Blog: A Strong Case for Private Credit


In the latter half of 2022 and into 2023, capital flew in droves to money markets and short term treasuries as higher than expected inflation forced the Fed to invert the yield curve with a round of historically sharp interest rate hikes, pushing the short rate (SOFR) to 22 year highs.


Although inflation was largely an issue of constrained supply with lingering COVID-19 supply chain issues, the Fed needed to act in response to pressure so they could satisfy expectations. This move effectively bankrupted the banking system because prior to covid, the FEDs sentiment and telepathy was low sustainable 2% inflation and low rates to stay along with it. In response, banks and various companies in the business of producing safe returns to meet financial obligations were encouraged to invest/lend long in search of bonuses and yield spread. Unfortunately, not many of them hedged their interest rate risk.


The sudden increase in risk-free rates of return are throwing equity markets for a spin, sucking liquidity out of the banking system, and threatening risk asset values as well as fixed income alike.


Increasing risk-free yields are putting upward pressure on existing variable loan servicing costs through higher annual debt servicing, stressing real estate free cashflow, (variable loans are priced at a spread over the SOFR index), and they are also forcing investors to scrutinize their yield & growth expectations. Ultimately, cap rates are expected to expand to meet the risk-reward expectations in the market. How much they will expand, if any, is a function of capital flows and future growth expectations. This comes at a time when inflation is putting upward pressure on operational expenses such as taxes, insurance, energy, utilities, precious metals, and labor.


The resulting effect? Decreased NOI, lower property values, and a large disconnect between buyers and sellers. In many primary, secondary, and tertiary growth markets, expense growth has outpaced revenue growth year over year and threatens to do so through 2025 based on forecasted growth outlooks in select markets. Several Apartment REITS have reported lower than expected Q3 earnings due to revenue and expense pressures suppressing net income growth. On average, NOI across $100B of major apartment REIT values has missed projections by 28%.

The body content of your post goes here. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.

Source: CRE Analyst


Investors who put bridge debt on assets in 2021 are under immense pressure to takeout their loans that are coming due this year and next. Given that NOI is down and cap rates are up, it is becoming increasingly hard to refinance these loans without the borrowers infusing cash into deals. Over the last decade, investors became accustomed to cash-out refinances, in which new loan proceeds exceeded that of the old loan amount, creating equity and value for partners. With interest rates climbing and threatening to remain elevated, we may see a wave of deals whose NOI are not high enough to support leverage that exceeds principal loan balances.


Multifamily values have come down from their peak, anywhere from 15-25%, depending on the market, asset class, and property level grade + characteristics. But since the private market and real estate in general is relatively illiquid, sellers can hold to prevent portfolio mark-downs and losses, just as long as they have good debt. The public REI market trades based on expectations and given its liquid nature, it tends to be a forward looking indicator for the private real estate markets.

In almost all of 2021, SOFR remained at 0% and the 10 year hovered under 1.5% for the majority of the year. Core, new multifamily assets in growth primaries traded as low at 3.25-3.5% cap rates.


Fast forward to 2023, and SOFR stands tall at 5.3% while the 10 year stands at 4.63%, an exorbitant increase, the sharpest rise in multiple decades. This increase in debt capital helps explain why sellers are not meeting the value expectations of current buyers in the marketplace. Buyers are underwriting to a much higher weighted average cost of capital, and sellers are in denial when you tell pricing is down 15% + from their expectations just months ago.

In time of value uncertainty, it pays to move down in the capital stack. Defensive positioning can help insure capital remains hedged from material swings in value, holding its value until the market heads back up. The chart below illustrates the changes in capital financing and return requirements, as well as leverage demands.

In the chart above, you can assume that the first position loan is a bridge loan. Once the Fed raised the short-term interest rate in one of the fast rate hiking accelerations in history, values began to wither, leverage receded, and equity became more hawkish. Weighted average costs of capital increased, putting pressure on free cashflow, valuations, and newly sized loan proceeds.

