off rates have stayed near historic lows, hovering around 0.3%, and loan loss provisions are coming in below previous estimates. Lower-than-expected net charge-offs point toward the improving health of banks’ CRE loan portfolios, a dynamic Deloitte noted as an important indicator of renewed lender confidence. There is also the resurgence of CMBS, as securitization markets have also reopened meaningfully. Year-to-date CMBS issuance through November 2025 reached $115.2 billion, which is the highest volume since 2007. This demonstrates restored investor appetite for CRE credit risk. Tighter AAA spreads relative to the stress period of 2022–2023 are reinforcing lender confidence in the secondary market’s ability to absorb new originations.

Implications for the Deal Market

The return of bank lending has tangible consequences for how deals are structured and priced. According to District Capital’s January 2026 CRE Lending Outlook, credit spreads and CRE mortgage rate spreads are currently at historically tight levels. For borrowers, this represents a favorable financing window, competitive pricing, abundant capital, and improving execution timelines across lender types. The CBRE Lending Momentum Index jumped 13% in Q1 2025 and was up 90% year-over-year, reflecting the scale of renewed financing activity.

Within the CRE debt landscape, multifamily is among the best-positioned asset classes, given its ability to maintain occupancy, adjust rents in the short term, and access consistent, low-cost financing through agency lenders even during periods of market volatility. Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) received a 20.5% increase to their lending caps heading into 2026, expanding the volume of agency-backed multifamily debt available in the market. As J.P. Morgan’s Kurt Stuart, Co-Head of Commercial Term Lending, observed: supply introduced over the past several years has largely been delivered and is stabilizing, driving improved occupancy and rent growth in many markets, particularly coastal cities.

One consequence of banks’ return is increased competition across lender types. According to Invesco, private non-bank CRE lenders, such as debt funds, mortgage REITs, and insurance companies, had grown their market share significantly during the bank retreat, averaging 8.6% of total CRE loan originations from 2021 through Q3 2025, up from a 4.6% average in the prior decade. As banks re-enter, borrowers gain negotiating leverage and execution certainty that was less available during the tightening cycle.

Although banks are coming back, they remain cautious in specific segments. CMBS delinquencies, at 6.59% as of Q3 2025 per Agora, are concentrated in office and hospitality, sectors that continue to face structural headwinds. Office performance, in particular, lags due to ongoing occupancy risk, especially in major urban markets such as San Francisco, New York City, and Chicago, where remote and hybrid work trends have significantly reduced demand for traditional office space. J.P. Morgan’s Burke Davis, Head of Real Estate Banking, was direct on this point, noting that lower-quality office space is at risk of obsolescence and more likely to be repurposed than renovated. Bank underwriting discipline, while easing, remains asset-specific.

What This Means for Real Estate Professionals

First, the bid-ask gap should narrow. One of the primary impediments to transaction activity over the past two years has been the disconnect between seller pricing expectations and buyer underwriting given elevated debt costs. As financing becomes cheaper and more available, buyers can support higher prices without sacrificing return thresholds, creating conditions for volume to recover. Deloitte’s 2026 survey found that 65% of CRE professionals expect core fundamentals, leasing activity and the cost of capital, to improve throughout the year.

Second, capital stack creativity remains valuable. Even as banks return, the era of a single bank financing the entire debt stack is unlikely to return at scale. Floating-rate bridge loans, mezzanine tranches, preferred equity, and agency takeout financing will continue to play important roles. Understanding how to layer these instruments. and when to use each, remains a differentiating skill for anyone working on the acquisitions side of CRE.

Third, the $936 billion maturity wall demands attention. According to Agora’s 2026 lending trends report, approximately $936 billion in commercial mortgages will mature in 2026. This keeps lender origination activity high, but also means a significant volume of assets may change hands as borrowers who cannot refinance at current rates face pressure to sell or refinance. For real estate professionals, this wave represents both opportunity and risk, opportunity to acquire distressed or motivated sellers at favorable entry points, and risk to underwrite properly in an environment where some sponsors may be over-levered.

What’s Next?

The CRE debt market of 2026 looks materially different from 2023. Banks, once sidelined by rate shock and regulatory caution, are re-engaging with the market at a pace that has not been seen since before the hiking cycle began. The signals from the Federal Reserve’s SLOOS, from J.P. Morgan’s market commentary, from Deloitte’s annual survey, and from CMBS volume data are consistent as lender confidence is returning, capital is flowing, and transaction activity is poised to accelerate.

But this recovery is not uniform, and it is not guaranteed. Asset quality, market selection, sponsorship strength, and deal structure will continue to matter as much as ever. The banks may be back, however, they are coming back with sharper pencils, not blank checks.

For CRE professionals, the implication is clear: fluency in the debt markets is no longer optional. Understanding where capital is available, at what cost, and under what conditions is as fundamental to a deal as the cap rate itself.

Learn more about the author: Gautam Khosla

Sources

CBRE Research. Q1 2025 U.S. Capital Markets Figures: Investment & Lending Activity Rise. CBRE Group, Inc., 2025.
https://www.cbre.com/insights/us-quarterly-figures

Deloitte Center for Financial Services. 2026 Commercial Real Estate Outlook. Deloitte Insights, Dec. 2025.
https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-services/commercial-real-estate-outlook.html

District Capital. 2026 CRE Lending Outlook: What We Know. District Capital, Jan. 2026.
https://www.districtcapital.com/what-we-know/2026-cre-lending-outlook_ae36.html

Invesco Real Estate. Lending Standards Ease - Constructive Signal for Commercial Real Estate. Invesco, 10 Feb. 2026.
https://www.invesco.com/us/en/insights/lending-standards-ease-constructive-signal-for-commercial-real-estate.html

J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Commercial Real Estate: An Opportunity Too Good to Pass Up. J.P. Morgan Asset Management, 2026.
https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/portfolio-insights/alternatives/commercial-real-estate-an-opportunity-to-good-to-pass-up/

J.P. Morgan Commercial Banking. 2026 Commercial Real Estate Trends. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2026.
https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/real-estate/commercial-real-estate/commercial-real-estate-trends

Morgan, Luke, et al. The January 2026 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Feb. 2026.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos/sloos-202601.htm

Paula Litwn-Logan

President

Paula Litwin-Logan is a Master’s candidate at the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate and President of the REIT Investment Fund. She is passionate about commercial real estate, with a particular focus on retail and leasing strategy.

BOUNYADEJ Q. SANANIKONE

Co-Portfolio Manager

Q. Sananikone serves as Co-Portfolio Manager of the REIT Investment Fund. He is always interested in expanding knowledge about Mergers & Acquisitions, Equity & Debt Capital Markets, IPOs, and Restructuring.

SPENCER DWORKIN

Co-Portfolio Manager

Nathaniel Kerr

Head of Investment Research

Jose Godinez

Trade, Market Strategist PERE

Jose Godinez is a Los Angeles native and current Master’s candidate in Real Estate focusing on Finance and Investment at NYU, where he focuses on capital markets and investment analysis. As a member of NYU’s Schack REIT Investment Fund, he serves as Market Strategist for Private Equity Real Estate and is part of the Management Team as the Equity Trader. He previously served as Lead Analyst for the Industrial Sector, where he led investment discussions, developed valuation models, authored investment memoranda. His experience spans both public and private markets, with a strong emphasis on data-driven investment strategy and portfolio positioning. Prior to NYU, Jose worked at Fidelity Investments across multiple roles, supporting high-net-worth portfolios, executing trades across asset classes, and analyzing macroeconomic trends impacting fixed income and broader financial markets.

Anna Mitrofanova

Communications/Outreach Director

Anna is an M.S. candidate in Real Estate Finance and Investment at NYU’s Schack Institute of Real Estate, where she serves as Communications Director & Residential Analyst of the NYU REIT Fund, as well as Chair of REISA’s Professional Development Committee. Anna also contribute to the Schack Blueprint publication, covering topics in CRE finance. She holds a Bachelor’s in Data Science from NYU and is currently interning with the Polk Wealth Management Group, a top Private Wealth Management team at Morgan Stanley.

Page 2:

About the Fund Past two semesters:

Navigating a Turning Point: Inside the NYU Schack REIT Investment Fund’s Transformative Year

By: Q. Sananikone

Over the past two semesters, the NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund has emerged stronger, more disciplined, and increasingly aligned with institutional investment practices. Against a backdrop of macroeconomic uncertainty and shifting capital markets, the student-run fund not only outperformed its benchmark but also redefined its strategic approach to real estate investing.

As of year-end 2025, the Fund delivered a +4.90% return, significantly outperforming the FTSE NAREIT All REIT Index, which declined by -2.11%. This performance reflects a deliberate shift toward higher-conviction investing, supported by rigorous analysis and a sharper focus on sector fundamentals.

From Diversification to Conviction

One of the most defining changes this year was the Fund’s transition from a broadly diversified portfolio to a more concentrated strategy. Reducing its holdings from approximately 35 positions to just 15, the team emphasized quality over quantity—ensuring that each investment earned its place through deep underwriting, strong management alignment, and clear earnings visibility.

This evolution mirrors the philosophy of leading institutional investors: fewer bets, but with greater conviction.

The portfolio continues to emphasize large-cap REITs, particularly in sectors such as healthcare and industrials, where long-term tailwinds—including aging demographics, e-commerce expansion, and nearshoring—support durable growth. At the same time, the Fund selectively explores opportunities in smaller-cap REITs, where valuation dislocations and private equity interest may drive increased merger and acquisition activity.

Learning Beyond the Classroom

The past year also marked a significant expansion in experiential learning. Fund members actively engaged with the broader real estate and investment community through premier industry events and competitions.

At the 58th Annual Conference on Capital Markets in Real Estate, students gained exposure to leading voices in global capital markets, exploring trends in debt and equity flows, institutional investment strategies, and emerging disruptions shaping the future of real estate.

The Fund also represented NYU at the University of Michigan REIT Competition, where students presented investment strategies to a board of industry professionals—an experience that reinforced both analytical rigor and real-world decision-making under pressure.

In addition, the Fund hosted Dan Joseph, Chief Investment Officer of Apparent Capital, who provided insights into opportunistic credit strategies. His discussion of gap financing—where his firm deployed capital into $1–$7 million deals generating high-teens to low-twenties returns—offered students a practical lens into alternative real estate investing.

A Platform for Leadership and Ideas

This year’s 30th Annual REIT Symposium served as a culminating moment for the Fund’s leadership team. As co-portfolio managers and sector leads presented their strategy, insights, and outlook, the emphasis was clear: build a high-performing cohort grounded in discipline, collaboration, and intellectual curiosity.

Beyond performance metrics, the Fund continues to distinguish itself as a platform for developing future leaders in real estate finance. Students are not only managing capital—they are building investment frameworks, forming market views, and engaging directly with industry practitioners.

A notable milestone included a visit to the New York Stock Exchange, where the Fund marked the 20th anniversary of Banco Macro’s public listing—an experience that underscored the connection between global capital markets and real estate investment.

Positioning for 2026: Opportunity Amid Uncertainty

Looking ahead, the Fund is preparing for what it believes could be a pivotal shift in the REIT landscape. After a prolonged period of interest rate-driven valuation pressure, there are early signs of a transition toward a more constructive investment environment.

Improving cost of capital conditions, stabilizing interest rates, and a potential reversal of the valuation gap between public REITs and private real estate markets could create compelling opportunities. Additionally, the divergence between REIT valuations and broader equity markets—driven in part by AI-fueled enthusiasm—may begin to normalize, historically a catalyst for strong REIT performance.

At the same time, the team remains mindful of persistent risks. Inflation, regulatory uncertainty, tariffs, and uneven consumer spending patterns continue to shape an unpredictable macroeconomic backdrop.

The Bigger Picture

Ultimately, the past two semesters have been about more than performance. They represent a period of transformation, one in which the NYU Schack REIT Investment Fund refined its identity, strengthened its investment discipline, and deepened its connection to the real estate industry.

In doing so, the Fund has positioned itself not only to navigate the next market cycle, but to capitalize on it.

End-of-Year Dinner 2025: Performance and Positioning for the Year Ahead

At its 2025 End-of-Year Dinner, the NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund reflected on a year of strong performance and strategic evolution. As of December 30, 2025, the student-run fund delivered a +4.90% annual return, significantly outperforming the FTSE NAREIT All REIT Index, which declined by -2.11%.

Looking ahead, the Fund is actively shaping its investment outlook for the coming quarters, integrating perspectives on macroeconomic conditions, property-level fundamentals, and investor sentiment. Industry research platforms such as Nareit and Green Street have played a key role in informing this forward view.

The team anticipates that 2026 may mark the early stages of a transition out of the interest rate-driven valuation downturn that has defined recent market cycles. In this evolving environment, improving cost of capital conditions, resilient operating fundamentals, and a potential narrowing of valuation disparities could create a more constructive backdrop for REIT investing.

A central theme in the Fund’s outlook is the divergence between public REIT valuations and broader equity markets—an imbalance driven in part by recent enthusiasm surrounding artificial intelligence. Historically, periods of such divergence have preceded strong relative performance in real estate securities as valuations normalize. A similar dynamic may also unfold between public and private real estate markets, where pricing gaps appear to be narrowing.

In terms of strategy, the Fund is increasingly focused on middle-market REITs, where limited scale has contributed to persistent valuation discounts. With significant levels of private equity dry powder in the market, these companies may become attractive targets for strategic transactions in the year ahead.

Reflecting a more disciplined investment philosophy, the team is also embracing a high-conviction approach, concentrating capital in a smaller number of positions supported by deeper sector analysis, management evaluation, and earnings growth visibility—an approach often associated with investors such as Stanley Druckenmiller.

Despite this optimism, the Fund remains mindful of the challenges ahead. Uncertainty surrounding inflation, regulatory policy, and global trade dynamics continues to shape the macroeconomic landscape. Additional risks, including labor market shifts and increasingly uneven consumer spending patterns, underscore the complexity of the investment environment heading into 2026.

58th Annual Capital Markets Conference Highlights Industry Outlook

In Fall 2025, the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate hosted its 58th Annual Conference on Capital Markets in Real Estate, continuing a tradition that has spanned more than half a century. Widely regarded as one of the industry’s premier forums, the conference brought together leading voices across commercial real estate to examine the evolving landscape of capital markets and investment activity.

This year’s discussions focused on global equity and debt capital flows, institutional and private equity investment strategies, and emerging sources of market disruption. Panels featured prominent industry leaders, including Anthony Scaramucci and other senior executives, offering a range of perspectives on the macroeconomic environment and its implications for real estate.

A central theme throughout the conference was cautious optimism. While acknowledging ongoing uncertainty, many speakers pointed to moderating interest rates, resilient property fundamentals, and the potential for valuation recovery heading into 2026. The dialogue reflected a broader expectation that the sector may be approaching a turning point following a period of rate-driven volatility.

Beyond the formal sessions, the conference also served as a key platform for networking and knowledge exchange, connecting students, academics, and industry professionals. Participation from the NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund further highlighted the institution’s commitment to integrating academic learning with real-world capital markets engagement.

The event was led by a distinguished group of organizers, whose continued efforts have solidified the conference’s reputation as a cornerstone of the commercial real estate industry calendar.

NYU REIT Fund Competes on National Stage at UMich REIT Competition

In 2025, the NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund was selected to participate in the highly competitive University of Michigan REIT Competition, bringing together top student teams to present institutional-quality investment strategies before a panel of industry professionals.

Representing NYU, the team delivered a comprehensive and differentiated investment thesis centered on value creation through strategic restructuring. At the core of the presentation was a proposed separation of asset classes to unlock shareholder value, supported by rigorous financial modeling, valuation analysis, and a clearly defined execution roadmap.

The team was led by Q. Sananikone, who served as Lead Strategist and was responsible for shaping the overall investment framework and deal architecture. Q. drove the development of the strategic separation thesis, including the structure of the transaction, capital allocation strategy, and long-term growth roadmap. His leadership ensured alignment across all components of the analysis, from valuation to execution, while maintaining a cohesive narrative throughout the presentation.

Each team member played a critical role in delivering a fully integrated solution:

• The quantitative lead developed the pro-forma financial model, analyzing accretion/dilution, capital structure impacts, and post-transaction performance.

• The valuation strategist conducted a detailed sum-of-the-parts analysis, identifying valuation dislocations across asset segments and supporting the multiple re-rating thesis.

• The housing strategy analyst focused on forward growth initiatives, including expansion into single-family rental platforms and capital deployment strategies.

Together, the team presented a sophisticated, institutional-grade recommendation, combining strategic vision with technical precision. Their proposal demonstrated how thoughtful restructuring, disciplined capital allocation, and targeted growth initiatives can drive meaningful value creation.

Beyond the competition itself, the experience provided a valuable opportunity for engagement with industry leaders, offering direct feedback on strategy, execution, and market positioning. It also reinforced the Fund’s commitment to bridging academic rigor with real-world investment practice—preparing students to operate at the highest levels of real estate finance.

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Industry Insight: Apparent Capital’s Opportunistic Investment Approach

The NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund recently hosted Dan Joseph, Principal and Chief Investment Officer of Apparent Capital, for a discussion on alternative real estate investment strategies and market opportunities.

The session, facilitated by Scott Robinson, provided students with a firsthand perspective on how institutional investors navigate dislocated markets. A key focus of the discussion was Apparent Capital’s ability to capitalize on market inefficiencies during periods of volatility, particularly in 2020.

Joseph highlighted the firm’s approach to gap financing, deploying capital into smaller, high-yield transactions typically ranging from $1 million to $7 million. These investments, often overlooked by larger capital providers, enabled the firm to generate returns in the high-teens to low-twenties, underscoring the value of agility and disciplined underwriting in niche segments of the market.

Beyond specific transactions, the discussion emphasized broader themes of opportunistic investing, including the importance of timing, capital flexibility, and identifying mispriced risk. For students, the session offered a practical lens into how alternative credit strategies can complement traditional real estate investment approaches.

The event reflects the Fund’s continued commitment to engaging with industry leaders and integrating real-world insights into its investment framework, while fostering relationships that extend beyond the classroom.

Exploring Deep-Value Investing with Rhizome Partners

The NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund recently hosted Bill Chen, Managing Partner of Rhizome Partners, for a wide-ranging discussion on deep-value investing across real estate and infrastructure.

Rhizome Partners, known for its focus on investments with a significant margin of safety, provided students with a thoughtful perspective on navigating complex market environments. The conversation explored several key investment themes, including the distinction between solvency and liquidity, the identification of terminal asset classes, the risks of overpaying for growth, and the critical role of capital structure discipline in underwriting long-term value.

The session offered students a rare opportunity to engage directly with an experienced investor, bridging theoretical concepts with real-world application. Discussions emphasized the importance of fundamental analysis, risk management, and maintaining conviction in dislocated markets, principles central to long-term investment success.

Events such as these continue to highlight the Fund’s unique position within the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate, where students not only study markets, but actively operate as investment fiduciaries, gaining exposure to the decision-making frameworks of leading industry professionals.

Spring 2026

—----

A Milestone Moment at the New York Stock Exchange

The NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund marked a memorable milestone with a visit to the New York Stock Exchange, celebrating the 20th anniversary of Banco Macro’s public listing.

The occasion highlighted the Fund’s connection to global capital markets and provided students with a firsthand perspective on the significance of public market participation. More than a ceremonial moment, the visit underscored the broader role of capital markets in shaping investment opportunities and institutional growth.

The experience was further enriched by the continued mentorship of Scott Robinson, whose guidance has been instrumental in challenging students to think critically, refine their investment approach, and develop as future leaders in the real estate and finance industries.

—-----------------------------

NYU Schack REIT Fund Presents Strategy and Outlook at 30th Annual REIT Symposium

At the 30th Annual REIT Symposium, the NYU SPS Schack REIT Investment Fund management team presented its latest strategy, insights, and forward-looking outlook, highlighting both performance and the evolution of its investment approach.

As a fully student-run fund within the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate, the platform invests exclusively in U.S.-listed REITs, REOCs, and homebuilders, with all earnings reinvested to support long-term portfolio growth. The presentation reflected not only the Fund’s analytical rigor, but also its role in developing a high-performing cohort of future real estate professionals.

