This site has been created for exclusive use by institutional investors only and does not take into account investment objectives, financial situation or specific needs of any individual investor. Information should not be the sole basis for any investment decision.
If you are not an institutional client, consultant or financial professional and are looking for more information about mutual funds and other products at Nuveen, please visit our site at www.nuveen.com.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. All investments involve some degree of risk including loss of principal. Investment objectives may not be met.
By agreeing you are confirming you are being truthful, acknowledging you have read the information above and accept the terms and conditions set out with this site and meeting the intended audience requirement for this site. Not all content on this site is appropriate or applicable for the general public and we cannot guarantee consequences with the use of this information by unauthorized or unintended users. Content on this site may not be redistributed and is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or provide a solicitation of an offer to buy any security.
Managing risk amid uncertainty with commercial real estate debt
The healthy appetite for commercial real estate (CRE) debt from investors around the world continues. Not a single investor wanted to reduce their exposure to debt, according to the 2020 INREV/ANREV/PREA survey covering CRE debt vehicles. It also reported that more investors were diversifying by using a combination of debt funds in North America, Europe and APAC.
This is unsurprising, Given the considerable uncertainty over the economic outlook, investors are actively seeking ways to manage and diversify risk. And the reliable cash flows and downside risk protection offered by private commercial real estate debt make it a compelling option.
Appealing across the cycle
Our analysis shows that private CRE debt funds delivered solid and reliable returns over the cycle with much lower volatility than equity funds. This means private CRE debt funds provided better risk-adjusted returns, even though their nominal returns were often lower.
Performance is not always easy to track given data limitations in many of the most popular countries for CRE debt. But available data in the U.S. does showed a history of debt products performing strongly (see figure below), producing high risk-adjusted returns when compared with other asset classes. In addition, core mortgage loan returns are a source of portfolio diversification, due to their low correlation with those of stocks, equity real estate and REIT returns.
Downside risk features
Underpinning this performance is the debt’s loan-to-value (LTV) ratio that creates an equity cushion to reduce downside risk. This downside protection helps explain why debt funds can deliver expected returns even if capital values are falling. Lenders can insulate themselves from a weak market if their portfolio has been protected sufficiently with income and LTV covenants that protect the lender in the event of default. These buffers reduce their value at risk.
The low volatility of capital values and solid income flows mean that the focus of debt investments is resilience rather than growth. However, capital volatility differs between CRE sectors over the course of the cycle, and between countries, which creates differences in lending risk.
Keeping LTV covenants significantly below 100% dampens these differences, but does not eliminate them. We investigated the impact of LTV covenants on loan resilience by using Monte Carlo simulations to model the risk of a loan’s LTV ratio exceeding 100% in the final year of the loan. This is different from default risk, but we expect an increase in this probability to be associated with higher default risk.
Based solely on historic returns, our simulations showed that for a 50% LTV 5-year loan, the risk of LTVs exceeding 100% at the end of the loan was less than 1% in all of the country sectors we studied (see figure below). Increasing the LTV to 60% produced the same conclusion, even though capital volatility was significantly different across our sample. This suggests that an equity cushion of 40% to 50% of asset value has tended to dampen the impact of capital volatility at the market level on lending risk in the country sectors we studied.
When we increased the LTV ratio to 70%, and reduced the equity cushion to 30%, we began to see some evidence of differential risk between markets, but at very modest levels. The risk of LTV ratios moving above 100% was around 2% in office, industrial and retail portfolios in the U.S. and U.K., but remained below 1% in U.S. residential, U.K. residential and in all the Australian sectors.
These results suggest that over the last 25 years on average, the additional risks for debt funds of increasing LTV ratios and reducing the equity cushion were relatively small and could have been compensated by small increases in lending margins. (We also ran a second set of simulations which included five-year return forecasts rather than rely solely on historic returns, details of which are in the report.)
Our research suggests that lenders need to identify where loans are at greater risk due to market volatility and ensure margins are high enough to compensate for that risk. They should also manage risk through sponsor selection, real estate asset analysis and mortgage design.
Investors who are keen to explore the risk-adjusted returns and diversification properties of CRE debt should partner with experienced and expert CRE lenders. These partners will have developed the sponsor relationships and the contract features that have been reliably shown to reduce risk. Lenders who are active in the real estate market themselves can leverage their own knowledge and experience, as well access to proprietary and market data, to better analyse and underwrite risk. Such vigilance and risk management are necessary in when the economic outlook remains so uncertain.
The views and opinions expressed are for informational and educational purposes only as of the date of production/writing and may change without notice at any time based on numerous factors, such as market or other conditions, legal and regulatory developments, additional risks and uncertainties and may not come to pass. This material may contain “forward-looking” information that is not purely historical in nature. Such information may include, among other things, projections, forecasts, estimates of market returns, and proposed or expected portfolio composition. Any changes to assumptions that may have been made in preparing this material could have a material impact on the information presented herein by way of example. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Investing involves risk; principal loss is possible. All information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. There is no representation or warranty as to the current accuracy, reliability or completeness of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information and it should not be relied on as such.
A word on risk
All investments carry a certain degree of risk and there is no assurance that an investment will provide positive performance over any period of time. Investing in municipal bonds involves risks such as interest rate risk, credit risk and market risk, including the possible loss of principal. The value of the portfolio will fluctuate based on the value of the underlying securities. There are special risks associated with investments in high yield bonds, hedging activities and the potential use of leverage. Portfolios that include lower rated municipal bonds, commonly referred to as “high yield” or “junk” bonds, which are considered to be speculative, the credit and investment risk is heightened for the portfolio. Bond insurance guarantees only the payment of principal and interest on the bond when due, and not the value of the bonds themselves, which will fluctuate with the bond market and the financial success of the issuer and the insurer. No representation is made as to an insurer’s ability to meet their commitments.