2021 rewarded investors for taking on more risk, sitting in a common equity position. It was common to see 15-20%+ annualized returns for vintage multifamily deals bought at reasonable prices and resold or flipped 2-3 years later. Many of these properties produced even higher equity returns, producing MOICs of 2-4x in less than 3 years. A combination of compressed cap rates and historically high rent growth produced these returns.


In 2023, case dependent, investors can command equity-like returns for debt-like risk, sitting in a preferred equity position in the stack. Similarly, senior first position lenders can command equity like yield while receiving a higher margin of safety on their leverage position. This capital stack dislocation became larger as debt-capital from banks dried up, and its expected to get even worse, leaving a gap and opportunity for those that are able to see it. Equity has to offset the decrease in leverage, hurting projected returns on much larger tranches of equity, driving yield expectations up even higher and pressuring values.


The risk-reward ratio largely favors credit or preferred equity in this environment because investors can earn a higher return for much less risk. We call this asymmetric, meaning, your potential for upside is higher than your risk of downside.

Historically, debt is uncorrelated to the value of the underlying real estate itself, as shown in the image below. AEG believes that debt and preferred equity is the most attractive vehicle at this point in the market cycle; although, equity opportunities are just starting to be compelling.


Once the market has confidence in future inflation, then it can rely on a terminal rate in order to confidently move forward with trades. Real estate transactions rely on an efficient and liquid banking system to function - & when debt dries up, appraisers and buyers alike cannot rely on prior trades to establish values... and lenders are not issuing any favorable term sheets either with deteriorating property and capital market level fundamentals. The result is a chain-effect of pressure build up.


Since bank debt issuance is a function of healthy collateral and reliable markets, we are likely to continue to see turbulence until something breaks or the Fed lowers rates. Until/if then, it will pay off to be lower in the capital stack as investors look for alternative debt solutions to fill the gap left by traditional lenders.