The Fund’s current investment thesis emphasizes large-cap REITs positioned for outperformance, particularly within the healthcare and industrial sectors. These allocations are supported by durable macro tailwinds, including aging demographics, continued e-commerce expansion, and nearshoring trends. Complementing this core positioning, the portfolio incorporates selective exposure to small- and mid-cap REITs, where valuation dislocations may present opportunities for merger and acquisition-driven upside.

Since inception, the Fund has delivered approximately +10% cumulative returns, outperforming the FTSE NAREIT Equity REIT Index, underscoring the effectiveness of its disciplined investment framework.

A defining theme of this year’s presentation was the Fund’s shift toward greater portfolio concentration. Reducing holdings from approximately 35 positions to 15, the team adopted a high-conviction approach in which each investment is supported by deeper underwriting, stronger sector conviction, and clearer earnings visibility. This transition has enhanced both portfolio engagement and overall investment discipline.

Presented by the Fund’s leadership team, including Co-Portfolio Managers and sector leads, the session showcased a collaborative effort in building a structured, institutional-quality investment platform within an academic setting.

Learn more about the author: Bounyadej Q. Sananikone

One of the most interesting parts of Professor Hersh’s journey is how early his interest in cities and buildings took root. He describes a longstanding fascination with cities and buildings, one grounded less in real estate as an industry and more within the urban context itself. He also mentioned that some of that came from his father, who was not deeply in real estate but “liked to notice things.” That sensitivity to small details sharpened his awareness of the city and the built environment around him. Growing up in Brooklyn and going to high school in Manhattan also shaped his perspective and gave him an early appreciation for the intricate moving parts of New York. Before NYU had a real estate program, he earned a planning degree there and started his career as a city planner. As he humorously put it, he later “reformed and became a real estate developer.”

That move from planning into development proved to be one of the defining shifts in his career. Early on, he had the opportunity to work on a major redevelopment project in Rockland County connected to the company now Alcoa. Almost overnight, he was leading the redevelopment of a 150-acre site with twenty buildings spanning several million square feet. He was candid about how quickly he had to learn. He said he was basically “thrown into the pool,” and that experience seems to have shaped the proactive learn-by-doing approach he later brought to both development and teaching. Instead of describing his career as a carefully planned path, he described it as something that evolved through opportunities seized, responsibility taken on, and a consistent willingness to keep learning.

Professor Hersh’s career is defined by a refusal to stay in one narrow lane. He moved across city planning, nonprofit housing, redevelopment, and academia. He had worked in nonprofit housing, including a housing-for-the-homeless project in Yonkers, before becoming increasingly interested in brownfield redevelopment. That shift, he noted, was a “conscious decision.” When talking about brownfields, he said that he was very interested in “recycling land.” That phrase reveals a lot about how he approaches redevelopment. Where others would see problems, he sees opportunity to clean up, rethink, and create something valuable again. He was especially interested in waterfronts, environmentally challenged properties, and places that other people might overlook.

That interest naturally led him toward adaptive reuse, which he finds most exciting. When he talked about adaptive reuse, he said, “I think it’s a real place for creativity.” He described the appeal of taking a building that someone else believes has no future and finding a new use for it. He gave examples such as cement silos being converted into a hotel and an old aluminum facility being converted into a data center. He didn’t talk about adaptive reuse in a vague or idealistic way. He sees these projects as both environmentally responsible and intellectually challenging. In his view, it is not just about preserving old structures for sentimental reasons, it’s about seeing value where others may not.

At the same time, Professor Hersh was very clear that redevelopment is never simple. He pointed out that adaptive reuse projects are “one-offs,” meaning that every project is unique. Unlike repeating the same building type over and over, these projects require careful, individualized approach. He explained that success depends on having “the right team, the right architect, engineers” and people who are willing to spend the time to understand what makes this site or building different. He also talked about the environmental and technical challenges that often come with these projects such as asbestos, lead paint, zoning issues, and land use concerns. Additionally, he reiterated that community engagement has become much more important over time. He said that developers have to recognize that “community involvement” is part of the job. He believes development is not just about finance or construction, it’s also about listening, problem-solving, and understanding what works for a community.

That perspective connects directly to the way he thinks about leadership. When I asked what qualities are most important in real estate development leaders, he emphasized that “real estate projects are done by teams.” His response alludes to the fact that leadership in real estate development depends less on personal authority and more on a leader’s ability to recognize talent and guide the team to reach a shared goal. He explained that a developer does not have to be the architect or the environmental engineer but must know how to hire the right people and work effectively with them. Development leaders cannot do everything themselves. You must understand enough to coordinate different forms of expertise and move a project forward. This team approach also explains why he has been effective in both practice and teaching. It is practical, grounded, and based on collaboration rather than ego.

One of the most revealing moments in the interview came when I asked Professor Hersh what accomplishments he was most proud of. It felt like I was asking him to name his favorite child. Instead of immediately naming awards or major recognition, he first said, “If nothing else, I’m persistent.” That answer felt honest and understated, and it says a lot about how he views success. He mentioned projects he was proud of, including the Walkway over the Hudson, where he was a rare public official who helped the originator. The Windham, one of the first Housing for the Homeless projects in NY State. The Rheingold and Willets Point case studies besides Rockland Corporate Park, TKR Headquarters and the Sarasota Brownfields project. He has also received Lifetime Achievement Awards from CCLR in the U.S. EPA Conference and the Brownfield Coalition of the Northwest, and served on the U.S. EPA Environmental Financial Advisory Board from 2022 to 2025. He made it clear that he never wanted to become one of the real estate developers who sought publicity or became a larger-than-life public figure. He said he was never interested in that kind of image and did not want to put his name on a building. What mattered more to him was whether a project was successful and whether it continued to serve a purpose over time. That may be one of the strongest aspects of his legacy. In a field that can be associated with status and visibility, he focused on meaningful work instead.

That values-driven mindset also shows up in his role at NYU. Professor Hersh explained that he has been at NYU for almost twenty years and was involved in writing and leading the Master’s in Real Estate Development program. He said the curriculum has to keep changing because the industry keeps changing. He approaches education in the same way he approaches development, with adaptability and attention to what is happening in the field. He pointed out that when the program was first created, things like Opportunity Zones and major office repositioning trends were not part of the conversation. Now they are. He also talked about how sustainability has become much more central over time, and he said, “A building that performs well means it’s energy efficient… it has long-term value.” That’s the way he connects sustainability with practical real estate thinking. For him, sustainability is not separate from value but a part of what makes a project durable and relevant.

When asked what he hoped students would gain from the program, Professor Hersh spoke with unmistakable pride about the students and alumni he has taught over the years. He said he has seen “literally hundreds” of students go through the program and that he is “very proud” of what many of them have gone on to do in their careers. He talked about how some alumni followed expected paths, while others surprised him in positive ways. He doesn’t think of education in a narrow or rigid way. He wants students to succeed, but he is also genuinely interested in the different forms that success can take. When he talked about students who want to start their own smaller project rather than work for major firms, he said he has “always had a spot in my heart” for students who want to do their own thing, whether that means a ten-unit project in Brooklyn or Jersey City instead of joining a giant institutional firm. It showed how much he values both ambition and independence.

His advice to the next generation of real estate professionals also reflected the same themes of adaptability and persistence. He encouraged students and young professionals to build a wide range of tools and skills, not just rely on one area of knowledge. He talked about understanding the math, the formulas, and the fundamentals, even while also learning how to use new tools like artificial intelligence. He allows AI in his class and encourages students to learn it, but also warns that it can become a “black box” if people do not understand what is behind it. His final advice was simple but strong. He emphasized the importance of continuing to work, staying persistent, and moving forward even when the field changes or becomes difficult. These are meaningful words coming from someone whose own career has weathered so many changes in the industry.

Overall, speaking with Professor Hersh helped me understand that it’s not just the range of his experience but the consistency of his values. Throughout his career from planning and development to teaching, the same ideas of persistence, creativity, teamwork, adaptability and public purpose kept appearing. He has worked on major redevelopment projects, affordable housing, brownfields, adaptive reuse, and academic program leadership, but he talks about all of it with the same grounded mindset. He does not seem interested in recognition for his own sake. Instead, he seems interested in doing useful work, improving places, and helping students become thoughtful professionals.

Professor Hersh’s legacy is larger than any single building or project. It can be seen in the sites he helped rethink, the communities that benefited from redevelopment, and the students who have gone on to build their own careers. His work shows that real estate is not just about transactions or new construction. It can also be about restoring value, preserving history, improving communities, and preparing future leaders to approach development with both proficiency and responsibility. In that sense, Professor Barry Hersh has done more than help transform land and buildings, he has also helped shape the people who will continue transforming them in the future. I believe that may be the most lasting contribution of all.

Learn more about the author: Omar Calderon

What’s Actually Happening

The company formerly known as Armada Hoffler, now rebranding as AH Realty Trust (AHRT) effective March 2, 2026, is undergoing a full business model overhaul (AHRT, 2026a). The company is selling the bulk of its multifamily portfolio — 11 of 14 assets under a binding purchase agreement with Harbor Group International — exiting its own in-house general contracting business, and offloading most of its real estate financing platform (AHRT, 2026b). Proceeds go first to debt reduction, with a stated target of 5.5x–6.5x net debt/EBITDA (AHRT, 2026a). What’s left standing post-transformation is a commercial REIT anchored in retail and office, with roughly $74M in retail NOI, $61M in office NOI, and $4M in EMI property income. The company is also rebranding its ticker from AHH to AHRT on the NYSE. This is, at its core, a credit story dressed up in growth language — and that framing matters, because how you read the transformation depends almost entirely on whether you think the resulting company can grow fast enough to matter.

What They Got Right

Let’s start with what deserves credit, because there is genuine good here. The exit from construction and real estate financing is the right call. At Armada Hoffler’s scale, carrying the overhead and balance sheet exposure of its own in-house general contracting operation while trying to manage a $1B+ real estate portfolio is a distraction at best and a capital drain at worst. The earnings volatility those segments injected — the “lumpy” income that management itself acknowledged — was making equity valuation nearly impossible. Public market investors don’t want to underwrite construction backlog risk inside a REIT wrapper. Exiting those businesses eliminates a structural discount on the equity.

The deleveraging logic is also sound. The company was running leverage materially above its peer group, and the 2026 secured debt maturity wall was a real problem. Channeling asset sale proceeds directly into debt paydown rather than chasing acquisitions or holding liquidity for optionality is the disciplined call here. The company also deserves credit for its increasing reliance on unsecured debt — that structure gives it far greater operational and redevelopment flexibility at the property level compared to mortgage-encumbered assets. That’s the right instinct for a REIT trying to be nimble. (One caveat: the unsecured maturities bunching in 2027 and 2028 are a touch too high for comfort, and I’d be surprised if those get paid off before they come due.)

The board and governance refresh is real too. Six of nine directors are now independent, two legacy members have rolled off, and the executive compensation program has been redesigned around shareholder return metrics. None of this moves the stock tomorrow, but it’s the kind of institutional credibility-building that matters when you’re eventually trying to access capital markets again (AHRT, 2026a).

Where It Gets Complicated

Here’s the core issue: they kept the office portfolio.

Ninety-four percent of the office NOI is tied to mixed-use assets — Virginia Beach Town Center, Baltimore Harbor Point, The Interlock, and Southern Post — which is a more defensible profile than average suburban office exposure. The portfolio numbers look solid on the surface: 96.4% occupancy, an 8.0-year weighted average lease term (WALT), and +16.7% quarter-to-date cash same-store NOI growth. Hard to argue with that scorecard. But office is still office. Public markets are not giving full credit to office NOI right now, and unless you’re Equity Commonwealth sitting on a pile of cash or Boston Properties with trophy assets in gateway markets, the market will continue to apply a discount to office exposure that crimps your multiple. Whether the company received no viable bids on a sale process for the office assets — which is entirely possible given current market conditions — the result is a go-forward company with meaningful office drag on its valuation story.

Meanwhile, the multifamily decision warrants scrutiny. The strategic rationale for exiting is coherent — simplify, deleverage, go commercial-only. However, multifamily is a sector with genuine long-term demand tailwinds, and one that public equity markets understand and reward. Selling it now, at a moment when cap rates have moved meaningfully wider from their 2021–2022 peak, means the company is likely not capturing full cycle value on those assets (AHRT, 2026b). A reasonable counterargument is that management should have retained multifamily and divested office instead.

The Growth Trap

The deeper problem with this transformation is what it leaves behind as an engine of growth. The “Platform for Growth” framework outlined in AHRT’s February 2026 Investor Presentation models potential acquisitions adding $10M of commercial NOI per year starting in 2027, against a pro forma base of roughly $135–$140M post-transformation (AHRT, 2026c). That’s a reasonable cadence — if the company can execute. But the ability to acquire is directly dependent on the cost of capital. The cost of capital for a sub-scale commercial REIT with office exposure and unsecured maturities bunching in 2027 and 2028 is not cheap right now. If the transformation delivers improved earnings and the stock re-rates higher, management gains access to equity capital and the acquisition engine becomes viable. If it doesn’t — if the narrative doesn’t land with investors, if the office overhang persists, or if retail same-store growth normalizes after a strong year — the company stays in a no-growth holding pattern. A range-bound equity for a REIT in transformation mode, with leverage still above 6x and near-term unsecured maturities ahead, is a frustrating place to be as a shareholder.

What I Would Have Done

I would have prioritized getting the portfolio to a single asset class — either retail or multifamily, not a blend of retail and office. I would have sold the office book first, even if that meant accepting some discount to NAV to get it done cleanly. I would have paid down debt tactically but retained some cash rather than deleveraging to the point of paralysis, because the best REIT transformations usually involve an early strategic acquisition that signals what the new company is — something along the lines of the PLYM Sixth Street deal: a meaningful, brand-defining transaction with an equity partner that simultaneously resets the story and adds NOI. That’s how you generate momentum.

Instead, what AHRT has today is a cleaner balance sheet, an understandable mandate, and an asset base that still carries a question mark in the form of a $60M+ office NOI contribution that the market will continue to view with skepticism.

Verdict

Give management credit for moving with conviction. The construction and financing exit was necessary and overdue, the deleveraging plan is credible, and the governance changes are meaningful. These were not easy decisions and they were not obvious ones a year ago (AHRT, 2026a). But the office retention is a real strategic risk, and the timeline for the stock to re-rate is uncomfortably dependent on execution in an environment that doesn’t offer much margin for error. The unsecured debt maturity profile in 2027–2028 deserves more scrutiny than it is currently receiving. And the path to an acquisition-led growth story requires a stock price that may take longer to arrive than management’s plan assumes. This is a company doing the right things — but possibly with the wrong assets left standing.

Learn more about the author: Bounyadej Q. Sananikone

References

AH Realty Trust. (2026a, February 16). Armada Hoffler unveils bold new strategic direction to drive long-term shareholder value and launches as AH Realty Trust [Press release]. GlobeNewswire. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2026/02/16/3238892/0/en/Armada-Hoffler-Unveils-Bold-New-Strategic-Direction-to-Drive-Long-Term-Shareholder-Value-and-Launches-as-AH-Realty-Trust.html

AH Realty Trust. (2026b, March 16). AH Realty Trust executes agreement to sell 11 multifamily properties to Harbor Group [Press release]. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001569187/000156918726000042/ex991ahrtannouncesmfsale-o.htm

AH Realty Trust. (2026c, February 16). February 2026 investor presentation [Investor presentation]. AH Realty Trust Investor Relations. https://ir.armadahoffler.com/news-releases/news-release-details/armada-hoffler-unveils-bold-new-strategic-direction-drive-long

AH Realty Trust. (2026d). About AH Realty Trust. https://ahrealtytrust.com/about/

StockTitan. (2026, March 16). AH Realty Trust to sell 11 multifamily properties for $562M. https://www.stocktitan.net/news/AHRT/ah-realty-trust-executes-agreement-to-sell-11-multifamily-properties-yzy5a0dsdwuo.html

Summary:

Interview with David Genovese

In this episode for the NYU Blueprint Spring Edition, I sit down with David Genovese, Owner and CEO of Baywater Properties, to share his career path and highlight an active development he’s leading in downtown Darien, Connecticut. We also close with practical career advice for students and early-career professionals navigating the real estate industry.

David’s background & career

David grew up in Darien, Connecticut and was first exposed to development through his family’s building materials business, which gave him an early view into how projects are sourced, built, and operated. He studied economics and psychology at Colby College and then moved into real estate finance and investment banking, working at Andersen Consulting, Sanwa, Bankers Trust, and Credit Suisse. He eventually left the banking side to start Baywater Properties, initially backed by capital from long-term relationships, with a focus on disciplined underwriting and hands-on ownership of income-producing real estate.

Corbin District (active project)

The Corbin District is an active, multi-phase mixed-use redevelopment in downtown Darien along the Post Road corridor near the train station. The long-term vision is a cohesive, walkable “complete street” delivered across multiple buildings, designed to strengthen the day-to-day experience of the downtown core. Programmatically, it combines retail at street level with a mix of office and multifamily above, with work advancing in phases rather than all at once. David noted the district was planned as a coordinated effort across roughly five to six buildings; several are already fully leased, and the next phase is now moving forward.

Career advice (NYU Schack)

For students and early-career professionals, David emphasized mastering the fundamentals—being comfortable in Excel, understanding cash-flow modeling, and being able to clearly explain the numbers and assumptions behind a deal. He also stressed discipline around leverage and risk: avoid best-case underwriting, pressure-test the downside, and make sure a deal still works if leasing takes longer or costs come in higher than planned. Finally, he underscored the relationship side of the business—listening closely, following through, and protecting your reputation—and described Bayswater’s “hospitality” mindset toward tenants and partners as a practical advantage that builds over time.

Why Exit Cap Rates Matter More Than You Think

In most CRE investments, a significant portion of total returns is realized upon sale. This means that the terminal value, not just interim cash flows, dominates overall performance. Even small changes in the exit cap rate can produce disproportionate shifts in valuation. A higher exit cap rate implies a lower resale price, while a lower cap rate increases value. As a result, modest adjustments in this assumption can erase, or create, millions in equity value. This sensitivity is why terminal value assumptions are widely recognized as one of the most critical drivers in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis (Geltner et al., 2014).

A common underwriting shortcut is to assume the exit cap rate will simply be 25 to 75 basis points higher than the entry cap rate. This reflects a conservative expectation that properties age and markets become more uncertain over time (CBRE Research, 2025). While this rule of thumb provides a starting point, it is often overly simplistic as market dynamics are not static. Cap rates are influenced by a wide range of factors, including interest rates, capital flows, investor sentiment, and macroeconomic conditions (CFA Institute, 2024). Importantly, research shows that cap rates do not move in perfect lockstep with interest rates, despite common assumptions (CFA Institute, 2024). Relying solely on fixed spreads or historical averages can therefore lead to mispricing risk and overstating returns.

A Forward-Looking Assumption, Not a Formula

Unlike entry cap rates, which reflect current market conditions, exit cap rates are inherently forward-looking. They require investors to make informed judgments about the future state of capital markets, asset performance, and liquidity at the time of sale (Wall Street Prep, 2024). For example, even if today’s market supports a 5.5% cap rate, an investor might underwrite a 6.25% exit cap if they expect tighter credit and weaker buyer demand at sale. This effectively builds in a margin of safety by assuming that future investors will price in greater risk.

A disciplined approach to determining exit cap rates requires a forward-looking assessment of multiple interconnected factors. Investors must first consider the cost of capital, including prevailing risk-free rates and the risk premiums demanded by market participants. Equally important is market liquidity at the time of exit, which reflects the availability of both buyers and debt capital and can significantly influence pricing. Asset-specific characteristics also play a critical role, particularly quality factors such as age, location, and tenant profile, all of which affect perceived risk. In addition, the durability of income, driven by lease structures and the stability of net operating income (NOI), must be evaluated to understand how resilient cash flows will be at disposition. Finally, broader supply and demand dynamics, including future development pipelines and competitive pressures, shape expectations for pricing and investor appetite. Together, these elements reinforce that exit cap rates are not derived from a simple formula, but rather represent a comprehensive judgment about future market conditions and risk. Rather than applying a static adjustment, sophisticated investors treat exit cap rates as a pricing of future risk (Geltner et al., 2014).

