來自于美國市場分析機構的一份最新報告顯示，在經濟下行拐點即將到來之際，美國的商業房地產借貸機構或面臨重大風險。

房地產數據研究機構CrediFi公司在通過《財富》雜志首次披露的一份報告中稱，美國的貸款機構對商業房地產行業的風險敞口“比大家意識到的大得多”。該研究認為，一旦經濟下行，各大貸款機構在零售地產和工業地產領域的風險將尤為突出，商業抵押擔保證券（CMBS）發行量的下降也將給各大銀行的資債情況帶來更多風險。

CrediFi公司追蹤了在2018年審批的價值9250多億美元的商業房地產貸款的發放情況——這個“巨大”的數字已經超過了一些正規行業組織記錄的數據。比如根據美國抵押貸款銀行家協會（MBA）的統計，去年美國新增的商業房地產貸款發放額只有5740億美元。

CrediFi公司在其研究報告中稱，美國抵押貸款銀行家協會給出的數據是“具有誤導性且不完整的”，而CrediFi公司的報告則基于“詳細的、貸款層面的數據”，更加完整地涵蓋了美國商業房地產借貸市場的真實情況。報告中的數據表明，銀行和非銀行借貸機構“在某些‘高風險’領域的風險敞口令人不安，比如零售地產和工業地產。”

根據CrediFi公司的數據，2018年，美國零售和工業地產領域新增貸款總額超過2500億美元。相比之下，美國抵押貸款銀行家協會給出的數據只有不到1500億美元。CrediFi公司表示，這個數字低估了消費支出和工業生產下行對借貸機構的風險。

CrediFi公司的CEO伊利·拉辛對《財富》雜志表示：“這兩個領域對經濟十分敏感，而且對（經濟）下行也非常敏感。”

這份報告似乎傳遞了一種“經濟下行即將到來”的感覺，對此拉辛也沒有否論。他表示，根據CrediFi公司的數據，去年美國的借貸總額下降了4%，這表明由于“擔心市場風險等級上升”，借貸機構已經開始減少放貸。

他補充道：“本輪經濟周期是一個非常長的經濟周期，如果你認為經濟下行已經不遠了，那風險就已經迫在眉睫了。”

對于商業房地產借貸市場的風險高于公認水平的說法，美國抵押貸款銀行家協會的副會長杰米·伍德韋爾表示了質疑。他指出，從美聯儲和美國聯邦存款保險公司（FDIC）披露的情況看，銀行業的貸款狀況展現了“極高的透明度”，商業抵押貸款和住房抵押貸款的壞債率“正處于歷史最低水平”。

不過，伍德韋爾也承認，在追蹤商業房地產貸款數據時，美國抵押貸款銀行家協會和CrediFi公司“衡量的是不同的東西”。美國抵押貸款銀行家協會主要研究“收入產出型”地產的貸款，這種地產通常是由一方租賃給另一方的；對“業主自用型地產”的數據則相對研究不足——也就是那種經常被企業用作工商業貸款抵押品的房地產。而這部分地產的貸款數據則體現在了CrediFi公司的報告里。

伍德韋爾也對美國抵押貸款銀行家協會的研究方法進行了辯護。他指出，該協會的數據主要關注的是那些“擁有專用商業房地產平臺”的主流貸款機構，因為這些機構提供了商業房地產貸款市場融資總量的大部分。

近些年來，在網商的沖擊下，無論是全國性的連鎖超市，還是“夫妻店”式的小賣部，傳統零售行業處境之艱難，已經不必多說。零售地產項目的業主也面臨空置率不斷上升的問題，這也影響了他們的現金流，使他們更加難以償還這些商業地產的貸款。另一方面，則是全美各地大量購物中心和大型商場的濫觴。

CrediFi公司的報告并未指出哪些借貸機構對零售行業的風險敞口最大，不過從美國抵押貸款銀行家協會2018年的數據來看，富國銀行（去年發放63.5億美元）、 Key Bank（50億美元）、摩根大通（33.4億美元）、摩根士丹利（32.9億美元）和德意志銀行（21.9億美元）等都是去年該領域最大的貸款機構。