By Christian O'Neal January 29, 2026
Would a Ban on Institutional SFR Ownership Actually Improve U.S. Housing Affordability? Proposals to restrict or ban institutional investors from purchasing single family homes have reentered the public conversation. The political narrative is simple and emotionally resonant. Large investors are blamed for crowding out everyday buyers, pushing prices higher, and worsening affordability. When examined through the lens of capital flows, liquidity, and housing supply, however, the economic impact of such a policy appears far more limited than advertised. At a national level, restricting institutional ownership would likely have minimal effect on affordability and could introduce unintended distortions across adjacent housing sectors. The United States has roughly 85 million single family homes. Institutional investors own only a small fraction of that total. The two largest publicly traded single family rental platforms together control approximately 150,000 homes, representing less than two tenths of one percent of national inventory. Even when expanding the definition to include private equity platforms, pension backed vehicles, and insurance capital, institutional ownership remains concentrated in a narrow set of metropolitan areas. Outside of select Sunbelt markets such as Austin or Charlotte, institutional investors account for a minimal share of single family rental stock. Housing prices are shaped locally, not nationally. Still, national affordability outcomes cannot meaningfully change when policy targets a participant that operates at the margins of total supply. At any given time, roughly three to six million homes are listed for sale across the country. Even under an extreme assumption where all institutional owners liquidated simultaneously, those homes would represent only a modest share of available listings. Any resulting price impact would likely be temporary and geographically concentrated. In practice, even markets with higher institutional presence such as Charlotte, Phoenix, Dallas, Austin, or Tampa would likely see only modest declines, perhaps five to ten percent at most. That assumes perfect coordination and no offsetting demand, both of which are unrealistic. Housing markets function on liquidity. Buyers and sellers must be willing to transact. Capital must be available at reasonable terms. When liquidity declines, volatility increases and pricing becomes less stable. Institutional investors, regardless of public perception, provide consistent liquidity. They transact through cycles. They underwrite based on yield rather than emotion. They often absorb inventory during periods when individual buyers pull back. Restricting institutional participation does not remove capital from the system. It alters the market’s risk profile. Reduced liquidity leads to wider bid ask spreads, higher perceived risk, and a higher cost of capital for builders and developers. That higher cost does not disappear. It is ultimately passed through in the form of higher rents, higher home prices, or reduced construction activity. If institutional buyers are restricted from acquiring scattered site single family homes, capital will not sit idle. It will migrate toward structures that remain permissible and scalable. Stabilized rental portfolios become more attractive. Purpose built rental communities draw increased attention. Multifamily assets with single family characteristics absorb additional demand. This redirection of capital would likely push valuations higher in these segments. A policy designed to curb investor influence in one part of the market may unintentionally inflate prices in others. Build for rent communities are particularly well positioned in this scenario. They offer operational efficiency, regulatory clarity, and institutional scale. As competition increases, yields compress and replacement costs rise, making new housing more expensive to deliver. In this way, a ban could create a construction drag by shifting capital away from for sale housing while simultaneously increasing the cost of producing new rental supply. The most powerful force restricting housing supply today is mortgage lock in. Roughly eighty percent of homeowners hold mortgages at four percent or lower, with many locked near three percent. At current borrowing costs, selling often means doubling monthly debt service. Even households looking to downsize face higher payments. As a result, existing owners choose not to sell. This dynamic has dramatically reduced resale inventory and supported prices despite affordability challenges. Restricting institutional buyers does nothing to address this structural bottleneck. One of the most effective demand side interventions would be the widespread adoption of transferable or assumable mortgages. Allowing buyers to inherit existing low rate debt would unlock supply, improve transaction volume, and relieve pricing pressure without distorting capital flows. Rents respond to household formation, supply growth, and replacement cost. They do not decline simply because ownership changes hands. If institutional ownership is restricted while new supply remains constrained, rents are unlikely to fall. In many markets, rents could rise modestly as higher capital costs are passed through and professional operators retreat. Without a material increase in housing units, rental affordability remains challenged. A realistic forecast points to limited national impact. Certain markets with high institutional concentration may experience short term volatility, but any adjustment is likely to be measured rather than dramatic. At the same time, sectors absorbing displaced capital such as build for rent communities or stabilized rental portfolios could see upward pricing pressure. Home prices ultimately reflect supply relative to household demand. Policies that fail to materially increase supply rarely generate sustained price relief. For those building housing products, the signal is clear. Long term affordability is driven by supply creation, not ownership restrictions. New housing of all forms remains structurally undersupplied. Projects that deliver density, efficiency, and speed to market will remain advantaged. Build for rent and purpose built rental communities are likely beneficiaries of redirected capital. Development strategies should anticipate rising land values and stronger institutional exit demand in these segments. Ownership enabling products deserve renewed focus. Structures that help households access low cost debt or transition from renting to owning align more closely with the true constraints of the market. Capital efficient design will matter more than ever. Smaller units, higher density, modular construction, and flexible zoning strategies offer resilience in an environment where the cost of capital remains elevated. A ban on institutional single family home ownership may satisfy a political narrative, but it does little to address the core mechanics of housing affordability. Institutional investors own too small a share of the market to move national outcomes. Liquidity would decline. Capital would reallocate. Supply constraints would persist. Without policies that unlock mobility, expand supply, and reduce financing friction, affordability challenges will remain largely unchanged. For developers and operators, the opportunity lies not in reacting to headlines, but in building the housing the market structurally lacks. And that is exactly what we at Alpha Equity Group are doing, very carefully, while providing investors with peace of mind through downside protected investments.
By Christian O'Neal October 13, 2025
Michael Fernandez featured on "Think Big with Taylor Lyles" Podcast 
By Christian O'Neal October 13, 2025
Coker Creek Featured in the Post & Courier 
Show More