Exit Cap Rates and Market Reality

Recent market data demonstrates the importance of exit cap assumptions. For example, CBRE reports that underwriting spreads between going-in and exit cap rates have widened in certain sectors, reflecting increased uncertainty and a repricing of risk (CBRE Research, 2025). This widening spread signals a broader shift: investors are demanding greater compensation for future uncertainty, particularly in an environment defined by volatile interest rates and constrained liquidity.

Perhaps the most common mistake in real estate investing is using overly optimistic exit cap rate assumptions to justify a deal. Due to the fact that the exit cap directly determines terminal value, even slight optimism can artificially inflate projected IRRs. In practice, this often leads to overpaying at acquisition and underestimating downside risk. As industry practice suggests, exit cap rates should be used to stress-test a deal, not to make it work (PwC & Urban Land Institute, 2024).

At its core, CRE investing is not just about buying well, it is also about exiting well. The exit cap rate encapsulates an investor’s view of future risk, market conditions, and asset performance. It is both a valuation tool and a risk management mechanism. In today’s environment, where uncertainty remains elevated and capital markets are evolving, disciplined exit cap assumptions are more critical than ever. Small miscalculations can significantly distort returns, while thoughtful, conservative underwriting can protect against downside risk. For investors, the key lesson is that one does not truly understand the essence of a deal until you understand its exit.

Learn more about the author: Gautam Khosla

Sources

CBRE Research. (2025). U.S. Capital Markets Figures & Multifamily Underwriting Trends. CBRE Group, Inc.

CFA Institute. (2024). The Interplay Between Cap Rates and Interest Rates. CFA Institute Research & Policy Center.

Geltner, D., Miller, N., Clayton, J., & Eichholtz, P. (2014). Commercial Real Estate Analysis and Investments (3rd ed.). OnCourse Learning.

PwC & Urban Land Institute. (2024). Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2024. PwC.

Wall Street Prep. (2024). Exit Cap Rate Guide. Wall Street Prep.

As Vietnam continues to cement itself as one of the fastest growing economies in Asia, the gap between luxury development and affordable housing supply continues to widen. The government of Vietnam has introduced multiple policies to maintain a steady stream of social housing (NOXH), including a 120 trillion VND (~4.5 billion USD) loan package as well as subsidized land provisions for NOXH developers, but both have seen limited success: the loan package has achieved a ~3% disbursement rate while the land provision has failed to draw developers in due to a low profit margin cap on investment cost. This article argues that NOXH in Vietnam is structurally failing on both the demand and supply end: the units are mispriced by the provincial average, overrepresenting the income of urban provincial economic centers and thus outpricing the low-income workers that are actually in need; the profit cap disincentivizes developers from investing in affordable housing. Studying the policies and economic landscape of 2 other nations, the United States and Singapore, along with an original Price-to-Income Ratio (PIR) affordability model, PIR measures how many times annual household income a home costs, applied to Happy Home Cam Ranh and Singapore’s HDB, this paper identifies income-segmented pricing, government-mandated savings mechanisms, and rental subsidy programs as more viable pathways to genuine housing access for Vietnam’s working class.

Introduction

Between 2020 and 2025, Vietnam saw an over 90% drop in licensed NOXH projects even as the 1-million-affordable-units-by-2030 goal is approaching. When output finally recovered in 2025, it did so not through private developer participation, but through direct state intervention. The Ministry of Public Security is set to construct approximately 5,341 units, the Ministry of National Defense is set for 2,841 units, and the General Confederation of Labour is set for 1,700 homes (VietnamPlus, 2026). Vietnam’s affordable housing market cannot build itself. The profit cap remains a deterring factor in developing units for the working class.

A practitioner at CBRE, through a private conversation, said “developers only ever do affordable housing— whether it be in Vietnam or the U.S. — to gain access to more profitable projects.” This dynamic can be seen in the Cam Ranh case study that comes up later, where the mega-project Vinhomes Cam Ranh comprises 1 affordable housing section, Happy Home, and 2 luxury developments given the flagship Vinhomes name.

The most comprehensive existing treatment of Vietnam’s social housing framework is Cushman & Wakefield (C&W)’s Vietnam Social Housing Report (2023), which provides a structural overview of NOXH and introduces Singapore’s Housing & Development Board (HDB) as a reference model. This paper builds on that

Duong | Affordable Housing Research | April 2026 | 2

foundation in two ways: first, by applying an original PIR affordability model to Vinhomes Happy Home Cam Ranh at both the provincial aggregate and actual workforce income levels, and extending the same model to Singapore’s HDB market — exposing a miscalibration that provincial-level analysis obscures while highlighting the success of Singapore’s state-run housing program — and second, by proposing policy revisions for Vietnam drawn from both Singapore and the United States.

The United States was picked to be contrasted with Vietnam as the leading nation in supply-side, private-oriented policy solutions. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), a tax relief structure based on project cost that can be sold to raise capital, and Section 8 rent vouchers, a subsidized rent program for low-income households, are two main solutions that the U.S. is using to increase their affordable housing supply. This comparison is not one of economic equivalence— the US vastly outpaces Vietnam and Singapore in GDP, scale, and institutional depth— but rather one of policy mechanisms: the LIHTC and Section 8 programs offer transferable structural lessons that operate independently of geographical size. Singapore represents the opposite model, a state-oriented solution. Singapore’s solution operates on two parallel tracks: the HDB, a state-owned agency under the Ministry of National Development, constructs and sells public housing at subsidized prices; while the Central Provident Fund (CPF) — a mandatory savings scheme administered separately by the Ministry of Manpower, requiring monthly contributions from both employers and employees — provides residents with an accumulated pool of funds that can be drawn upon specifically for housing purchases, effectively resolving the down payment barrier without requiring direct government subsidies per buyer (HDB, 2026; Central Provident Fund Board, 2026).

With a blend of policies from these two nations, Vietnam can reach middle-ground solutions that align with the government’s current role in private markets. This paper employs comparative policy analysis across these three countries, examining supply mechanisms, financing structures, and government roles in affordable housing delivery. An original affordability model, the Cam Ranh Model, is applied to Vinhomes Happy Home Cam Ranh using two income scenarios to test whether NOXH pricing is calibrated to its intended beneficiary class. Specific policy instruments, including Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings mechanism and the US Section 8 housing voucher program, are evaluated for their adaptability to Vietnam’s institutional and economic context.

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 1 provides contextual analysis of Vietnam’s housing market, examining the luxury oversupply problem, the limits of the Filtering Effect, and the structural barriers to industrial zone conversion. Section 2 presents the comparative analysis across the three countries. This includes a timeline of affordable housing program origins, a structural matrix across six dimensions, and a discussion of why Singapore offers more actionable lessons than the United States.

Section 3 applies the original affordability model to Vinhomes Happy Home Cam Ranh and Singapore’s HDB, stress-testing unit pricing against both the provincial average, the actual Cam Ranh workforce income, and Singapore’s median household income. Section 4 translates the findings into three concrete policy recommendations for the Vietnamese government.

1. Contextual Analysis

Over-Supply vs. Vacancy of Luxury-Class Housing

Vietnam’s market largely focuses on luxury developments and upscale projects, where profit margins are uncapped. Compared to NOXH with profits capped at 15% of total investment cost, there is a clear economic reason why output is concentrated in the high-end segment. The result is a pseudo-absorption risk where the wealthy buy luxury real estate for speculation, leading to ghost projects across coastal and peri-urban markets, while the working class cannot afford basic housing. The housing is technically being absorbed, just not the right type and not by the right audience.

Savills Vietnam confirms the stock imbalance— 75% Grade B, 18% Grade A, and only 7% Grade C as of Q2/2025 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Vietnam Apartment Primary Stock by Grade, Q2/2025. Source: Savills Vietnam Residential Investment Forum (2025).

CBRE Vietnam’s Market Reports of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) provides further detail, confirming a near-total-absence of new affordable supply (see Figure 2 & 3).

Figure 2 & 3: Hanoi and HCMC’s New Condominium Supply by Class, 2023–2025. Source: CBRE Research & Consulting, Q4 2025.

The Filtering Effect and Its Limits

The Filtering Effect— the theory that states any increase in housing supply, regardless of class, will lead to a decrease in rent and an increase in affordable housing supply— has been well-documented in academic literature. This effect is quantified in Mense (2025), who found that a 1% increase in annual new supply lowers average rents by 0.19% in the German housing market. Other research has pointed the U.S. in the same direction: Harvard JCHS’s America’s Rental Housing 2026 reports that in Q4 2025, asking rents for professionally managed apartments fell by 0.6% year-over-year, coinciding with the 2024 construction boom.

However, the trickle-down effect has been slow. JCHS notes that while higher-end rents are softening, the supply of units renting for less than $600 fell by 30% over the last decade. The Amenity Effect further complicates this: new luxury construction raises area-wide perceived prestige and infrastructure quality, pushing rents upward and effectively neutralizing the Filtering Effect.

Moving to Vietnam, the Filtering Effect holds even less merit. By mid-2025, Vietnam had completed only 85,300 units under its 2021–2030 one-million-unit social housing program; 8% of the target (Tri, 2025). Licensed housing projects fell from 743 in 2020 to 58 in H1 2025, a decline of over 90% (VietnamNet, 2025). Vietnam’s informal housing market operates outside the price-signal mechanism that the Filtering Effect assumes; a large share of NOXH-eligible households rent informally in micro-apartments (called chung cu mini) and are effectively invisible to formal absorption metrics.

Industrial Zone Conversion

A common supply-side solution in the US, converting old industrial zones into new affordable housing supply, is not so viable in Vietnam. Industrial lands are leased out in 50-year fixed terms, and conversion to residential use requires expiry of the current term. Because Vietnam has only become industrialized recently, most of these terms have not expired yet. Conversion also requires payment of accumulated land-use fee debt and re-zoning approval at the provincial level. There is one notable case, the Cao Xa La defunct industrial complex in Hanoi, which was converted into a residential project. However, it was converted into the luxury development Vinhomes Galaxy rather than the in-demand NOXH housing.

2. Comparative Analysis

2.1: Timeline Table

The following table contextualizes the three countries by their affordable housing programs’ origins and current homeownership outcomes before presenting a structural comparison (see Table 1).

Table 1 reveals a big difference in years of experience, especially Vietnam which is significantly behind. The Homeownership rate between Singapore and Vietnam is similar, at around 90%, but the reasoning behind them is not. As Huynh The Du stated in his VNExpress article titled “The housing paradox in Vietnam”, Vietnamese people somehow live in homes that are worth 40 years of their average annual income. This phenomenon is paradoxical, as the title suggests, since it is unexplainable how the Vietnamese afford these homes. The truth behind it is that:

Most people have been living in their multi-billion-dollar homes for years, especially those with lower incomes. Twenty years ago they could afford the low costs of agricultural land on the outskirts of Hanoi (outside a radius of five kilometers from the center) where informal housing could be constructed. They only paid around 30% of a projected 30-year income for both land and construction since they were not required to pay for the development of shared infrastructure and the construction quality was poor (Dang, 2023).

Contrast this to Singapore, whose government took over the real estate industry almost entirely and built homes themselves. The HDB constantly constructs flats, leasing them out for 99 years to Singaporeans. The citizens of Singapore simply live in homes that are built by the government and financed by the government-mandated CPF funds that they are required to contribute to each paycheck. The Singaporean government both creates supply and facilitates demand for real estate in the country.

2.2: Comparative Matrix

The following table compares the affordable housing frameworks of Vietnam, the United States, and Singapore across six structural dimensions.

Table 2: Comparative Framework of Affordable Housing Systems in the U.S., Singapore, and Vietnam. Source: Author’s own.

Why the US is Not the Most Direct Comparison — And Why Singapore Is

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been the primary driver of new affordable housing supply in the US since 1986. The LIHTC works by granting federal tax credits to affordable housing developers, which they can trade to institutional investors, banks and insurance companies, seeking tax liability offsets. The model works efficiently in the capitalist landscape of the US, preserving competitive Internal Rate of Return (IRR)s while shifting financial returns from cash yields to tax benefits. Vietnam’s 120 trillion VND loan package is entirely different: it is a debt financing instrument rather than an equity instrument. The package sits on top of the 15% profit cap, eating away at already low returns. Developers face both an upside ceiling and a debt-financed obligation; the least attractive financing structure in a high-interest environment. Add this to the opportunity cost of relinquishing a luxury project, and NOXH housing becomes unviable from a financial standpoint.

Moreover, the 120 trillion VND loan package has proved ineffective. VnExpress (2026) reports that the credit package disbursed around 3.4 trillion VND— a sub-3% disbursement rate— three years after rollout, proving that NOXH remains an unfavorable investment despite massive government aid.

Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HDB) is the prime example of a successful large-scale public housing program. Since its founding in 1960, HDB has built over 1.25 million flats, leading to Singapore’s above-90% homeownership rate— a combination of HDB housing 80% of the population and the private market housing the rest— as of 2024 (HDB, 2026; Trading Economics, 2026). Singapore mirrors Vietnam in three aspects: it faced the same hurdles of rapid urbanization and inadequate stock back in 1960; its CPF savings mechanism resolves the down payment barrier blocking Vietnamese households; and its model emphasizes ownership, matching Vietnam’s cultural preferences while suppressing speculation through state land ownership and 99-year leasehold structures.

The HDB model is not without caveats. The 99-year lease means housing is not an effective store of value as flats depreciate as leases near expiration (Agarwal & Foo, 2019). Foreign workers and non-citizens are excluded from the program (PropertyGuru, 2025). While C&W (2023) also examines Singapore’s HDB as a reference model, this analysis extends that treatment by incorporating Q4 2025 resale market data— a median transaction price of SGD 638,500 across 26 towns (HDB, 2026)— to illustrate a tension absent from prior work: units originally sold at subsidized rates now trade at prices nearly double the subsidized price, with the resale PIR reaching 4.4x median income (Author’s calculation). This is a cautionary trajectory for Vietnam if it pursues a comparable ownership-first model without parallel resale restrictions. Nevertheless, HDB offers more actionable lessons to the Vietnamese government than the LIHTC system, which relies on a deep institutional investor market that Vietnam does not yet have.

3. Case Studies

3.1: Vinhomes Happy Home Cam Ranh

Vinhomes Cam Ranh is a 1,254-hectare mega-project in Khanh Hoa Province. Its third sub-area, branded Happy Home, is designated as social housing. Happy Home itself envelopes 87.6 hectares, with 56.7 hectares allocated to residential use (comprising 24.5 hectares for social housing, 2.3 hectares for commercial housing with gardens, and 3.79 hectares for townhouses), 6.1 hectares for public service facilities, and the rest for green space, school grounds, and transportation infrastructure (Vinhomes, n.d.).

Happy Home offers approximately 3,600 units across three price tiers: Type 1 at approximately 300 million VND; Type 2 at 400–700 million VND; and Type 3 at a maximum of 950 million VND, estimated to accommodate approximately 20,250 people (Vinhomes, n.d.).

Cam Ranh is currently home to 150,000–160,000 people. The Vinhomes project alone, estimated to house over 230,000 people, could effectively double Cam Ranh’s population. When adding coastal developments like KN Paradise, the region is being engineered to support a population nearly three times its current size within a decade (Tri & Hue, 2024). Khanh Hoa Province has identified a social housing need of over 44,881 units by 2025, yet then-Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh assigned a formal delivery target of only 10,088 units for 2025–2030, approximately 22% of assessed demand (Kinh te & Do thi, 2025).

A research analyst at Savills Vietnam noted the core issue in a recent conversation: the mismatch between ‘product scale’ and ‘local utility’ (H. T. Dang, personal communication, 2026). The entire Vinhomes project is sized for a future Cam Ranh that does not yet exist, one that is larger in population and wealthier. The actual current workforce cannot afford units in the social housing project, let alone the main luxury one.

The Affordability Model

LTV: 80%

Mortgage Term: 240 months (20 years)

Loan Constant: 8.50%*

Affordability Threshold: 30% of gross Household (HH) income

HH Earners (Scenario A): 1.8

HH Earners (Scenario B): 1.0

Duong | Affordable Housing Research | April 2026 | 12

*Vietnamese home loans are adjustable rate; 8.50% represents a blended approximation across promotional (~6%) and floating (~10–11%) periods, consistent with 2024 commercial lending ranges of 5.3–11% per annum (VnExpress, 2026). The 6.1% rate in the comparative matrix was not used, as the 120T VND package has a sub-3% disbursement rate, making it unrealistic that a typical buyer would access this subsidized loan.

Scenario A — Khanh Hoa Province (All-Enterprise Average)

Average Monthly Income Khanh Hoa (2025): 12,893,000 VND | Source: Bao Van Hoa (2026) | HH Income: 23.2M VND/month

Under Scenario A, all unit types fall within or near the globally accepted 3.0x PIR threshold; the implicit metric used in the project’s pricing structure.

Scenario B — Cam Ranh City (Actual Workforce)

Khanh Hoa Province consists of two major cities: Nha Trang, classified as a first-class urban area (Government of Vietnam, 2009), and Cam Ranh, categorized as a class-III urban area (VOV, 2024). Nha Trang pulls the provincial average upward. Cam Ranh’s actual workforce consists of hospitality, fishing and aquaculture, and light manufacturing workers earning approximately 7.5 million VND per month (TopCV, 2024; JobsGO, 2024), with typically one earner per household.

Figure 4: PIR Bar Chart by Unit Type — Provincial Average vs. Actual Workforce Income, Vinhomes Happy Home Cam Ranh. Source: Author’s calculations.

Core Finding: Happy Home’s units are priced for the average provincial worker, not for Cam Ranh’s actual income cohort. Even the lowest-priced Type 1 unit (300M VND) consumes just below the 30% affordability threshold, before living expenses. Type 2 and Type 3 are out of reach by any standard metric. The down payment amplifies the barrier: 60M VND (20% of 300M VND) represents 8 months of total gross income for a worker earning 7.5M VND/month, making market entry practically impossible without parallel savings, grant mechanisms, or other financial aid.

The Supply Gap

Khanh Hoa Province has identified a social housing need of over 48,751 units for the 2026–2030 period, yet then-Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh’s (as of early 2026) formal delivery target covers only 10,088 units— approximately 22% of assessed demand (Kinh te & Do thi, 2025). Vinhomes Happy Home contributes 3,600 of those committed units, representing 36% of the province’s entire planned pipeline from a single private developer, but only 8% of what demand requires (Tri & Hue, 2024). This over-reliance on one mega-project is in itself a structural vulnerability: over a third of the committed delivery target is carried by just one developer. The delivery rate required to reach even the 10,088-unit commitment, under the existing 15% profit cap and credit package structure, has no realistic precedent in Vietnam’s construction history. C&W (2023) found that as of that year, Vietnam had delivered only 20–30% of its previous social housing targets nationwide, with bureaucratic approval bottlenecks and developer margin constraints cited as the primary barriers.

3.2: Singapore’s HDB

Section 3.2 applies the same affordability model seen in 3.1 to Singapore’s real estate landscape. Singapore represents a functioning state-led housing system while offering a cautionary trajectory Vietnam risks replicating if its ownership-first model matures without resale restrictions. Two scenarios are tested: the primary market through HDB’s Build-to-Order (BTO) program, representing the subsidized entry point, and the secondary resale market, representing what happens to prices after decades of appreciation.

Scenario A is a golden example of how a subsidized housing program should look. Every type of unit, regardless of space and price, is still considered affordable if compared to the 30% benchmark. Notably, even the largest and most expensive type of unit, Type 4 which is a 5-room flat, at a 3.6x PIR, still takes up only half the affordability threshold. Singapore might be the closest country currently to the housing equality goal.