商業房地產貸款公司ACRES Capital的董事長兼CEO馬克·福格爾表示：“我確實認為，那些發放了大量（零售）貸款的銀行，可能很快看起來就不會那么好了。我認為你很快就會看到一些困難。”

而工業地產則成了商業房地產領域比較受歡迎的抵押物。在很多情況下，這同樣是由于電商的崛起給實體零售造成了毀滅性的打擊，而這些電商公司又需要大量空間來滿足其倉儲和配送需求，因此，很多投資者和貸款機構都涌入了工業地產領域。

美國抵押貸款銀行家協會的數據顯示，2019年第一季度，美國工業地產貸款發放量按美元計算同比增長了73%。去年工業地產領域放貸最多的機構有富國銀行（55.4億美元）、花旗銀行（39.3億美元）、摩根士丹利（30.4億美元）、PGIM房地產公司（29.7億美元）和摩根大通（25.3億美元）等。

對于CrediFi公司關于工業地產項目風險過高的說法，有些商業房地產市場的資深人士表示不能茍同。比如商業地產經紀公司世邦魏理仕（CBRE）的債務和結構性金融部門執行副總裁詹姆斯·米倫表示，當前從貸款的角度看，零售和工業地產的風險與CrediFi公司的評估是“截然相反”的。

商業房地產債務公司ACORE Capital的聯合創始人、執行董事沃倫德·漢也表示：“我們看到，市場對任何工業地產的需求都出現了徹底的爆發。市場對該資產類別的需求之高，是我以前從未見過的。”

不過拉辛也指出，CrediFi公司的數據還包括了更加傳統的工業地產的債務，如制造行業所使用的房地產。這個領域對宏觀經濟環境非常敏感，特別是在當前中美貿易戰不斷升級的背景下。此外，CrediFi的數據也涵蓋了以企業房地產資產作抵押的工商業貸款（這一類貸款并未包含在美國抵押貸款銀行家協會的數據中）。拉辛在談到工業地產市場的風險時表示：“市場上并非只有大麻種植農場和亞馬遜的配送中心。”

CrediFi公司的報告還指出，商業抵押擔保證券（CMBS）發行量的下降，也是另一個值得擔憂的跡象。2018年，只有不到10%的零售地產和工業地產貸款被證券化。該報告認為，這表明“更多的此類風險正在傳統借貸機構的資債表上聚集。”

不過，由于全球金融危機過后的這些年，商業抵押擔保證券的發行量總體呈下降趨勢，因而債券市場的參與者對這一現象的意義也存在分歧。商業抵押貸款預警公司（Commercial Mortgage Alert）的數據顯示，與2007年逾2280億美元的歷史最高點相比，美國商業抵押擔保證券2017年的發行量不足880億美元，去年更是進一步下滑至770億美元左右。

商業房地產證券公司麥迪遜不動產資本（Madison Realty Capital）的聯合創始人、執行董事約什·澤根認為，在經濟危期前的CMBS貸款，很多的還款周期是10年，“有的到期了，卻永遠無法償還了。在2007年的2280億美元貸款中，有一半的發放量本來就不應該證券化。今天的世界中，有了風險保留的相關規定，就永遠不可能有那樣的（發放量）。”

在一些債務市場的資深人士看來，后經濟危機時代的商業房地產貸款市場已經高度多元化了。大量非銀行債務基金的出現，填補了銀行退出工程貸款等高風險債務領域后留下的空白。這也使銀行業總體上處于一個比以前更安全的境地。

房地產債務經紀公司Ackman-Ziff集團的負責人馬克·沃倫表示：“銀行界一直在去風險，而且也比以前有了更多的紀律，各大銀行的杠桿率并沒有危機前那么高。除了加強監管和嚴格承銷標準，銀行的資本金也比金融危機前多得多，因此他們能夠吸收的損失也比以前多得多。”