Scenario B, now considering the average resale price of all types of unit, still demonstrates an affordable market. However, the cautionary tale here is not that the units are no longer affordable but that the units are worth much more than it is being sold for on the primary market. The consolidated primary-market PIR, the average PIR for all units in scenario A, is 2.3x; the Resale PIR— scenario B’s PIR— is 4.4x, about 1.9 times the consolidated PIR. This means that the homes being sold by the HDB are worth just under two times their selling price.

Figure 5 illustrates the PIR divergence between the primary and secondary markets, benchmarked against the 3.0x global affordability threshold, as well as the difference between consolidated primary-market PIR and Resale PIR.

Figure 5: PIR Bar Chart — Singapore HDB Primary Market (BTO) vs Secondary Market (Resale), 2025. Source: Author’s calculations.

Figure 6 presents the HDB Resale Price Index from 1990 to 2025, showing sustained price appreciation over three decades; the trajectory Vietnam risks replicating if its ownership-first model matures without parallel resale restrictions. It is noted that appreciation can come from inflation.

Duong | Affordable Housing Research | April 2026 | 17

Figure 6: HDB Resale Price Index, Singapore 1990–2025 (Base: Q1 2009 = 100). Source: Author’s chart based on Housing & Development Board (2026) data.

Core Finding: Singapore’s BTO system demonstrates that state-led affordable housing can work, every unit type across all four flat categories remains affordable at the median household income level, with the most expensive unit type consuming only 15% of household income. However, the resale market tells a different story. Units originally sold at a consolidated PIR of 2.3x through BTO now trade at 4.4x on the open market, nearly double, and the HDB Resale Price Index has grown consistently since 1990. For Vietnam, this gap between subsidized entry price and open market resale value is the cautionary signal: an ownership-first model without resale restrictions risks creating a housing system that appears affordable at entry but becomes unattainable over time for the next generation of buyers.

4. Policy Implications and Recommendations

The Cam Ranh case study demonstrates a systemic flaw that extends beyond one project. Vietnam’s NOXH framework is calibrated to provincial income averages which, given the gaps in city-level and sector-level income distributions, are not representative of actual ability to pay. Three structural reforms should be considered.

A. Income-Segmented Pricing

Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all pricing approach, developers should adjust prices and construction costs relative to the income profile of the dominant local employment sector. In coastal cities like Cam Ranh, where hospitality and fishing wages fall below the provincial mean, an affordability tier below Type 1— priced at 150–200 million VND per unit— would be required to reach the intended beneficiary class. This would require revising the statutory minimum floor area of 25m² and allowing smaller, lower-cost units and/or co-living spaces that offset micro-unit size through shared amenities such as kitchens or bathrooms.

B. CPF-Like Government-Mandated Savings Mechanism The single largest barrier for minimum-wage workers in Cam Ranh is not the monthly mortgage payment but the down payment. Singapore’s CPF model, where mandatory payroll contributions accumulate in individual accounts usable for mortgage payments, resolves this without requiring direct government subsidies per buyer. Vietnam’s existing compulsory social insurance framework (bao hiem xa hoi) provides a structural foundation for an analogous mechanism. Allowing citizens to allocate a portion of their social insurance contributions toward a down payment, or increasing contribution rates for this purpose, would lower the entry barrier without expanding fiscal burdens on the central government.

C. Rental Model Shift

An immediate solution would be a shift toward subsidizing rentals, alleviating financial constraints on buyers while pricing model revisions are made. Workers in coastal tourism zones typically do not have the savings profile for homeownership in the near term; they need affordable rental access first. A targeted rental voucher program, analogous to the US Section 8 housing vouchers, would allow the government to leverage existing housing stock beyond social housing while the ownership pipeline matures.

Works Cited

Anh, B., & Trieu, C. (2025, December 13). How Vietnam’s young buyers navigate a housing market amid widening income-home price gap. Tuoi Tre News.

https://news.tuoitre.vn/how-vietnams-young-buyers-navigate-a-housing-market-amid-wid ening-income-home-price-gap-10325121316172418.htm

Agarwal, S., & Foo, S. T. (2019, April 6). Aging and decaying leases of residential properties. NUS Institute of Real Estate and Urban Studies.

https://ireus.nus.edu.sg/2019/04/06/aging-and-decaying-leases-of-residential-properties/

Bao Van Hoa. (2026, March 26). Khanh Hoa: Muc thu nhap binh quan cua nguoi lao dong dat gan 13 trieu dong/thang.

https://baovanhoa.vn/doi-song/khanh-hoa-muc-thu-nhap-binh-quan-cua-nguoi-lao-dong dat-gan13-trieu-dongthang-206043.html

Central Provident Fund Board. (2026). CPF overview. https://www.cpf.gov.sg/member/cpf-overview

CBRE Vietnam. (2025, January). Ho Chi Minh City figures Q4 2025.

https://www.cbrevietnam.com/insights/figures/ho-chi-minh-city-figures-q4-2025

CBRE Vietnam. (2025, January). Hanoi figures Q4 2025.

https://www.cbrevietnam.com/insights/figures/hanoi-figures-q4-2025

Cushman & Wakefield. (2023). Vietnam social housing report 2023.

https://cushwake.cld.bz/social-housing-report-en/4-5/

Dang, H. (2023, February 2). The housing paradox in Vietnam. VnExpress International. https://e.vnexpress.net/news/perspectives/the-housing-paradox-in-vietnam-4565703.html

Dentons LuatViet. (2026, April 6). Update on the draft resolution on piloting affordable commercial housing.

https://www.dentonsluatviet.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/april/6/update-on-the-draft-resolu tion-on-piloting-affordable-commercial-housing

DePillis, L. (2024, June 20). High mortgage rates are putting a damper on new home construction. The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/business/economy/new-home-construction-mortga ge-rates.html

Freddie Mac. (2026, March 26). Primary Mortgage Market Survey (PMMS).

https://www.freddiemac.com/pmms

Government of Singapore. (2026, February 10). A home for everyone: Maintaining the quality and value of your flat. gov.sg.

https://www.gov.sg/explainers/a-home-for-everyone-maintaining-the-quality-and-value-of your-flat

Government of Vietnam. (2009, April 22). Thanh pho Nha Trang la do thi loai I. Bao Chinh phu. https://baochinhphu.vn/thanh-pho-nha-trang-la-do-thi-loai-i-1027269.htm

Housing & Development Board. (2026). About us. https://www.hdb.gov.sg/about-us

Housing & Development Board. (2026). Budget for a flat.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/buying-a-flat/financial-planning-for-a-flat-purchase/budget-for-a-fl at

Housing & Development Board. (2026). Interest rate.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/managing-my-home/finances/loan-matters/interest-rate Duong | Affordable Housing Research | April 2026 | 20

Housing & Development Board. (2025, July 22). HDB launches 10,209 flats in the July 2025 BTO and SBF sales exercises.

https://www.hdb.gov.sg/hdb-pulse/news/2025/hdb-launches-10209-flats-in-the-july-2025-bt o-andsbf-sales-exercises

Housing & Development Board. (2026, March 20). Median resale prices for registered applications by town and flat type [Dataset]. data.gov.sg.

https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_b51323a474ba789fb4cc3db58a3116d4/view

Housing & Development Board. (2026). HDB resale price index (1Q2009 = 100), quarterly (2026) [Dataset]. data.gov.sg. Retrieved April 14, 2026, from

https://data.gov.sg/datasets/d_14f63e595975691e7c24a27ae4c07c79/view

JobsGO. (2024). Tuyen dung khach san — wage data by position, Q4 2024.

https://jobsgo.vn/viec-lam-khach-san.html

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2026). America’s rental housing 2026. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/americas-rental-housing-2026

Kinh te & Do thi. (2025, July 30). Khanh Hoa tang toc hoan thanh 10.088 can nha o xa hoi giai doan 2026-2030.

https://www.propertyguru.com.sg/property-guides/eligibility-for-buying-an-hdb-2773

Savills Vietnam. (2025). Vietnam Residential Investment Forum [Proprietary presentation]. Savills Vietnam Limited, Ho Chi Minh City.

TopCV. (2024). Review toan bo cac vi tri hot va muc luong nganh khach san [Hospitality sector wage review].

https://www.topcv.vn/review-toan-bo-cac-vi-tri-hot-va-muc-luong-nganh-khach-san

Trading Economics. (2026). Singapore home ownership rate.

https://tradingeconomics.com/singapore/home-ownership-rate

Tri, M. (2025, July 30). Leveraging one million social housing units nationwide. InvestGlobal. https://en.investglobal.vn/article/detail/leveraging-one-million-social-housing-units-nation wide.html

Tri, N., & Hue, M. (2024, January 11). Vinhomes commences construction of Vietnam’s biggest social housing project. The Investor.

https://theinvestor.vn/vinhomes-commences-construction-of-vietnams-biggest-social-hou sing-project-d8187.html

VietnamPlus. (2026, March 21). Nha o xa hoi: Tu ‘diem nghen’ thanh ‘diem sang’ cua thi truong [Social Housing: From ‘Bottleneck’ to Bright Spot of the Market].

https://www.vietnamplus.vn/nha-o-xa-hoi-tu-diem-nghen-thanh-diem-sang-cua-thi-truon g-post1084213.vnp

VietnamNet. (2025, October 16). Vietnam’s real estate puzzle: High prices, low supply, endless red tape. VietnamNet.

https://vietnamnet.vn/en/vietnam-s-real-estate-puzzle-high-prices-low-supply-endless-red tape-2453344.html

Vietnam Law Magazine. (2026, January 15). Decree 261/2025/ND-CP enhances mechanisms and expands access to social housing.

https://vietnamlawmagazine.vn/decree-261-2025-nd-cp-enhances-mechanisms-and-expan ds-access-to-social-housing-75587.html

Vinhomes. (n.d.). Vinhomes Cam Ranh. Retrieved March 25, 2026, from

https://vinhomes-camranh.com/

VnExpress. (2026, March 28). Goi 120.000 ty dong cho nha o xa hoi van ‘e’ du 4 lan giam lai vay. https://vnexpress.net/goi-120-000-ty-dong-cho-nha-xa-hoi-van-e-du-4-lan-giam-lai-vay-48 86245.html

VOV. (2024, October 24). Xay dung lo trinh de thanh pho Cam Ranh, tinh Khanh Hoa len quan. VOV.VN.

https://vov.vn/xa-hoi/xay-dung-lo-trinh-de-thanh-pho-cam-ranh-tinh-khanh-hoa-len-quan post1130721.vov

Walker & Dunlop. (2026, March 5). Powering affordable housing in 2026: Key government programs every owner, developer, and investor should know.

https://www.walkerdunlop.com/insights/affordable-housing-key-government-programs

Whitney, P. (2025, October 6). Home prices surge to five times median income, nearing historic highs. Housing Perspectives, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.

Speaker Biographies

Trisha Connolly Horowitz, Managing Director and Head of CRE Finance and Portfolio Management at Catal Capital, brought the lender’s lens to the conversation. Catal Capital is a family office-backed lending platform with $2 billion in real estate assets under management, focused on delivering flexible capital solutions to middle-market borrowers. The platform originates senior secured loans, mezzanine loans, and preferred equity. She spoke candidly about what capital partners look for when evaluating a deal, how a borrower’s track record and communication style influence a lender’s confidence, and how the structure of the preferred equity piece at 370 North Morgan was designed to balance risk and return for all parties.

Hymie Mishan, CFA, Principal and Partner at Vista Property, a third-generation family-owned private real estate investment firm with a portfolio spanning urban retail, office, and multifamily assets in Chicago and New York, anchored the equity side of the evening. Hymie, a NYU Stern graduate, walked the audience through the developer’s perspective: how the deal was sourced, how the capital raise came together, what it meant to take first-in, highest-risk equity, and how to design a structure that generates meaningful returns for sponsors and investors alike.

The Project: 370 North Morgan Street, Fulton Market, Chicago

At the center of the evening was one of the most compelling development projects in Chicago right now. 370 North Morgan is a 494-unit Class A-plus luxury residential tower rising 32 stories above Fulton Market, a neighborhood that has transformed in recent years into one of the strongest multifamily submarkets in the country. Of the 494 units, 99 are designated as affordable, and the building includes top-of-market amenities, including a rooftop pool deck, yoga terrace, fitness center, and golf simulator.

The total capitalization stands at $235.3 million, structured across three layers: $151 million in senior debt priced at SOFR plus 265 basis points, $22 million in preferred equity at a 14.25% fixed return, and $62.3 million in sponsor equity carrying an 8% preferred return. Trisha’s comments on the use of preferred equity as a middle layer was a key theme of the discussion: it sits between the senior lender and the common equity, offering a fixed return with less risk than the sponsor’s position but more yield than traditional debt as senior lenders are currently more risk-adverse to underwrite in such a high-interest rate market. Hard costs alone total $170.7 million, which reflects both the scale of the project and the cost premium of building in a high-demand urban submarket. The deal targets a 24.14% IRR and 2.09x equity multiple over a 42-month hold to either refinance or sell, underwritten to a 6.92% yield on cost and a 5.25% exit cap rate. Additionally, hearing Hymie discuss the importance of the 167-basis point spread between what Vista builds at and the exit market price being where equity value is created was one of the most instructive moments of the evening.

The lifecycle of the deal, from entitlements in Q4 2021 through expected stabilization and sale by Q2 2028, was laid out slide by slide, with each phase mapped to the partners responsible: DLA Piper on zoning, Gensler and Antunovich Associates on design, Cushman & Wakefield on capital markets advisory, PGIM on preferred equity, CIBC and Fifth Third on senior debt, Skender as general contractor, and Luxury Living and Magellan Property Management on leasing and operations. Seeing the full picture of the various players within the development process was a rare and practical education.

The Event in Review

The evening resonated well beyond the technical content. Attendees responded enthusiastically to the transparency of the presentation: seeing real numbers, real partners, and real risk framed honestly on a live deal. Questions from the audience ranged from which asset classes Catal sees the most potential in the coming years to how developers like Vista manage construction risk and disruption via lending reserves, and both speakers engaged with depth and candor throughout. Beyond the event, Catal and Vista will be hosting five students for a visit to their FiDi office. Students will have the opportunity to tour the office, meet the teams, see the work in action, and continue the conversation in a more intimate setting. The Network’s mission of connecting students with practitioners who bring both institutional knowledge and personal ownership of their work was on full display.

Personal Reflection: What This Means for Me

Sitting in that room at 270 Park Avenue, I found myself connecting the evening’s discussion to work I am doing in real time. In my coursework at NYU Schack, I have built pro formas, analyzed return metrics, and thought carefully about how yield on cost and exit cap rate interact to drive returns. Watching Hymie walk through those exact concepts in real-life application in a deal with $235 million of real capital behind it made the coursework feel grounded in a way it had not been before.

Beyond academics, the conversation hit closer to home. I am currently working within my family office in New York City, and one of the questions I think about most is how we grow it intentionally, identify if certain properties are not being maximized, when to operate conservatively with internal equity, and how to think about the risk profile of each layer in a potential structure. Hearing Trisha articulate exactly what a preferred equity partner looks for, along with providing an external perspective into your family office, and hearing Hymie explain how he structured a deal that aligned incentives across every tier, gave me a framework I can apply. Additionally, Trisha provided insightful pieces of advice on the importance of mastering Excel fundamentals, leveraging AI as a tool rather than a crutch, and proactively building a strong professional network. The overarching takeaway was that long-term success in the industry is driven by strong technical foundations paired with authentic relationship-building, rather than an overreliance on technology.

The lesson was not just academic: understanding the capital stack is not just about closing a deal. It is about protecting what your family has built and knowing how to grow it without taking risks you do not understand.

The NYU Real Estate Family Network continues to deliver exactly what it promises: a community where the people in the room have real skin in the game, and where the conversations feel personal because they are.

We look forward to continuing to expand this community, bringing together knowledge, experience, and resources across the real estate industry. Stay tuned for upcoming events and opportunities to get involved. Students, alumni, and families interested in joining or sponsoring future events can connect with us on Instagram @NYURealEstateFamilyNetwork or LinkedIn NYU Real Estate Family Network.

Market Trends: Office, Retail, and What’s Next

The morning opened with a wide-ranging look at New York City’s commercial real estate market. Office vacancy sits at 15.5% citywide, though that figure varies significantly, with buildings near transit hubs in Midtown performing far better at around 7%. Leasing activity has surpassed pre-pandemic levels in terms of square footage, but landlords are working harder to attract and retain tenants. Amenities are no longer one-size-fits-all. Today’s office tenants expect features ranging from golf simulators and curated food experiences to seamless, on-demand access. 22 Vanderbilt was cited as a success story, with its coffee lounge concept drawing both tenants and foot traffic.

For retail, the mood was cautiously optimistic. Panelists described it as the strongest market in 25 years, even as labor, technology, and food costs continue to rise. Landlords have responded by restructuring leases, lowering base rents while incorporating revenue-sharing arrangements. Emerging bright spots include life science facilities and top-tier Class A office buildings, though very little of either is expected to come to market in the next three years. Panelists expressed the most confidence in residential conversions and commodity space, also known as the kind of undifferentiated Class B and C office buildings that are increasingly strong candidates for repositioning. Notably, 85 AI companies leased approximately 1.5 million square feet in New York City last year, a clear signal of where demand is heading.

Tackling NYC’s Housing Crisis

The mid-morning panel took on New York’s most urgent challenge: a severe housing shortage. The city needs 80,000 new units over the next decade, and every speaker returned to a common theme: partnership.

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) was a central focus, with discussion of the NYC Housing Trust partnering with NYCHA to expand renovation options and attract more private developers. Panelists emphasized that increased private involvement can save time and money while accelerating capital improvements to aging building systems.

Several policy headwinds were also examined. The 421x tax abatement program has incentivized developers to build studios and smaller units, leaving 20 to 30 percent of potential unit count on the table. The 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act (HSTPA) has made it significantly more difficult to remove units from rent stabilization — with unintended consequences. Panelists noted that landlords who reclaim a vacant unit may face renovation costs of up to $60,000, yet still be required to rent it for roughly $500 per month. As a result, an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 units remain vacant and off the market as a result. The city’s rental vacancy rate currently stands at just 1.4%, the lowest on record.

City of Yes, the zoning reform framework advanced under recent administrations, was discussed as a vehicle for progress, with provisions including expanded senior housing allowances, bonuses for permanently affordable units, and the fast-tracking for ULURP applications.

PropTech: How AI Is Reshaping Real Estate

The midday panel opened with a clear declaration: the divide between those who adopt AI in brokerage and those who do not will define the next decade. Response times on leasing inquiries have compressed dramatically, and virtual walkthroughs have replaced many in-person showings. Generative AI tools can now produce architectural renderings and test-fit layouts in a fraction of the time and cost of a traditional firm engagement.

Skyline AI, now part of JLL, was highlighted as a case study. The platform contributed to roughly one in five deals over the past two years and delivered a 20% increase in productivity.. Data fragmentation remains an issue, but AI is being deployed to bridge siloed systems and free up brokers to focus on relationship-building. Emerging use cases include real-time occupancy tracking for large enterprise tenants and in-the-moment legal analysis during property transactions.

The panel also touched on tokenization, defined as dividing ownership of real estate assets into digital tokens on a blockchain, positioning it as a democratizing force that could broaden access to real estate investment through lower minimum buy-ins. The consensus was clear: firms that build structured, proprietary intelligence now will be better positioned to execute deals more efficiently.

Transforming Existing Buildings: Adaptive Reuse and Predictive Maintenance

The afternoon shift brought sustainability front and center. One of the most compelling developments discussed was the shift from preventative to predictive maintenance. Traditional building management responds to problems after they appear, while predictive systems use sensors and AI to monitor anomalies in real time, with panelists citing annual savings of 10 to 30 percent on operational costs.

This type of energy monitoring feeds directly into compliance with Local Law 97, which requires buildings over 25,000 square feet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. The primary compliance path is electrification: moving from combustion-based systems toward electric equipment while managing the building’s role within the broader utility grid.

On adaptive reuse, converting office buildings to residential is more complex than it may initially seem. Residential units require bedrooms to have windows, and the deep floor plates of office buildings often leave interior areas unusable for sleeping quarters. The Financial District was cited as particularly well-suited for conversion due to its older, narrower building stock. MEP systems, especially plumbing, were identified as the most challenging aspect of conversion. Meanwhile, retail spaces , are increasingly being repurposed as amenity space for residential buildings.

Retrofitting NYC: Landmarks, Legacy Buildings, and Low-Carbon Futures

The final panel tackled one of urban sustainability’s thorniest challenges: retrofitting historic buildings to meet modern energy codes without compromising their architectural character. The guiding principle was to preserve and retain embodied carbon, recognizing that the energy already embedded in a building’s materials represents a carbon investment that demolition waste.

Rubin Hall at NYU was cited as a landmark example. The project insulated the interior, replaced all windows with high-performance units, added air conditioning, achieved Passive House certification, and reduced energy use by 50%, all while preserving the building’s exterior aesthetic. One important nuance raised was that energy modeling of older buildings often underestimates their real-world performance. Buildings that have stood for a century have effectively adapted to their environment, and engineers should approach retrofits with a degree of humility about the limits of simulation.

A new energy code, imposed by Local Law 47, taking effect March 30 includes a carve-out: if meeting a specific provision would damage a building’s historical fabric, owners can apply to the Department of Buildings for an exemption. For building owners, this flexibility is significant in influencing decisions: knowing that relief is available on the most disruptive requirements may actually encourage broader sustainability compliance, while also reducing costs from energy loss and continuing to preserve a building’s historic character.

Looking Ahead

The panels at NY Build Expo painted a picture of an industry at an inflection point. The housing crisis is driving urgency around conversion and new construction, while AI and PropTech are reshaping how deals are sourced, structured, and executed. Sustainability, driven by Local Law 97, rising costs, and evolving tenant expectations, is becoming inseparable from the financial calculus of owning, developing, and leasing real estate in New York.

For those entering the field, the message was clear, reverberated across the discussion panels and company marketing booths at the NY Build Expo: success in this environment depends on the ability to move quickly, think across disciplines, and adapt to the tools and regulations reshaping the built environment.

Learn more about the author: Becky Flanagan

The media has been sounding the alarm on maturities for years. However, due to the cyclical nature of the CRE market, the real estate environment changes every few years, which naturally leads to periods of aggressive and optimistic underwriting that, when they end, bring forth a wave of maturities in unfavorable rate environments. However, what the media seems to miss with every cycle is the durability of the ‘extend-and-pretend’ practice that both lenders and borrowers leverage to push maturities out, avoiding the pain of a forced resolution. Banks and other CRE lenders don’t want writedowns on their balance sheets, and borrowers don’t want to lose their properties. Research showed that weakly capitalized banks extended and pretended their distressed CRE mortgages since 2022 to avoid writing off capital, leading to credit misallocation and a 4.8-5.3% drop in CRE mortgage origination. The outcome is a market that is being pulled in two different directions: price discovery lags behind because distressed assets aren’t transacting, transaction volume stays suppressed as buyers and sellers can’t agree on value, and distress that might have been resolved in a single cycle gets spread across years. This makes the maturities structural events rather than episodic, where the pressure of a maturing loan distributes unevenly across sectors, geographies, and positions within the capital stack, pushed months and years out rather than resolved at once.

Contrary to what the extend-and-pretend cycle implies, kicking the can down the road does not solve the structural problem of poorly underwritten deals that were financed at peak liquidity in expansionary markets. The distress does not disappear. It builds, just slowly. CRED iQ reported a distress rate across all CRE sectors of 11.98% in January 2026, a 148% increase over the prior 43 months, with projections that the overall distress rate could reach 15% by December 2026. What we are increasingly starting to see is the emergence of two distinct markets: opportunistic buyers willing to price in the risk of distressed assets facing upcoming debt maturities or already in default, and the broader market still battling a persistent bid-ask gap. This gap is not narrowing on its own, and extensions can’t run forever; they are a delay mechanism, not a resolution. The question is not whether these assets will eventually be forced into resolution, but when lenders run out of runway and what that clearing process will look like.

Instead of a wall of maturities, the better framing is a K. The top branch represents healthy, high-quality deals that are flooded with capital, suppressing spreads. The bottom branch represents the distressed class, the assets with an unclear refinancing path, and dwindling lender interest. Both branches are defined by their own set of constraints: one is a capital oversupply problem, the other is a valuation problem - capital exists, but not at the basis that owners are holding onto.

What we are seeing in the top-of-K market right now is an enormous amount of capital going after a limited supply of quality assets. As Berkadia’s Hilary Provinse described it, liquidity in the 2026 CRE market is “unlike anything I’ve seen in my 30-year career,” with active participation from GSEs, banks, life companies, private debt funds, and new entrants like REITs with direct lending arms. All of this capital flooding into the market is driving spreads to record lows: multifamily now prices at roughly 152 basis points over Treasuries, and industrial at roughly 163 basis points, both near their lowest levels since before the Fed’s 2022 rate-hiking cycle began.

The issue at the core of the upper branch is that there are insufficient quality projects to put that capital to work. Lenders are essentially being paid historically thin margins to take on risk.

At the bottom of the K is a fundamentally different problem. Distressed assets, like overleveraged deals, struggling office buildings, multifamily properties underwritten at peak 2016 or 2021 valuations that never hit the projected rent growth, are largely unfinanceable. This is where the bifurcation accelerates. On the top arm of the K, the disconnect is about pricing: too much capital driving spreads too thin. On the bottom arm, the disconnect is about participation: capital has largely exited this market.

Regional banks are constrained by regulators watching their CRE concentrations closely, given that CRE loans make up roughly 44% of their balance sheets, compared to just 13% for large banks. Debt funds are chasing quality, too, as they have investors to answer to. CMBS structures cannot absorb the credit risk. Even the opportunistic and distressed-focused funds that theoretically want this type of exposure are highly selective, and there are too few of them to absorb the supply. The result is a growing number of assets sitting at maturity with no refinancing path: not at 200 basis points over SOFR, not even at 400, because no lenders are even willing to quote one.

In a rational credit market, higher risk means there will be a higher spread; assets get financed, just more expensively. What is broken at the bottom of the K is that the relationship no longer holds. The spread is not widening to meet the risk. The capital simply is not showing up, but not because it doesn’t exist, but rather because the basis hasn’t reset yet. Owners are clinging to valuations that no longer match the current market environment, and until that basis is forced to adjust, through foreclosure, deed-in-lieu, or restructuring that clears the legacy equity, there is no entry point for new capital. As of now, there is nothing forcing that reset. Regulators are easing, not tightening, and no recession or systemic event is compelling lenders to recognize losses.

So the real question is not whether the maturity wall will hit, as it continuously does, just not in the way the headlines predict. The question is what will eventually force the basis to clear. If history is any indication, it will not be a single moment of correction, but a series of quiet resolutions: note sales at steep discounts, preferred equity injections, deed-in-lieu arrangements that let lenders take back assets without the appearance of a foreclosure. For well-capitalized lenders and opportunistic debt funds with the patience and structuring expertise to underwrite non-standard deals, the bottom of the K is actually the most interesting place to be deploying capital right now. There will be no single breaking point, but rather a slow, uneven process where the top of the K continues to refinance and recover while the bottom works through distress over years and cycles.

Learn more about the author: Anna Mitrofanova

Strategic Reinvestment and “Zero-Distance” Manufacturing

GE’s redevelopment of Building 2 into an advanced manufacturing facility for front-load washers and combo washer/dryers reflect a vertically integrated, “zero-distance” manufacturing model. The facility is designed to consolidate production, engineering, supply chain, and quality control functions within a single footprint, reducing friction across the manufacturing process and enabling real-time coordination.

This approach is particularly notable in the context of reshoring. Instead of replicating offshore production domestically, GE is fundamentally reengineering its operating model to prioritize proximity, both internally across departments and externally to suppliers and logistics infrastructure. The result is a facility that is not only technologically advanced, incorporating robotics and automated material handling systems, but also strategically embedded within a broader industrial ecosystem.

The project is expected to create approximately 800 full-time jobs by 2027, reinforcing Louisville’s role as a durable manufacturing hub while aligning with national efforts to rebuild domestic production capacity.

Louisville Industrial Market: A High-Performing Regional Hub

Louisville’s industrial real estate market provides a compelling backdrop for GE’s investment. Market fundamentals remain strong, with vacancy rates in the high-3.0% range, well below national averages, and sustained positive net absorption driven by logistics, e-commerce, and light manufacturing demand.

Rental growth has remained steady, with average asking rents in the mid-$6.00 per square foot range, reflecting both constrained supply and consistent tenant demand. While development activity has increased, new supply has largely been absorbed, preventing material upward pressure on vacancy.

Louisville’s competitive advantage is rooted in its logistics infrastructure. The presence of UPS Worldport, one of the world’s largest air cargo hubs, combined with access to major interstate corridors (I-65, I-64, and I-71), allows businesses to reach a majority of the U.S. population within a single day’s drive. This geographic centrality, coupled with established industrial submarkets and available development land, positions Louisville as a premier distribution and manufacturing node in the Midwest.

From a segmentation perspective, the market supports a diverse tenant base, ranging from large format bulk distribution users to local flex-space occupiers. Demand remains strongest in bulk logistics facilities, though manufacturing and smaller industrial formats continue to see healthy leasing activity.

Labor, Industry Base, and Economic Drivers

Louisville’s labor market further strengthens its position as a reshoring destination. The metro area supports a deep and cost-competitive workforce, particularly in logistics and manufacturing occupations. Total labor costs remain materially below the national average, while specialized roles, especially in transportation and air cargo, are significantly overrepresented relative to national benchmarks. The region’s industrial base is equally diversified. Major employers span automotive manufacturing, logistics, consumer goods, and food and beverage production. Notably, UPS employs more than 26,000 workers locally, while Ford and GE maintain major manufacturing operations in the region. The recent announcement of a $173 million advanced manufacturing facility by Foxconn further underscores Louisville’s ability to attract global investment in next-generation production. E-commerce growth has been a critical tailwind, with warehousing demand increasing significantly since 2020. At the same time, constrained construction pipelines, driven in part by financing challenges, are expected to keep vacancy low and support continued rent growth through 2026 and beyond.

Supply Chain Localization and Industrial Spillover Effects

One of the most significant implications of GE’s investment lies in its supply chain strategy. The Building 2 facility is designed as a vertically integrated operation, producing key components inhouse while simultaneously sourcing raw materials and specialized parts from a growing network of domestic suppliers. GE has already committed over $150 million to U.S.-based supplier contracts, with a substantial portion allocated to Kentucky-based firms. Some of these suppliers provide plastics (Plastic Products Co. Inc., Jones Plastic and Engineering Corp., and Engineered Plastic Component), steel and chrome (US Steel, Metals USA, and Wabash Plastics), and logistics for the distributions of the final products (UPS). Local manufacturers, particularly those within close proximity to Appliance Park, are positioned to benefit from just-in-time delivery requirements enabled by the plant’s automated logistics systems.

The spatial dynamics of this supply chain are particularly noteworthy. Firms located within a four- to eight-mile radius of the facility hold a competitive advantage due to reduced transportation costs and shorter lead times, they are within GE Appliance’s Zero Distance strategy, which provides support to the manufacturing and the end user. A supplier within 4-8 miles can be available within 15 minutes of the location of the issue. This creates a localized industrial cluster effect, where proximity directly translates into economic opportunity. Additionally, domestically-sourced inputs allows the manufacturer to largely avoid tariffs.

At the same time, GE has identified gaps in its domestic supply chain, particularly in motors, electronic control boards, and wire harnesses, highlighting future opportunities for industrial users and developers to capture incremental demand.

Public Incentives and Infrastructure Alignment

The success of the GE project is also closely tied to a layered incentive structure spanning municipal, state, and federal levels. Kentucky’s economic development framework, including programs such as the Kentucky Jobs Retention Act (KJRA) and the Kentucky Business Investment (KBI) program, provides substantial performance-based tax incentives tied to job creation and capital investment. At the municipal level, Louisville has contributed direct financial incentives, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) support, and coordinated permitting through the Louisville Economic Development Alliance (LEDA). These mechanisms streamline project execution while reducing upfront development costs.

Infrastructure investment further enhances the project’s viability. The development of a new intermodal rail ramp at Appliance Park, through a partnership between Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific, creates direct connectivity to national freight networks, complementing the region’s already robust highway and air cargo infrastructure. Although no direct federal funding has been allocated to the project, broader policy dynamics, particularly tariffs on imported appliances and materials (notably, Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports and Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum), have played a meaningful role in accelerating reshoring decisions.

Implications for Reshoring Strategy and Industrial Real Estate

GE’s approach illustrates a critical evolution in reshoring strategy. Rather than pursuing capital-intensive, ground-up developments in new markets, the company is leveraging existing assets, infrastructure, and labor pools to create synergies and reduce execution risk. This stands in contrast to other reshoring efforts, such as those by pharmaceutical or technology firms, that often require entirely new campuses and extended timelines to reach operational scale. By repositioning an existing facility within a mature industrial ecosystem, GE is able to accelerate production timelines while minimizing uncertainty. From a real estate perspective, this model reinforces the value of established industrial markets with strong logistics infrastructure, deep labor pools, and supportive public policy environments. It also highlights the importance of supply chain proximity, suggesting that future industrial demand will increasingly concentrate around major manufacturing anchors.

Conclusion

The GE Appliances expansion in Louisville represents a compelling case study in modern reshoring, one that combines strategic real estate repositioning, supply chain localization, and coordinated public-sector support. The project underscores the importance of leveraging existing industrial ecosystems rather than building from scratch, particularly in markets with strong logistics and labor fundamentals. As reshoring continues to gain momentum, the Louisville model offers a blueprint for both occupiers and investors: prioritize infrastructure-rich markets, align with public incentives, and capitalize on proximity-driven efficiencies. In doing so, companies can achieve not only cost competitiveness but also long-term operational resilience in an increasingly localized global economy.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the insights gained from the Louisville Economic Development Alliance (LEDA). Market data was sourced from Green Street, Cushman & Wakefield, CBRE, VidTech, and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Readers are encouraged to watch The REIT Center’s podcast “The REIT Insider” interview of Harry Mosler, Founder & President of Reshoring Initiative and Bill Good, VP Supply Chain at GE Appliances.

Learn more about the authors: Professor Scott Robinson & Jose Godinez

References

Market Reports & Industry Research

Cushman & Wakefield. (2025). Louisville MarketBeats: Industrial Report, Q4 2025.

CBRE. (2025). Louisville, KY Industrial Market Overview.

VidTech. (2024). Louisville 2025 North America Industrial Big-Box Review & Outlook. December 13, 2024.

Economic Development & Government Sources

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Occupational Employment and Wages: Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN — May 2024.

Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development. (2025). GE Appliances to Invest $490 Million, Create 800 Jobs in Louisville. June 26, 2025.

Louisville Metro Government. (2025). Economic Development Initiatives and Incentive Programs.

Greater Louisville Inc.. (2025). Greater Louisville: All-American Economic Engine. June 16, 2025.

Corporate Announcements & Industrial Activity

GE Appliances. (2025). $490 Million Laundry Plant Investment at Louisville Headquarters. June 26, 2025.

Area Development. (2025). GE Appliances Expands Jefferson County, Kentucky Operations. June 30, 2025.

Assembly Magazine. (2025). GE Appliances to Invest $490 Million in Louisville Assembly Plant. July 9, 2025.

Supply Chain 24/7. (2025). GE Appliances Reshores Washer Production to Louisville. June 30, 2025.

CNN Business. (2025). GE Appliances Reshoring Manufacturing to Kentucky. June 26, 2025.

WDRB News. (2025). New Products Planned for GE Appliance Park in $490M Investment. June 26, 2025.

Demographics & Labor Market Data

North American Community Hub. (2025). Louisville Population 2025: Trends and Projections. February 4, 2025.

Grokipedia/Wikipedia Contributors. (2025). List of Major Employers in Louisville, Kentucky. (Data as of August 2025).

Logistics & Industrial Market Commentary

Conner Logistics / PR.com. (2025). Conner Logistics Enhances Louisville Warehousing Services. August 1, 2025. (Citing Kentucky Economic Development Authority, 2024).

The Lane Report. (2025). GE Appliances Investment and Job Creation in Louisville. June 26, 2025.

Securitization finance still has its share of creative storytelling, and even if 2026 doesn’t scream “bubble”, looking ahead, it is possible to see some smoke that smells like tulips. Nevertheless, the CMBS market, after being confined to the hedge of real estate finance post-GFC, has come back stronger, reaching a post-GFC record in new securitizations, like the guy in horror movies who refuses to die, no matter how many times you try to kill him.

The market didn’t just survive, it showed up in 2025 wearing a suit and asking for a bigger office. Total issuance reached $125.6B, a 21% increase from 2024 and well above $40B of 2023, with 75% of issuance in SASB deals, an all-time record. An increasing number of deals see securitized cash flows coming from operating businesses rather than pure real estate. And if before was DCF, 10 years holding, cap rate, reversion price and exit, now is more like: pray the members keep paying their dues, the dice keep rolling, and the grid stays on.

Rating agencies strive to ensure cross-asset consistency: a single-A CMBS and a single-A corporate bond should carry the same probability of default. In theory, a AAA tranche backed by an industrial portfolio and a AAA tranche backed by a casino floor sit at the same point on the risk spectrum. In practice, the investor still has to write the check, and a rating is an opinion, not a guarantee. If the bond doesn’t act like other AAAs in the past, that’s the risk the buyer owns, not Moody’s. A triple-A is a triple-A, until the collateral stops behaving like real estate. The real question is whether spreads on these deals are wide enough to compensate for what the model can’t fully capture: the part of the underwriting that depends on gamblers not counting cards at the blackjack table.

Data Centers Securitization

AI - or data centers in this case - is like parsley: it goes well with everything, even CMBS. Large deal sizes, smaller portfolios, and stabilized properties all support SASB securitizations. U.S. data center CMBS issuance increased by 273% in 2025, totaling $11.2B, up from $3B in 2024, and in 2026, global ABS and CMBS originations are expected to reach $50B.

This growth reflects the increasing number of data center projects reaching operational stabilization, where owners replace short-term construction loans with permanent financing that cuts interest expenses by 50-100 bps. Institutional investors consider stabilized data centers less risky, accept lower cap rates, increase appraised values, and unlock up to 25% of cash that can be recycled.

Instead of room counts and demographic trends, utility interconnections and power contracts are the backbone of this asset class. If power fails to reach servers for even a few minutes, entire operations can be disrupted, meaning grid constraints or water shortages for cooling can directly harm rent-paying capacity.

The value is not necessarily in the real estate; it’s in the energy contracts. And while it still relies on cash flow and replacement cost, MEP systems and cooling technology determine who earns tomorrow’s rent.

U.S. data center demand could reach 500 TWh by 2030, requiring an infrastructure buildout that, as of now, may not be feasible given permitting and equipment lead times. Future cash flows are no longer driven solely by real estate market dynamics, but by access to nuclear power, liquid cooling capacity, or simply who can offer more to tap into a supply-constrained grid.

And the worst-case scenario is worth pausing on: even though it’s too early to have seen default outcomes, given the complexity of the equipment involved, are we ready to hand a special servicer the keys to what effectively operates like a power plant with small nuclear reactors? I personally don’t think the CMBS workout manual has a chapter for that.

Is it really Real Estate?

You might be asking: where is the Big Short in all of this? The CMBS market has always had a passion for overly complex, sometimes miraculously self-healing structures, the financial equivalent of assembling IKEA furniture without instructions, getting it wrong, and somehow ending up with a chair anyway.

But lately the creativity has moved from the structure to the collateral itself. A significant share of large SASB deals is backed by assets where a substantial portion of income is not traditional real estate, nor dependent solely on tenants paying rent for a square foot of space.

Gaming revenue. Beach club memberships. Revenue per kWh. The holy trinity of “trust me, it’s real estate”. The question is whether the CMBS market is pricing and rating these income streams as if they were something they are not: stable.