雖然非銀行借貸機構在商業房地產貸款市場所占的比重越來越大，但這并不意味著他們沒有執行自己的紀律。

Square Mile資本公司便是這樣一家商業貸款機構，該公司的高級常務董事杰夫·法斯托夫表示，由于擔心這一輪美國歷史上持續時間最長的經濟增長周期即將迎來“拐點”，他的公司這些日子已經“謹慎得多”了。“如果事情即將起這樣或那樣的變化，我們在承銷方面就要更保守些。”

法斯托夫還指出，總體上看，與上一個經濟周期各大貸款機構“激進”的杠桿率相比，今天的商業房地產借貸機構已經變得“克制得多”了。

隨著美國經濟進入本輪經濟增長周期的后半段，下行拐點或許已然不遠，在這種情況下，像CrediFi這樣的公司對借貸機構的風險敞口發出預警，也許是一件好事。（財富中文網）

譯者：樸成奎

Commercial real estate lenders may have their hands full in the event of a recession, according to a new report.

U.S. lenders have “much greater risk exposure than publicly recognized” to the commercial real estate sector, real estate data firm CrediFi says in the report, provided first to Fortune. The study deems lenders’ exposure to the retail and industrial property sectors as particularly risky in the event of an economic downturn, as well as declining commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) originations that leave more risk on lenders’ balance sheets.

CrediFi tracked more than $925 billion of commercial real estate loan originations in 2018—a “huge” figure that exceeds the numbers documented by more established industry groups like the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA), which reported nearly $574 billion in new loans last year.

But the real estate data startup describes the MBA’s figures as “misleading and incomplete” in its report, which it says is based on “granular, loan-level data” covering a wider swath of the commercial real estate lending market. That data shows both banks and non-bank lenders have “particularly troubling exposure” to certain ‘at-risk’ sectors, namely both retail and industrial lending,” the report says.

New loan originations on retail and industrial properties combined to surpass $250 billion in 2018, per CrediFi. By contrast, the MBA’s data has that figure at less than $150 billion, which CrediFi says underestimates lenders’ exposure to risks such as a downturn in consumer spending and industrial production.

“Those two segments are so sensitive to the economy and would be very sensitive to an [economic] downturn,” CrediFi CEO Ely Razin tells Fortune.

Razin echoes the report’s sentiment that “a downturn is coming”—citing a 4 percent decline in lending volumes last year, according to CrediFi data, as indicating that lenders are starting to pull back amid “concerns about an added level of risk in the market.”

“This is a very long economic cycle, and if you’re a believer that the downturn is coming sooner rather than later, the risks are imminent,” he adds.

Jamie Woodwell, the MBA’s vice president of research and economics, disputes CrediFi’s findings that there is more risk in the commercial real estate lending market than recognized. He cites “incredible transparency” into the debt held by banks via disclosures by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Federal Reserve, as well as commercial and multifamily mortgage delinquency rates that “are at their lowest levels in history.”

Woodwell acknowledges that the MBA and CrediFi are “measuring different things” when it comes to their tracking of commercial real estate loan data. He says the MBA focuses its research on the financing of “income-producing” properties usually leased from one party to another, while eschewing data on “owner-occupied real estate”—the kind that businesses often use as collateral on commercial & industrial (C&I) loans, which are factored into the CrediFi report.

But Woodwell defends the MBA’s methodology, noting that the group’s data focuses on major lenders “with a dedicated commercial real estate platform” who provide a majority of the market’s financing volume.

The headwinds facing the retail sector have been well-documented in recent years, with the rise of online retail hurting everyone from national chains to mom-and-pop stores. In turn, retail landlords have faced rising vacancies that have diminished cash flows—making it harder to pay off the loans on their properties—and created an overabundance of malls and shopping centers across the country.

While CrediFi did not provide a list of the lenders with the greatest exposure to retail, the MBA’s data for 2018 identified Wells Fargo ($6.35 billion in originations last year), Key Bank ($5 billion), JPMorgan Chase ($3.34 billion), Morgan Stanley ($3.29 billion), and Deutsche Bank ($2.19 billion) as the largest lenders to the sector.

“I do think the banks have a lot of [retail] loans on the books that aren’t going to look so good soon,” according to Mark Fogel, president and CEO of commercial real estate debt lender ACRES Capital. “I think you’ll start to see some distress.”