Normally, “The house always wins”, and in the Cosmopolitan Las Vegas Resort & Casino securitization (BX 2026-CSMO), TTM revenues ending September 2025 show 20% coming from casino operations and 35.5% from F&B, leaving only 38.5% from room revenue.

Funny enough, table games are underwritten based on the “2021 through September 2025 TTM average net hold percentage of 18.7%”. Let’s hope gamblers keep betting on red or black, and eating and drinking a lot while doing it.

The prospectus itself acknowledges “…Risks of the Casino Industry”, correctly disclosing that “We cannot assure you that the revenues of any of the Property’s food and beverage venues and recreation facilities will be maintained.”, It’s just all buried somewhere in the midst of 504 pages (page 72, if you’d like to check).

To be fair, the prospectus also states that “Each investor should make its own determination of the appropriate assumptions to be used in determining cash flows.” and makes no representations about future cash flows.

On paper, this is a real estate transaction: Blackstone (the owner) wrapped the deal with a 30-year lease with MGM as tenant. Legally, it qualifies, and the bank underwrites the lease to MGM and its ability to pay rent.

But still, is gaming revenue stable enough to back a real estate securitization? The lease wrapper creates the legal fiction and makes it real estate income in a technical sense, but is gaming revenue really comparable to a stabilized multifamily rent roll?

It seems like the rating agencies are rating the casino floor more than the lease. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: MGM’s EBITDAR covers rent 1.88x, so there’s significant cushion before the rent chain breaks. The house is still winning, for now. Just don’t ask what happens if the table goes cold.

Another funny one is the Boca Raton Hotel & Club deal (2025-BOCA) and it tells a similar story. TTM September 2025 shows 30.8% in room revenue, while 23.1% comes from club memberships, including golf dues!

Membership fees and room revenue have completely different risk profiles. Room revenue is volatile but tied to occupancy and ADR, metrics the market understands well. Membership fees depend on the perceived exclusivity and desirability of a beach club: harder to underwrite, and likely the first to collapse in a downturn.

More interesting still, 23.1% of revenue carries a particular embedded complexity, as a portion of what looks like membership income is actually the amortization of a 30-year deferred liability. Members who joined before 1997 paid an initiation fee and received 100% back 30 years later, essentially an interest-free loan to the club, with refunds running from 2021 through 2033.

To be completely fair, the borrower is required to maintain a $2M reserve at all times, plus monthly additions equal to the total refund obligations payable in that month, ensuring sufficient funds to meet membership refunds.

Now, for the record, golf dues are arguably the most recession-proof income stream in this entire article: Floridians will sooner give up their second home than their Sunday tee time. Not a hole-in-one underwriting assumption, but close enough.

Lastly, data centers bring their own version of this problem. The metric that matters is not rent/SF, it’s revenue/kWh, a “technology” metric carrying a risk that conventional real estate underwriting isn’t always built to capture: obsolescence.

If AI continues to evolve, the demand profile for existing data center infrastructure could change faster than a 10-year loan matures. Rating agencies have specific criteria, but the question is whether those methodologies are truly stress-testing non-real-estate future income streams with the same rigor applied to a multifamily rent roll, or simply mapping unfamiliar cash flows onto a familiar framework because a single-A is supposed to be a single-A regardless of asset type.

In the QTS data center portfolio (BX 2026-VLT9), a SASB backed by three properties, the prospectus explicitly cites “Inability to Adapt to Evolving Technologies” (page 94) as a potential risk, and reports 88.1% occupancy as a percentage of MW, along with the appraised value of $77,641,978 per MW (not per SF), tells us that the asset’s value is a function of how much power it can deliver to tenants.

This deal is not being valued as traditional real estate, while still posing a real estate valuation problem: the appraised value is anchored to power capacity. If usable MW decreases, whether from grid constraints or equipment obsolescence, appraised value falls and LTV rises, with no lease renegotiation or tenant concession as a buffer.

In traditional CRE, you call your tenant. Here, you call your utility provider and hope they pick up.

The risk profile of these income streams is fundamentally different from traditional NOI and is worth understanding if they are being priced and rated like traditional CRE. If investors are not fully capturing that difference, the result is mispriced risk at scale, and that is exactly where every “Big Short” story starts.

The bear case does not tell the whole story, and none of this is to say these deals are poorly structured. These are not overleveraged bets on esoteric collateral. Sponsors like Blackstone have sector expertise and the balance sheet fire power to weather disruption. Leverage, while significant in absolute terms, is sized against appraised values that account for the non-traditional income mix. MGM’s EBITDAR covers base rent nearly 2x at the Cosmopolitan, meaning income would have to fall drastically before you can call it a red flag. For data centers, long-dated power contracts and hyperscaler tenants’ ratings being greater than the U.S. government one, provide cash flow soundness that traditional property types cannot match.

The structure is there. The sponsorship is there. The question is not whether the deals are safe enough. The question is whether the market is pricing correctly a downside scenario where there is not just a simple 20% income decline, there’s an income stream that stops completely because the operating business fails. Investors have to decide whether they believe the positive aspects of the story are adequate to cover the risks.

Moody’s rating methodology explicitly states it applies downward LTV adjustments for “risky non-standard property types” and that “properties with highly uncertain long-term cash flow and value retention prospects. may not be eligible for investment-grade credit assessments”.

The question is whether gaming revenue, membership fees, and revenue/kWh fall within “uncertain long-term cash flow”. Moody’s goal is to “identify a level of NCF that a property can reliably produce” through the economic cycle, but it does not state how it handles properties where the majority of income is operationally driven rather than lease-driven.

The building is real and so is the mortgage. But when the income keeping that mortgage current comes from a roulette table, the building is just a vessel, and investors have to underwrite an operating business that happens to find itself inside. Traditional real estate lease income - rent rolls, occupancy rates - is contractual or predictable, and has been stress-tested across cycles. Business income has not, at least not inside a CMBS structure.

Moody’s methodology looks at reliably-produced income, but if they use “long-term trends to see how current income and expense levels compare to market figures”, what is the long-term trend for beach club membership fees? What is the sustainable MW usage in a rapidly evolving obsolescence environment we haven’t yet fully faced?

The benchmarks simply don’t exist in the same way they do for a stabilized multifamily property. When 60-70% of a property’s income comes from gaming, memberships, or power contracts, applying a methodology designed for rent rolls and vacancy rates works, until it doesn’t.

Fitch, for properties without leases such as hotels, anchors revenue assumptions to “the lesser of the TTM or sustainable rents”. The starting point is sound, but do they really know how to treat peculiar or not-yet tested streams of cash flows?

Their names are Moody’s and Fitch, so I guess they know how to run their Monte Carlo simulations.

Rating agencies have adapted and treat each asset class with the expected thoroughness, considering all the possible future risks, but even the most sophisticated Monte Carlo simulation has never had to model how many rounds of golf a Boca Raton retiree plays before the membership lapses.

The “other income” category is growing fast and getting creative. If this creativity isn’t fully priced by investors, the market is accumulating risk in plain sight, dressed up in a lease, wrapped in a prospectus, and rated AAA.

If until here you got a bit scared, remember: 2026 doesn’t scream bubble. Comparing the Cosmopolitan casino (BX 2026-CSMO | $3.05B) deal with the Four Seasons Resort Orlando at Walt Disney World (FS Trust 2026-ORL | $510M) and the QTS data center portfolio (BX 2026-VLT9 | $2.05B) with a 145-property industrial portfolio (PLYM 2026-IND | $1.46B) - all deals originated in the same timeframe - investors are clearly asking for wider spreads on the less real-estate-heavy paper. Data centers price 45 to 110 basis points wider than industrial across the stack, suggesting the market is at least partially aware of the obsolescence and concentration risk baked into revenue-per-kWh underwriting. The casino story is different: the Cosmopolitan prices only 5 bps wide of the Four Seasons at the AAA level, with the gap widening below investment grade. Apparently, despite a larger loan ticket, investors feel as comfortable with Mickey Mouse as a high roller with a martini and a hot streak at the Bellagio.

Which brings us to the open question no prospectus answers. We have not yet seen one of these deals go into special servicing. We have not watched a master servicer try to determine whether it’s recoverable to advance debt service on a casino that went dark, or a data center whose largest tenant walked. So, who steps in to buy the distressed note on a beach club not even an institutional sponsor wants to operate, or a 300,000 square foot data center in the middle of nowhere, connected to a powerless grid? I can picture a special servicer being given back the keys of data center by a borrower saying “Dammit, now we own this thing! How on earth do I turn it on?”

In the last “Big Short”, at least the houses were worth something: people need somewhere to live. If the collateral here stops performing, there’s no data center-to-resi conversion. Maybe that scenario never arrives. The odds are probably in the house’s favor. But CMBS are priced with models calibrated on asset classes that have done several trips around the sun, and applied to asset classes that have not. That is not necessarily wrong. It is just a bet where the odds are not simply disclosed on Polymarket.

It does not smell like tulips yet. But it is worth sniffing around, and maybe asking who picks up the phone when the utility provider doesn’t.

Learn more about the author: Giulio Gri

RESOURCES

Fitch Ratings. (2025, December 16). Global data center outlook 2026. Fitch Ratings. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/global-data-center-outlook-2026-16-12-2025

Moody’s Ratings. (2025, February 6). Rating methodology: Data center securitizations. Moody’s Ratings. https://www.moodys.com/research/Rating-Methodology-Data-Center-Securitizations-Rating-Methodology--PBS_1428218

Moody’s Ratings. (2024). Rating methodology: Large loan and single-asset/single-borrower commercial mortgage-backed securitizations. Moody’s Ratings. https://www.moodys.com/research/Rating-Methodology-Large-Loan-and-Single-AssetSingle-Borrower-Commercial-Mortgage-backed-Securitizations-Rating-Methodology--PBS_1428224

Fitch Ratings. (2025, June 2). CMBS large loan rating criteria. Fitch Ratings. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/cmbs-large-loan-rating-criteria-02-06-2025

Fitch Ratings. (2025, September 16). Data center securitizations rating criteria. Fitch Ratings. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/data-center-securitizations-rating-criteria-16-09-2025

Fitch Ratings. (2025, September 16). Feedback report: Data center securitizations rating criteria. Fitch Ratings. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/structured-finance/feedback-report-data-center-securitizations-rating-criteria-16-09-2025

Aidasani, R. (2025, Fall). Data centers: Power, underwriting, and the AI supercycle. CREFC World. CRE Finance Council. https://www.crefc.org/common/Uploaded%20files/Learn/CREFC%20World/CREFC-World-09-2025.12.12.pdf

Diamond Hill. (2025). AI’s securitized footprint: The rise of data center financing. Diamond Hill Capital Management. https://www.diamond-hill.com/insights/a-899/articles/ais-securitized-footprint-the-rise-of-data-center-financing/

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (2025, December 9). BOCA Commercial Mortgage Trust 2025-BOCA: Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2025-BOCA — offering circular. Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc. (2026, February 9). BX Commercial Mortgage Trust 2026-CSMO: Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2026-CSMO — offering circular. Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities Inc.

QTS Depositor 2026, LLC. (2026, February 25). BX Commercial Mortgage Trust 2026-VLT9: Commercial mortgage pass-through certificates, series 2026-VLT9 — offering circular. QTS Depositor 2026, LLC.

Callahan, E. (2025, May 1). Financing pressures drive innovation in data center financing. Structured Finance Association. https://structuredfinance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SFA-Research-Corner_Financing-Pressures-Drive-Innovation-in-Data-Center-Financing.pdf

Goldman Sachs Investment Banking. (2025). Powering the AI era. Goldman Sachs. https://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-do/investment-banking/insights/articles/powering-the-ai-era/report.pdf

Jones, S. (2026, March 30). Data center transparency, operating concerns raise alarms in ballooning CMBS market. Bisnow. https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/data-center-capital-markets/data-center-transparency-operating-concerns-raise-alarms-cmbs-market-133865

JLL. (2026). North America data center outlook: Year-end 2025. JLL Research. https://www.jll.com/content/dam/jllcom/en/amer/documents/reports/research-reports/26-insights-north-america-data-center-report-ye-2025.pdf

Green Street. (2026, January 16). U.S. CMBS observer — 4Q25: Update on the U.S. CMBS marketplace. Green Street Advisors.

Green Street. (2026, January 11). Debt insights: Open for business. Green Street Advisors.

Green Street Advisors. (2026, February 13). Commercial Mortgage Alert, 38(7).

Green Street Advisors. (2026, February 20). Commercial Mortgage Alert, 38(8).

Zeng Chun Ting, NYU Schack Class of 2026, represents the second generation of leadership at Huizhou Victory Group. Having grown up around construction sites and project execution, he has been involved in the family business for more than a decade and currently serves as Director of M&A. With a background shaped by both hands-on exposure in the field and formal real estate training in New York, he is now focused on acquisitions in Hong Kong, particularly distressed real estate assets and construction firms.

He is part of Huizhou Victory Group, a China based impact development and investment platform founded in 2003 by Zeng Shengli. Over the past two decades, the company has grown into a diversified enterprise with core businesses spanning real estate development, infrastructure construction, tourism, hospitality, concrete production, and education. Headquartered in Huizhou, a city of roughly 6 million people just east of Shenzhen, the group has built a significant regional presence across multiple sectors.

Its portfolio includes Bijiasha Bay Terminal, which currently handles 2.2 million tons of annual throughput and is undergoing a major upgrade scheduled for completion in 2028. Once completed, the terminal’s annual capacity is expected to increase to 8.3 million tons. The group also operates two concrete batching plants, Pinggang and Baihua, with annual output of 300,000 and 280,000 cubic meters respectively.

In real estate, Huizhou Victory Group independently developed Huidong International New City in 2008, a large scale mixed use project comprising 10,000 residential units, 50,000 square meters of retail space, and Huidong Victory School on a 10 acre campus. In 2012, the group partnered with Vanke to develop Vanke Twin Moon Bay, Vanke’s first deep sea resort project, spanning four phases and approximately 40,000 units. Today, the group retains development rights to roughly 50,000 acres of land.

PHUC LE

Phuc Le is graduating from the NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate, where he pursued a Bachelor of Science in Real Estate with a concentration in Finance. Continuing his education, he will be pursuing a Master in Management at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Phuc currently holds a CFA Level I certification. This coming summer, Phuc will be interning at Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank as a Real Estate Finance Intern, placed within the Global Banking Unit, where he will analyze deal structures, borrower financials, and industry risk factors to support credit decisions. Before that, he interned at Silverstein Properties, supporting the $7B Avenir casino and mixed-use development proposal. There, he built a construction model, IRR waterfall, and comparables analysis for an affordable housing site, and screened competing casino bids from Related, SL Green, and Soloviev across operator profiles and regulatory positioning.

As Retail Sector Lead for the NYU Schack REIT Investment Fund, one of Phuc’s strongest investment thesis’ was a take-private call on Whitestone REIT (WSR). He identified WSR as a buyout candidate based on its NAV discount, fragmented Sun Belt retail portfolio, and potential for operational value creation under private ownership. That thesis came to fruition when WSR received a $19-per-share buyout offer, valuing the transaction at $1.7B.

Valerie Burridge

Originally from a small town in Texas, Valerie Burridge is a senior at NYU Schack concentrating in Real Estate Development and serves as Chief Operating Officer of the NYU Schack Real Estate Club.

She will be returning to Marcus & Millichap as an Industrial Investment Broker, where she was selected for the firm’s Fellowship Program (sub-1% acceptance rate) and placed Top 10 nationally in their Value of Representation competition. During her time at NYU, Val has moderated multiple industry panels, including a conversation with David L. Picket, CEO of the Gotham Organization, in front of over 400 attendees. She has been awarded: NYU Schack Rising Star, Women in Real Estate (WiRE) Scholarship, Real World Case Competition of Fall 2024, and will graduate with one of the two Schack Academic Excellence Awards as a Dean’s List student. Her experience spans investment brokerage, media, and public relations, having worked at Marcus & Millichap, Rubenstein Public Relations, and Traded: New York, where she supported clients, including Forbes and Soloviev Group, and contributed to placements in outlets such as Bloomberg and The New York Times. She is passionate about building a long-term career in commercial real estate and continuing to grow within investment sales and development.

Aron Czirjak

I was born and raised in Budapest, Hungary, where I was exposed to real estate from a young age through my family. My dad works in the construction industry related to concrete production, so growing up I often had the chance to visit construction sites and see projects being built from the ground up. Watching how something physical and lasting could come together made a big impression on me early on. That was when I realized I wanted to work with tangible assets too, not only from the financing side, but also by understanding how they are actually created. Another major part of my life has been hockey, which I have played for almost 20 years. Hockey became especially important when I moved from Budapest to New York City for college. Coming to NYC was a huge adjustment. Manhattan has roughly the same population as Budapest, but the cities feel completely different. Budapest is much more horizontal and spread out, while Manhattan is dense, vertical, and constantly moving. At first it was difficult adapting to that pace, but hockey gave me a sense of familiarity and helped me build friendships that made the transition much easier. During my time at NYU, I have met many interesting and inspiring people, both at Schack and across other schools, which has broadened my perspective in many ways. I am currently a graduating senior, which feels both exciting and uncertain at the same time. While I am still figuring out exactly where my path will lead, I would love to stay in the United States and eventually work in real estate capital markets, where finance and development come together.

Projects

I am currently working on a small hillside multifamily development project in Budapest, which will be my first real estate development from start to finish. The project consists of five condominium units and has given me the opportunity to be involved in both the development and financing sides of the process. I have been working hands-on with planning timelines, coordinating different stages of the project, and helping structure the financial aspects as the development moves forward. Being part of this project has been especially meaningful because it allows me to apply what I have learned academically to a real, tangible development in my home city.

Peter Ferrandino Jr.

Peter Ferrandino Jr. brings a dynamic blend of academic rigor, industry experience, and entrepreneurial drive to his role as an Associate at Nord Development Group. He is currently a senior at Schack Institute of Real Estate. Peter’s foundation in real estate was established early through his involvement with his family’s business, Ferrandino & Son, where he has been immersed in construction operations, project execution, and day-to-day business management from a young age. This hands-on exposure provided him with a deep, practical understanding of the development process and instilled a lasting passion for the built environment. He continues to actively contribute to Ferrandino & Son, further strengthening his operational and field-based expertise. Complementing this foundation, Peter gained technical experience through his internship at Bohler Engineering, where he worked closely with civil engineering and construction teams, developing a strong understanding of site planning, infrastructure, and project coordination. At Nord Development Group, Peter plays an active role in acquisitions and deal flow, supporting underwriting, market analysis, and sourcing opportunities. His ability to bridge academic theory with real-world execution allows him to contribute meaningfully across the development lifecycle, from initial site evaluation through project completion. Beyond his professional experience, Peter serves as President of the Schack Real Estate Club (SREC), a leading student-run organization within NYU. In this role, he oversees high-impact programming including speaker series, development tours, technical workshops, and the annual Schack Student Summit, which brings together hundreds of students, alumni, and industry leaders. Through SREC, Peter has built a strong network across the real estate industry and is deeply committed to fostering professional growth and connectivity among his peers. Peter is driven by a genuine passion for real estate development, with a particular appreciation for the full lifecycle of a project from identifying opportunities and acquiring land to delivering a finished product that shapes communities. He is committed to building upon the legacy of Ferrandino & Son and Nord development group.while forging his own path in the industry. With a unique combination of hands-on experience, academic excellence, and leadership, Peter is well-positioned to be a future leader in real estate development.

Market Overview: Growth with Constraints

South Africa’s real estate market operates within a challenging macroeconomic environment. Economic growth has been relatively slow over the past decade and remains modest, around 1.1% in 2025, with projections of 1.5% in the coming years. At the same time, the cost of capital remains high by global standards, with long-term bond yields around ~8.5% after peaking closer to 10-11% in recent years.

These conditions shape the property market. Together, higher interest rates and slower growth constrain development activity and push underwriting standards towards greater conservatism. And yet, this is where the market becomes interesting.

Despite these constraints, South Africa offers something that many emerging markets do not: a high degree of institutionalization, transparency, and access to capital. Real estate can still be deployed at scale, supported by a mature REIT sector and established financial systems. As a result, performance depends less on broad market growth and more on selectivity – identifying the right sectors, locations, and opportunities.

From Continent to City

Within the African context, South Africa plays a distinct role. It has deeper capital markets, meaning investors can access, price and exit real estate through a broader set of institutional instruments than anywhere else on the continent. The Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) is Africa’s largest stock exchange by market capitalization, accounting for roughly 60% of the continent’s total equity market value. Within it, a mature listed REIT sector gives both local and international investors direct, liquid exposure to income-producing real estate.

Johannesburg remains the economic and financial center. However, particularly after COVID, Cape Town has seen strong demand growth, driven by internal migration, lifestyle appeal, tourism-fueled short-term rentals, and an influx of international remote workers. Together, these forces have translated into constrained supply and above-average price appreciation.

This also reflects the idea of urban clusters, where demand and investment concentrate in specific areas. In Cape Town, nodes like the City Bowl –the central business district and surrounding neighborhoods– and Atlantic Seaboard –the coastal strip– consistently outperform.

Housing: The Legacy of Apartheid

The lasting impact of apartheid clearly defines Cape Town’s urban structure. Across the city, the pattern is clear: economic activity and wealth concentrate near the center and coastline, while lower-income communities are pushed further out. This becomes evident moving from the V&A Waterfront and Camps Bay through neighborhoods like Bo-Kaap and outward toward the periphery.

Today, that inherited spatial structure continues to shape both land values and housing access across the city. The market operates through two distinct systems, a formal one and an informal one, each serving different segments of the population.

At a national level, South Africa has over 7 million residential properties, valued at approximately 7 trillion rand (~$360 billion), with most of the stock concentrated in the lower and middle income segments. Still, not all housing demand is met within the formal market. Cape Town makes this dynamic more visible. Limited supply has contributed to higher prices and strong performance. Residential price growth has reached around 7-9% annually, with rental vacancy as low as 1-3%, compared to ~6% nationally.

However, a meaningful share of housing demand continues to be absorbed outside the formal system entirely, demonstrating both the scale of unmet need and the limits of policy intervention to date.

The Missing Middle: Affordable Housing

Cape Town operates through two parallel systems: a formal one –structured, regulated, and supported by the state– and an informal one, which is largely unregulated but plays a critical role in meeting demand.

On the formal side, South Africa has made significant progress since the end of apartheid, delivering millions of subsidized homes. More recently, policies have aimed to shift toward mixed-income and better-located developments. However, supply continues to fall far short of demand. In Cape Town, the housing waiting list exceeds 450,000 people, while delivery remains limited each year. As a result, the formal system is too slow to meet the scale of need.

In Cape Town, a significant share of the population lives in informal settlements or in backyard rental units, spaces that operate outside formal planning and financing systems, but function as real housing markets. Units are built incrementally, rented, and traded, often without permits or access to traditional capital. In many cases, these informal mechanisms are far more responsive than the formal system, delivering housing at a speed and price point the formal market cannot match.

The result is a city with two housing systems operating side by side. While only one is officially recognized, both are essential to how the city functions.

Industrial: The Sector That Stood Out

Across meetings and data presented during the program, a consistent theme emerged: industrial has been the strongest-performing sector in recent years, delivering the highest returns relative to other asset classes.

The drivers are both global and local. Growth in logistics, e-commerce, and distribution has increased demand for industrial space, as companies require more warehousing, fulfillment centers, and last-mile delivery hubs to support faster and more efficient supply chains. At the same time, supply remains relatively limited. In Cape Town, this is reinforced by port activity and the city’s role as a key trade hub.

More broadly, the South African industrial market has been supported by low vacancy rates and strong rental growth, with rents increasing over 8% YoY in some segments. Compared to other sectors, industrial is also less exposed to many of the constraints discussed earlier. It is not as directly tied to affordability pressures, and development tends to be more scalable and responsive to demand.

Final Reflection

Spending a week in Cape Town as part of NYU Schack’s Global Field Intensive was an incredible opportunity to experience the market firsthand. Moving between highly institutionalized areas, developments, and different communities allowed us to better understand the city’s urban and economic dynamics, offering a perspective that goes far beyond data or classroom discussion.

Beyond the analysis, being in the city itself made the experience even more meaningful. From its beaches and mountain hikes to its diverse neighborhoods and cultural richness, Cape Town offered a context that deepened every conversation we had about the market. A huge thank you to Mathew Kwatinetz and Jennifer Monahan for their guidance and for making this experience possible. Thanks as well to all the industry professionals who shared their time and insights, and to our classmates for making the experience even more enriching.

Learn more about the authors: Jimena Garfinkel & Camila Avila

Sources

Insights based on meetings and site visits conducted as part of NYU Schack’s Global Field Intensive course (Urban and Economic Development), combined with the following:

• Dr. Saul Nurick, The SA Economic Environment and the Western Cape Property Market, University of Cape Town

• FNB, Property Barometer, November 2025

Target Audience and Why?

Active adult properties are age-restricted communities designed for occupants 55+, 60+, or 62+. A majority of renters fall within the baby boomer generation, which is not only the largest but the fastest-growing renter cohort of all ages. As the baby boomer generation continues to age, demand for housing tailored to their lifestyle preferences is expected to increase. Not only this, but the baby boomers are the wealthiest generation, making them well-positioned to afford rents at a higher premium than traditional multifamily.

There are several reasons why one would be interested in moving to an active adult community. This could be appealing to someone who is looking to downsize, or stay closer to their adult children or grandchildren. Active adult communities are also enticing to those looking to step away from the burdens of home ownership, giving them the freedom to lock their doors and travel. These 55+ communities tend to attract singles, females, and widowed individuals who are seeking social interaction. They are also incredibly appealing to married couples who are want to stay engaged through shared spaces and community events.

Where?

The NIC MAP Vision collects data on over 700 active adult properties in the United States. These properties are seen all across the United States, particularly in cities with strong market growth and a high concentration of individuals aged 55+. States with the most active adult properties include Texas, Florida, California, and the Pacific Northwest. The Midwest active adult community market is expected to witness substantial growth over the next few years as well. This is partially due to the aging population in the Midwest and Northeast, which account for 2 in 5 senior residents across the nation (Berkadia, 2023). As active adult properties continue to appear across the country, the amount of readily available data on the sector will grow.

Key Features in Active Adult Rental Units

Many people in active adult communities have downsized from larger homes, so it is crucial that these units have ample space to accommodate residents’ belongings. This means that the units in active adult communities are typically larger than those in a conventional multifamily building. Studio apartments are rarely seen in these communities, as layouts tend to favor larger one and two-bedroom units. These units should have enough space for a dining table, a large closet, and in-unit laundry.

Location is another crucial consideration for active adult communities. Active adult properties are typically located in areas with convenient access to retail, entertainment, and medical services, as well as nearby parks or walking trails. These sites should be in locations that can accommodate amenities but also supports an adult’s active and healthy lifestyle.

Amenities

The strength of an active adult community lies in the amenities and social programming it offers residents. Amenities can range from a pool and spa, arts and crafts room, woodworking shop, and pickleball courts. Most active adult communities feature a signature clubhouse, a space where residents can come together to socialize or eat. Strong active adult communities will host dozens of weekly activities, whether this is a workout class, mixology class, game night, or even a group seminar. Many communities also offer transportation to local parks, groceries, or healthcare facilities. The quality of the amenities and social programming events is directly correlated with the retention rates among residents.

Unlike senior or assisted living facilities, active adult communities do not offer on-site medical care or meal services. Rather than having meal services, they offer a variety of engaging activities designed to engage residents mind. These communities are completely separate from senior housing, as their main focus is helping residents adopt a healthy and low-maintenance lifestyle (Elder Care Alliance, 2023).

Premium

The average rents for active adult housing are typically higher than those for conventional multifamily, due to the level of services and amenities the site offers. These communities also have increased operating expenses and require additional on-site staff needed to manage them. Still, the rents for AAR communities lie lower than traditional independent or assisted living. According to data from Elmridge Property Group, the premium for active adult rental properties in Q4 of 2025 is 20.7% over conventional multifamily. The map below highlights the 525 properties that ElmRidge Property Group tracks in its company database, which is updated each quarter (ElmRidge Property Group, 2025).

Available data on the active adult market indicate that capitalization rates are typically comparable to single and multifamily rental rather than senior housing. The capitalization rates for this sector are similar to Class A multifamily, typically about 25 basis points higher, with an average of 4.8% in Q2 of 2024. (NIC) According to a survey by BBG Real Estate Services, the average active adult cap rates in 2026 lay around 5.32% for Class A properties to 6.71% for Class C properties. The cap rate also spread ranged around 71 basis points between Class A and B properties (Senior Housing News, 2026).

Major Players In Active Adult

There is an increasing number of firms that have recognized the demand for a middle ground between traditional multifamily and senior living. Among the major players in active adult is Greystar, which has now become the nation’s largest developer and manager of active adult homes. Greystar has a large number of brands within its active adult portfolio, like Overture and Everleigh, which cater to wealthier baby boomers (Greystar). Overture 55+ and Everleigh have communities in Nevada, Texas, Arizona, and more. One Clover is another operator in the active adult space, with their focus on the middle market. They currently have 57 communities under their belt, with rental fees priced lower than traditional independent living (One Clover, 2024).

Why Invest In The Active Adult Sector?

This could be a huge growth opportunity for investors in the multifamily market. First off, renters aged 55 to 64 are the largest cohort, accounting for nearly 14% of all renters. Also, renters aged 65 to 72 are the fastest-growing cohort of renters in the United States. Based on NIC data, active adult properties have some of the highest occupancy rates in the multifamily sector, roughly 93% (NIC, 2024). In addition, the collection rate remains high across the sector. During the COVID shutdown period, for example, active adult had a collection rate of nearly 100%. This is because a majority of residents are not employed, meaning they are less at risk during a time of recession. Not only this, but these properties charge a 15-20% premium compared to conventional multifamily. Typical turnover rates are near 25%, which is much lower than conventional multifamily rates, which are around 50%. As institutional capital becomes more familiar with the active adult space, demand for such communities will only grow (NIC, 2024).

Over than 60.7 million Americans are over the age of 65 (Berkadia, 2023). Active adult rental properties create communities of neighbors at a similar stage of life, united by their desire to be in a social space. These communities are far more than just apartment complexes; they are intentional spaces designed to restore youth and the sense of belonging within a community.

Sources

Figure 1. National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care (2024, December). Active Adult Rental Properties [Graph]. NIC.

Figure 2. Elmridge Property Group (2026, January). 2025 Q4 US AAR Database [Heat Map]. ElmRidge Property Group.

Berkadia Editors. (2023). Seniors Housing U.S. Active Adult Report 2023. Retrieved from https://www.berkadia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-active-adult-report.pdf

CBRE Editors. (2025). US senior housing and care investor survey H1 2025 | CBRE. Retrieved from https://www.cbre.com/insights/reports/us-senior-housing-and-care-investor-survey-h1-2025

Christman, A. (2026). Most Senior Living Investors Expect Flat or Lower Cap Rates in 2026. Retrieved from https://seniorhousingnews.com/2026/03/31/most-senior-living-investors-expect-flat-or-lower-cap-rates-in-2026

Clapp, C. (2024). Active adult occupancy rate near 93%. Retrieved from https://www.nic.org/blog/active-adult-occupancy-rate-near-93/

Elder Care Alliance Editors. (2023). Active adult Communities vs. Independent Living for Seniors. Retrieved from https://eldercarealliance.org/blog/whats-difference-active-adult-vs-independent-living/

Greystar Editors. (n.d.). Active Adult - Senior Housing Redefined. Retrieved from https://www.greystar.com/business/product-specialties/active-adult

Joseph, A. (2024). One clover continues to lead in active adult development. Retrieved from https://oneclover.com/one-clover-continues-to-lead-in-active-adult-developme

National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care. (2024). Active adult white paper: Update on the emerging property type. Retrieved from https://www.nic.org/resources/active-adult/

The Uganda Railway line bisecting Kibera, with M-Pesa kiosks and corrugated iron structures on either side. Nairobi’s skyline is visible in the distance. January 2026.

The railroad tracks that bisect Kibera were laid by the British colonial administration in the early twentieth century as part of the Uganda Railway line. They run straight and purposeful through a landscape that formal planning has spent decades pretending does not exist. On either side, corrugated iron rooftops stretch toward Nairobi’s skyline, 6.6 kilometers from where you’re standing.^[1] M-Pesa kiosks line the path every thirty feet. Children walk alongside you without breaking stride.

I walked those tracks in January 2026 as part of NYU Schack’s Kenya Global Field Intensive. When I came to Kenya, I just completed my first-year MSRED, which had trained me to think in pro formas, cap rates, and zoning envelopes. I assumed that the tools I was learning, financial modeling, deal structuring, land use analysis, were universal. Kibera suggested otherwise.

Walking the rail corridor through Kibera, January 2026.

Corrugated iron rooftops stretching across the settlement.

Kibera is the largest slum in Nairobi and among the largest urban informal settlements in Africa. Population estimates vary widely: the 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census recorded 170,070 residents, while UN-Habitat has estimated between 350,000 and one million, and urban slum expert Mike Davis put the figure at roughly 800,000.^[2] Whatever the true number, the settlement covers approximately 2.5 square kilometers and sits on land that is technically owned by the Kenyan national government, land it originally allocated informally to Nubian soldiers returning from King’s African Rifles service after World War I, beginning in 1912.^[3]

That colonial legacy created a legal trap that persists today. Kibera sits on public land that was never formally titled or transferred, leaving the vast majority of its residents with no legal tenure. In 1963, the new Kenyan government declared the settlement illegal, yet Kibera grew anyway, from roughly 6,000 people in 1965 to the hundreds of thousands living there today, drawn by proximity to Nairobi’s job market.^[4] Residents pay rent to absentee landlords through local agents, with no lease, no title, and no eviction protection. Landlords themselves often hold no formal title, having acquired de facto control through long occupation or political connection. Rent is collected outside the legal system entirely, on land the government has never formally allocated but also never formally reclaimed.^[5]

The consequences are not abstract. They fall on specific people in specific and compounding ways. The average Kibera household earns around $1-2 per day.^[6] Without formal tenure, that household cannot use its home as collateral for credit. Without credit, it cannot invest in improving its structure. Without improved structures, densities exceed what basic sanitation infrastructure can support. Toilet ratios run as poor as one pit latrine per 50 to 150 residents, and water is purchased at kiosks at rates higher than what wealthier Nairobi residents pay through formal connections.^[7] Electricity is obtained through unofficial connections. Garbage collection does not reach inside the settlement.^[8] This is not a portrait of people who have given up. It is a portrait of what happens when a legal system withholds the most basic preconditions for investment from the people who need it most.

The entrance to a community primary school in Kibera, January 2026.

Our tour was organized by SHOFCO, the Shining Hope for Communities organization, a major community-based group operating in Kibera that provides education, health programming, sanitation, and community organizing services in areas where government capacity is absent or has failed.^[9] What struck me was not the density or the conditions, which I had read about. It was a stop on the SHOFCO tour that I did not expect: a public library, built and maintained by the community, inside a settlement that holds no legal recognition. Shelves of books. Red upholstered chairs. Trophies on display. Orderly, cared for, and open to anyone.

The SHOFCO community public library inside Kibera, January 2026.

I had entered Kibera thinking about the absence of things: no title, no services, no formal planning. The library forced me to reckon with what was present: deliberate, sustained community investment on land that could be taken away at any time. That dissonance is the thing I keep returning to. These residents were not waiting for the legal system to recognize them before deciding to build something worth caring for.

Kenya has tried to address the underlying problem. The Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme (KENSUP) launched in 2004 with UN-Habitat partnership, and the Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP) followed in 2011 with World Bank backing. Both aimed at tenure security and improved infrastructure. Both have moved extremely slowly. The KENSUP pilot in Kibera’s Soweto East village relocated residents during construction of permanent housing units, but many could not afford the rents on the new buildings and drifted back into informal arrangements.^[10] The program solved for structure without solving for affordability or community continuity, a failure mode that should be familiar to anyone who has studied urban renewal in the United States.

Before Kibera, I thought about affordable housing primarily as a financing problem: how do you structure a deal so that below-market units pencil out? Walking through Kibera, and through the SHOFCO library in particular, reframed it as a rights problem first. The question is not just how to build affordable units, but who has the legal standing to stay in them, to improve them, to pass them on. Finance follows from that foundation. Without it, even well-funded interventions tend to produce displacement rather than stability.

As a future developer, the practical implication is uncomfortable. The tools we learn at Schack, LIHTC, Section 8, community land trusts, all assume a baseline of enforceable property rights and legal tenancy that does not exist in Kibera. You cannot apply them wholesale. Roughly 60 percent of Nairobi’s population lives in informal settlements that occupy less than 5 percent of the city’s residential land.^[11] That is not a marginal housing problem. It is the main one. The path forward, incremental upgrading, tenure formalization, community-led development, requires developers and policymakers to start by recognizing residents as rights-holders, not as problems to be relocated.

Nairobi’s skyline was visible from the tracks the entire time I walked them. That proximity, a world-class city center 6.6 kilometers from one of the largest informal settlements on the continent, is not an anomaly. It is the result of land policy decisions made over more than a century, many of them deliberate. The settlement grew in the shadow of those rails because people needed to live somewhere close to work, and the planning system drew its maps around both without ever connecting them. The rails were built by the colonial government. The library was built by the people who had no other choice but to stay.

There is no simple fix for Kibera, or for the hundreds of informal settlements like it across Nairobi, Lagos, Mumbai, and beyond. Tenure formalization, incremental infrastructure investment, and community-led development are starting points, not solutions. What Kibera made clear to me is that the real estate profession has a role to play beyond building, in advocating for the legal frameworks that make building matter. Developers who ignore that foundation are not just missing context. They are building on sand.

Learn more about the author: David DeFronzo

Works Cited

[1] “Kibera.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 26 December 2024, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibera. (”Kibera is in southwest Nairobi, 6.6 kilometres (4.1 mi) from the city centre.”)

[2] “Kibera.” Wikipedia. (”The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census reported Kibera’s population as 170,070 . . . UN-Habitat had released several estimations ranging between 350,000 and 1 million people. According to Mike Davis . . . Kibera had a population of about 800,000 people.”)

[3] Mutisya, Emmanuel, and Masaru Yarime. “Understanding the Grassroots Dynamics of Slums in Nairobi: The Dilemma of Kibera Informal Settlements.” International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, vol. 2, no. 2, 2011, pp. 197–213. (”In 1912, Kibera was a settlement in a forest outside Nairobi; as a result of World War I, it became a resettlement area for Nubian soldiers returning from service.”)

[4] Mutisya and Yarime, p. 202. (”In 1963, the first government of the Republic of Kenya declared Kibera settlements illegal. However, Kibera slums continued to grow from as low as 6,000 people in 1965 to around one million today.”)

[5] Smedt, Johan van de. The Nubis of Kibera: A Social History of the Nubians and Kibera Slums. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, 2011, pp. 229–230. (Describing the informal landlord-tenant system and absence of legal title.)

[6] “Kibera.” Wikipedia. (”a survey conducted by the French Institute for Research in Africa found that the average Kibera slum resident lives in extreme poverty, earning less than US$2 per day.”) Corroborated by author’s firsthand observations during SHOFCO community tour, Kibera, Nairobi, January 2026.

[7] Smedt, pp. 108–109. (”The toilet ratio seems to be one pit latrine (usually in very poor state) per 50–150 people . . . one often has to pay to use a toilet.”)

[8] Author’s firsthand observations during SHOFCO community tour, Kibera, Nairobi, January 2026. Informal utility systems — shared electrical connections, pay-per-use water kiosks, communal sanitation — observed directly during site visit.

[9] SHOFCO (Shining Hope for Communities). Kibera community tour, January 2026. Organization overview provided by SHOFCO guides during NYU Schack Global Field Intensive site visit.

[10] Mutisya and Yarime, p. 202; “Kibera.” Wikipedia. (KENSUP launched 2004; KISIP 2011 with World Bank. Soweto East pilot relocated residents; many could not afford new unit rents.)