Industrial real estate, in turn, has proven among the more in-demand sectors in commercial real estate—a dynamic fueled, in many cases, by the same e-commerce companies whose emergence has devastated the brick-and-mortar retail sector. With such companies needing more space than ever to serve their warehousing and distribution needs, investors and debt lenders alike have flocked to the industrial sector.

Industrial property loans grew 73% by dollar volume, year-on-year, in the first quarter of 2019, according to the MBA. The largest lenders to the industrial sector last year included Wells Fargo ($5.54 billion in originations), Citibank ($3.93 billion), Morgan Stanley ($3.04 billion), PGIM Real Estate ($2.97 billion), and JPMorgan Chase ($2.53 billion), per MBA data.

Some commercial real estate finance market sources expressed their surprise about CrediFi’s prognosis on industrial property types. James Millon, an executive vice president at commercial real estate brokerage CBRE’s debt and structured finance division, describes the retail and industrial sectors as “polar opposites from a lending perspective right now.”

“What we’re seeing is a fundamental explosion in the demand for anything industrial,” says Warren de Haan, co-founder and managing partner at commercial real estate debt firm ACORE Capital. “The desirability of the asset class is the highest I’ve ever seen it.”

But Razin notes that CrediFi’s numbers also account for debt on more conventional industrial properties, like those used for manufacturing—a sector sensitive to macroeconomic conditions, and particularly so given escalating trade tensions between the U.S. and China—as well as C&I business loans that are backed by companies’ real estate assets (which are not included in the MBA’s data). “It’s not just marijuana farms and Amazon distribution centers,” Razin says of the industrial real estate market’s risk profile.

CrediFi also points to declining CMBS (commercial mortgage-backed securities) volumes as another warning sign, citing figures that show that less than 10% of retail and industrial loan originations in 2018 were securitized. That means that “more of this risk is clustered on the balance sheets of traditional lenders,” according to the report.

Yet debt market participants are also split on the significance of this, given the general drop in CMBS volumes in the years after the financial crisis. Compared to their all-time high of more than $228 billion in 2007, CMBS issuances in the U.S. totaled less than $88 billion in 2017 and fell even further last year to nearly $77 billion, according to data from Commercial Mortgage Alert.

Those pre-crisis CMBS loans, many of which carried 10-year terms, “came due and they’ll never be replaced,” according to Josh Zegen, co-founder and managing principal of commercial real estate debt and equity firm Madison Realty Capital. “That [$228 billion] year in 2007—half of that volume should have never gone into securitization. In today’s world, with risk retention [regulations], you would have never had that [volume].”

Debt market sources also depicted a commercial real estate lending market that has diversified greatly post-recession—with a slew of non-bank debt funds having emerged to fill the void left by banks who have retreated from riskier types of debt, such as construction lending. That’s left the banks in an altogether safer position than they were previously.

“There’s been a de-risking and a lot more discipline in the bank world, for sure,” says Marc Warren, a principal at real estate debt brokerage Ackman-Ziff Real Estate Group. “The banks aren’t levered nearly as much as they were pre-crisis. In addition to tighter regulations and underwriting [standards], they have significantly more capital than they did pre-crisis and can absorb significantly more losses than they could before.”

But that doesn’t mean that alternative, non-bank lenders—who have come to comprise an ever-larger slice of the commercial real estate lending pie—aren’t also exercising discipline of their own.

Jeff Fastov, a senior managing director at one such player, Square Mile Capital, said his firm is “being way more cautious” these days amid concerns that we could be nearing “a turning point” in one of the longest economic expansions in U.S. history. “If things are subject to go one way or another, we’re being more conservative as to how we underwrite deals.”

Fastov also notes that, in general, today’s commercial real estate lenders have been “substantially more controlled” compared to the “aggressive” levels of leverage and pricing being offered to borrowers in the previous cycle.

With the likes of CrediFi raising alarms about lenders’ risk exposure in a maturing economic cycle, that sort of discipline could bode well—should things take a turn for the worse.