[11] Smedt, p. 106. (”In Nairobi, possibly around 1.5 million people, 60% of the city’s population, live in slum areas comprising less than 5% of the total municipal residential land.”)

Rents on New York’s upper Fifth Avenue peaked at $3,500 per square foot in 2015, cratered during the pandemic years, and have since staged a sharp recovery, reaching $2,569 per square foot as of Q4 2025, a 17% increase in asking rents in the first half of that year alone (CBRE, Q4 2025; REBNY, H1 2025).

The luxury conglomerate, Kering (Gucci, YSL, Bottega Veneta), acquired 115,000 square feet for $963 million in early 2024. Kering framed it as “a selective real estate strategy aimed at securing key highly desirable locations for its Houses.” Prada followed by purchasing the building it had leased since 1997 for approximately $835 million.

The drivers of this change extend beyond rent hedging. Ownership allows brands to capitalize renovation expenditures, design spaces without landlord constraints, and add trophy assets to their balance sheets in a way that leasing simply cannot replicate.

Kering’s most recent move, selling a 60% stake to Ardian at a $900 million valuation while retaining 40%, suggests these acquisitions are evolving into hybrid investment vehicles rather than pure occupier decisions (The Real Deal, December 2025). The brand gets permanent control of a generational address. The equity partner gets exposure to one of the most supply-constrained retail corridors on earth. It is a structure that looks less like a store purchase and more like a joint venture between a fashion house and private equity. By recycling capital through a partial sale, Kering offloads risk while retaining operational control and long-term upside, a signal that flagship ownership is becoming a deliberate capital strategy, not merely a branding or occupancy decision

As luxury conglomerates consolidate control over the world’s most iconic retail corridors, a question emerges for the broader market: if the highest credit tenants are becoming their own landlords, what does that mean for the institutional investors who have long relied on them to anchor their portfolios? If this trend continues, it could meaningfully shrink the pool of trophy tenants available to landlords and force institutional investors to rethink what qualifies as core retail in a market where the most creditworthy occupiers no longer need a lease.

Learn more about the author: Kyle Guso

Citations

1. Cushman & Wakefield, Main Streets Across the World, 2024

2. Kering, Press Release: “Acquisition of Prestigious Fifth Avenue Property in New York City,” January 2024

3. Bloomberg, “Prada Agrees to Buy Its Fifth Avenue Store Building for $835 Million,” December 2023

4. Bloomberg, “LVMH Explores Purchase of Building on Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue,” January 2024

5. Bloomberg, “Chanel Eyes NYC Fifth Avenue Tower That LVMH Is Also Targeting,” April 2024

6. CBRE, “Some Luxury Retailers Opting to Buy Rather Than Lease Iconic Buildings,” 2024

7. Modern Retail, “Luxury Brands Become Landlords to Take Control in Coveted Retail Destinations,” June 2024

8. The Real Deal, “Kering Sells Majority Stake at 717 Fifth Ave for $690M,” December 2025

9. CBRE, Manhattan Retail Report, Q4 2025

10. REBNY, H1 2025 Manhattan Retail Report

To compare the Brazilian multifamily system to its American counterpart, beyond a fundamental and culturally important difference in housing philosophy, one must look at the foundations upon which each system works and the processes by which it functions. In the United States, the multifamily sector has matured into a sophisticated institutional asset class. Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), private equity sponsors, and pension funds own and operate millions of apartments at scale, supported by deep capital markets, standardized underwriting, and decades of legal precedent governing landlord-tenant relationships. According to the National Multifamily Housing Council, approximately 44 million households in the United States rent their homes, representing roughly 35% of all occupied housing units.

Brazil presents a strikingly different picture. Homeownership has long been the social and political aspiration embedded in Brazilian housing policy. As Acolin, Hoek-Smit, and Eloy (2019) note in Habitat International, Brazil’s housing programs have historically been oriented toward ownership rather than rental. This is a legacy of the National Housing Bank (BNH) model established in 1964, which used subsidized mortgage credit to encourage individual property acquisition and is modeled loosely on the United States savings-and-loan system. This ownership bias has persisted through successive federal programs, including the landmark Minha Casa, Minha Vida (MCMV) initiative launched in 2009 under President Lula.

The result is a paradox: a country with a structural housing deficit estimated at more than eight million units nationwide, and approximately 369,000 to 400,000 units in São Paulo alone. Despite this deficit, the country has an institutional rental market that remains nascent. As documented by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and CAF’s 2024 LAC Housing Yearbook, residential mortgage credit in Brazil has historically represented just 2% of GDP, compared to over 70% in the United States and the United Kingdom. The sheer depth of United States capital markets, the very infrastructure that enables leveraged multifamily acquisitions and value-add business plans, simply does not exist in the same form in Brazil.

Where this structural divergence becomes most visible is in the emergence of companies like Loft, one of Brazil’s leading proptech platforms. Loft operates at the intersection of brokerage, iBuying, and data infrastructure, attempting to bring liquidity, transparency, and price discovery to a highly fragmented residential market. In conversations with their team, it became clear that Loft is not merely a transaction platform, it is effectively building the informational backbone that United States investors take for granted through MLS systems, CoStar, and institutional research providers. For example, Loft claimed that the listing-to-close time for residential properties was many times greater than here in the United States because sellers lacked the MLS “comparables” that allow them to assess current market value before listing their properties, leading to delayed price-resets or, for over-priced properties, a listing-to-close period of 12-15 months. Academic literature emphasizes this point. According to de Magalhães (2021) in Urban Studies, Brazil’s housing market suffers from significant informational asymmetries, informal transactions, and inconsistent pricing benchmarks, all of which increase transaction costs and limit institutional participation. Loft’s model, which is standardizing data, underwriting units at scale, providing market transparency, and enabling faster transactions, directly addresses these inefficiencies. In many ways, it represents an early-stage attempt to “institutionalize” a market that historically has been dominated by small-scale, individual ownership and handicapped by structural inefficiencies, chief among them a historic lack of reliable, real-time market data.

Yet even with such innovation, the leap from fragmented ownership to institutional multifamily is far from straightforward. In the United States, multifamily is fundamentally an income-producing asset class. Investors underwrite stabilized net operating income (NOI), apply market cap rates, and execute value-add strategies predicated upon rent growth and operational efficiencies. In Brazil, by contrast, housing has traditionally been treated less as a yield-generating asset and more as a store of value and a pathway to social mobility. This distinction was reinforced during our visit to the Downtown Rio Alliance and Cury’s development activities in the Porto Maravilha district. The Rio port redevelopment is one of the most ambitious urban revitalization efforts in Latin America, transforming a historically underutilized waterfront into a mixed-use, transit-oriented district. Cury’s projects within this area are heavily geared toward for-sale housing, often aligned with federal subsidy programs that target middle- and lower-income buyers.

From a United States perspective, the scale and location of Porto Maravilha would most certainly attract institutional multifamily capital, with developers pursuing stabilized rental communities designed for long-term cash flow. In Rio, however, the economic model is fundamentally different. As Smolka and Biderman (2012) note in their analysis for the Lincoln Institute, land value capture mechanisms and public-private partnerships in Brazil tend to prioritize homeownership over rental stabilization, reflecting broader policy goals related to wealth creation and social inclusion. Walking the port with the Downtown Rio Alliance made this divergence tangible. The conversation was less about yield on cost or exit cap rates, and more about placemaking, urban identity, and accessibility. Residential development was framed not as an asset class to be traded, but as a tool to reshape the social and economic fabric of the city.

This is not to say that Brazil lacks institutional capital. Firms like Kinea and GTIS are actively deploying capital into Brazilian real estate, and luxury developers like JHSF are building world-class mixed-use environments that rival top-tier United States projects. However, even at the high end, rental housing remains a secondary consideration relative to for-sale product. The implications for global investors are significant. As Fields and Uffer (2016) argue in Urban Studies, the financialization of housing, so central to United States and European markets, requires not only capital, but also legal, informational, and cultural infrastructure. Brazil is in the early stages of building that infrastructure, but it has not yet reached the point where multifamily can function as a fully institutionalized asset class. And yet, as anyone capable of seeing over the business horizon knows (often from hindsight), that growing gap may represent opportunity.

But first, to move forward towards a more efficient model, real change must happen. In fact, firms like Loft are offering multiple innovative services to facilitate that change. To increase productivity and market fluidity, they are embracing AI to aggregate data and streamline underwriting processes. In a manner reminiscent of Zillow’s ‘Zestimate’ model in the United States, Loft is leveraging AI to help establish property values in a market that has historically lacked reliable pricing benchmarks, part of a broader effort to develop an MLS-type information source that connects buyers and sellers more quickly and delivers the kind of real-time price transparency that American buyers and sellers take for granted. To address the concerns of the Brazilian landlord demographic, which is mostly made up of individual owners who act as landlord on their second home or investment property, their evolving business model now includes offering a rental guaranty service for residential tenants (and on purchase transactions with financing, they are also offering a mortgage payment guaranty service-similar to our PMI or private mortgage insurance).To further increase market fluidity and transactional efficiency, Loft is equipping Brazil’s characteristically independent brokerages and residential lenders with innovative CRM tools, creating a more connected ecosystem among brokers, lenders, and ultimately the buyers and sellers they serve.

The combination of a large housing deficit, rapid urbanization, and increasing technological adoption suggests that Brazil’s rental market could evolve meaningfully over the next decade. Companies like Loft are laying the groundwork for transparency and scalability, while urban initiatives like Porto Maravilha are creating the physical environments that could eventually support institutional rental communities. For the United States investors and students of real estate, the lesson is not that one system is superior to the other, but that housing markets are deeply shaped by policy, culture, and capital structures. The United States offers a model of efficiency, scale, and financial sophistication. Brazil offers a model grounded in ownership, social mobility, and urban transformation. Perhaps the more honest question is not whether Brazil should completely converge toward the United States model, but whether it can learn from both its efficiencies and its failures, building a system that delivers transparency and capital depth without sacrificing the ownership culture and social mobility that have long defined Brazilian housing.

Returning to our earlier questions, what can Brazil learn from our real estate systems and practices and what Brazilian real property systems need to be addressed before meaningful change can happen? While the United States real estate system is by no means perfect, and there is plenty of room for improvement through PropTech, AI, and a new generation of leaders capable of driving that change across the real estate spectrum, there are several aspects of our system that, in this context, appear worthy of consideration by Brazilian stakeholders. Starting with perhaps the most immediate obstacle, the cost of capital, Brazilian financing rates have recently spiked to approximately twice those in the United States, often in the 12–14% range. Most critically, Brazil lacks the information backbone we have here in the United States (e.g., MLS, CoStar, Trepp, Zillow etc.) and a few other critical, but rarely fleshed out foundational pillars that quietly, like a pyramid of information, integrity, trust and assurance, support the real estate sector in the United States: (i) the public records infrastructure and trust in the integrity of same; (ii) the ability to quickly record deeds and mortgages and other liens and to conduct nearly real-time property ownership and lien searches to completely evaluate a parcel of real property; (iii) the risk mitigation features offered by title insurance companies (relying on the integrity of the public records system) and an entire “re-insurance” industry that supports our direct insurance providers to help them hedge against catastrophic risk like hurricanes, floods or global financial crises; (iv) the willingness of institutional lenders to lend up to 80% LTV on such properties (relying upon the guaranties and indemnifications supplied by such title insurance companies); and finally, (v) the willingness of investors and investment vehicles to exponentially increase market fluidity (e,g., GSE’s or government sponsored entities like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, CMBS, MBS, etc.).

These United States real property characteristics are the very foundation of our real estate sector, hard won over decades, and not without cost. For Brazilian stakeholders and visionaries, the question goes beyond which features of the United States real estate and capital markets structure could or should be incorporated into their system. Equally important is which of those features are culturally feasible, and which are inconsistent with the values, ownership philosophy, and social fabric that make Brazil’s relationship with housing so distinct. A system that delivers transparency and capital depth while honoring those values may be harder to build, but for a nation that turned a port into Porto Maravilha and a social program into Minha Casa, Minha Vida, the ambition to do so feels entirely within reach.

Learn more about the authors: Professor Christopher J. Gulotta, Esq., CIPP & Gautam Khosla

Sources:

Acolin, Arthur, Marja Hoek-Smit, and Claudia M. B. Eloy. “Housing Policies in Brazil: Challenges and Opportunities.” Habitat International, vol. 85, 2019, pp. 71–81.

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (CAF). Housing Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean 2024. CAF Development Bank of Latin America, 2024.

de Magalhães, Eduardo. “Informality and Inequality in the Brazilian Housing Market.” Urban Studies, vol. 58, no. 12, 2021, pp. 2473–2490.

Fields, Desiree, and Sabina Uffer. “The Financialisation of Rental Housing: A Comparative Analysis of New York City and Berlin.” Urban Studies, vol. 53, no. 7, 2016, pp. 1486–1502.

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Housing Finance in Latin America: The Role of Public Policy and Markets. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2024.

National Multifamily Housing Council. “United States Apartment Market Size and Growth.” NMHC, 2024, www.nmhc.org.

Smolka, Martim O., and Ciro Biderman. “Housing Informality: An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Land Regularization.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2012.

World Bank. Housing Finance in Brazil: Issues and Challenges. World Bank Group, 2020.

The room reflected the topic. Many students come from family owned real estate companies. Others are preparing to enter one. The questions being asked were not just technical. They were personal. How do you earn credibility in your own family’s firm? When does legacy feel like pressure and when does it feel like purpose. How should the next generation think about technology, risk, and long term growth?

The evening opened with remarks from Sokaina Zouak, co-founder of the Real Estate Family Network, who thanked NYU, the organizing team, and the speakers before introducing moderator and fellow co-founder, Jess Signore. A fourth generation member of a Bronx based real estate family, Signore is currently pursuing her master’s degree in real estate finance and investments while working in her family’s mixed use and industrial portfolio. She transparently shared the following advice despite her father sitting in the audience, “I plant seeds. I’m making suggestions, but I’m plotting them until it becomes his idea. So now it’s great because he thought of it. He didn’t really think of it. I’ve been stringing them along this whole time. It’s not about getting credit — it’s about getting it done.”

Kate Goodman, co-president of ATCO, a 104 year old fully integrated real estate firm based in New York, began by describing a path totally different than the family business. Despite growing up surrounded by real estate, she initially pursued media. At Brown University she worked in campus radio, produced television content, interned at 60 Minutes, and later joined CBS after graduation. Real estate was not the plan.

Kate’s pivot came during a moment of uncertainty. After leaving a public relations role, she joined her family’s office temporarily while deciding what to do next. Instead of waiting for direction, she began asking colleagues how she could contribute. Within weeks, she was assigned a project that became her introduction to the business. Her father challenged her to convert a former dental office into a restaurant.

The assignment was broad. She helped identify the architect and chef, oversaw construction, and eventually operated the restaurant while learning accounting, construction management, and property operations inside the company. The restaurant received three stars from The New York Times, but it struggled financially. This is when Kate realized it was time to get out of the restaurant business and focus her efforts on real estate itself.

The experience, she explained, was less about hospitality and more about credibility. As the owner’s daughter and often the only woman in leadership settings at the time, she felt she needed to demonstrate commitment daily. Kate explained that respect is not automatically granted, stating, “I earned respect because I gave respect, and I just kept working. I worked in every single different part of the real estate business, from field inspections to financial reporting. Nothing scared me. I felt like I had to prove to everybody that I could do anything.”

Her son, Ben Goodman, now represents the next generation. A graduate student at NYU Schack and a development and investments intern at NOYACK Capital. He described growing up aware of the family business but only gradually understanding its scale. During winter breaks, he and his cousins were asked to study specific buildings in the portfolio and present their findings. Conversations with his grandfather evolved over time, moving from simple curiosity to discussions about net operating income, capital structure, and strategy.

As the eldest child and the family member most openly interested in leadership, he acknowledged feeling responsibility toward the company’s future. When asked about the pressures of joining the real estate industry, Ben emphasized, “It didn’t feel like I had to do it, or that I was forced into it. It was more like, this is my purpose. This is why I was put here, and I am the next generation to take the reins and lead it in the next direction, and grow what I was given.”

Strategy quickly became a central theme. For ATCO, Kate emphasized that fundamentals remain critical. Buildings must be leased. Tenants must be satisfied. Teams must be responsive. She described zero vacancy as more than a metric. It is a discipline that guides daily decision making.

The firm’s portfolio remains rooted in New York but has expanded into additional markets within short flight distance of the city, including Charlotte and parts of Texas. The geographic approach reflects a long standing family philosophy that growth should remain close enough for active oversight.

ATCO’s integrated structure, which includes investment management, design, construction, property management, and brokerage, grew out of a desire for control and consistency. Building internal capabilities allowed the company to maintain quality, stay close to market dynamics, and generate additional revenue beyond rent. Upon reflection, Kate shared, “I’m most proud of never quitting. Deals that you think are going to take three months take a year and a half, and you have to be willing to have the patience and the wherewithal to see it to the finish line.”

The conversation also touched on how younger generations experience real estate differently. Signore noted that tenants increasingly evaluate buildings based on how they feel, not just how they function. Lobby design, lighting, hospitality, and amenity spaces carry more weight than they once did. While Kate agreed that experience matters, she cautioned that investment decisions must remain disciplined. Not every amenity justifies its cost. The question is whether the improvement leads to measurable financial return.

Technology and artificial intelligence brought both generations into alignment. ATCO has implemented artificial intelligence driven HVAC systems in select buildings, improving energy efficiency and reducing operating costs. Kate described it as practical innovation rather than experimentation.

Ben Goodman spoke about using artificial intelligence for zoning research, financial modeling guidance, and presentation preparation. While he emphasized that these tools do not replace technical knowledge, he noted that they can accelerate analysis and improve productivity. When asked about how he plans to add value to the business, Ben stated, “If you have a standardized playbook for everything from construction management to leasing to your operations, it really creates streamlined processes for all your employees. I’m learning how to use AI to transform tasks and systems that are fundamental to CRE.”

When discussing succession, the tone became more reflective. Family business, Kate said plainly, is complicated. It combines professional expectations with personal relationships. Alignment requires patience and communication. Disagreement is inevitable, but growth depends on navigating conflict thoughtfully. Kate’s advice was, “Be a good listener. Listen and ask questions, rather than telling your family what you think the family should do. Maybe you don’t have all the pieces of the puzzle. Nobody wants one bad decision to break up a family or to break up a legacy. It’s better to be a sponge.”

For many students in the audience, the conversation offered reassurance. Few paths into family real estate are linear. Outside experience, detours, and uncertainty can strengthen long term leadership. What ultimately defines the next generation is not inheritance alone, but preparation and intention.

As the skyline darkened and the event moved into questions from the audience, one idea remained consistent. Legacy is not static. Each generation must decide how to carry it forward while adapting to new realities.

The evening’s momentum continued beyond the room. In the days that followed, REFN announced the winners of a student experience raffle sponsored by Insula Capital Group, a family-owned private lender based in New York. The sponsorship was made possible by Zach Stock, a current Schack graduate student and Senior Associate at Insula. For the company, it was a natural fit to support an evening dedicated to the kind of cross-generational dialogue that mirrors its own roots. On March 5th, ten students, including Zach, enjoyed the SUMMIT Ascent experience at One Vanderbilt, exhibiting immersive art 90 floors above Grand Central, with the bonus of riding in the world’s largest all-glass external elevator scaling 12 stories for panoramic views of New York City. Students, alumni and industry professionals interested in learning more about Insula’s lending programs, including short-term bridge loans, ground-up construction financing, and long-term DSCR products are encouraged to connect with Zach and the Insula team.

The semester will continue with additional panels, alumni-led discussions, and experience-driven gatherings designed to connect students more directly with both institutional and family office perspectives. The emphasis remains on practical insight, cross-generational dialogue, and building lasting relationships across the Schack community and beyond. Thank you to Hunton Andrews Kurth LLC for sponsoring the event and sharing their office space at the MetLife Building.

Learn more about the authors: Gabriel Rodriguez, Jessica Signore & Madeleine Torres