Blog: Weighted Average Cashflow Obligations - How Rising Rates Affect Buyers' Abilities to Pay Up


Navigating Rising Interest Rates: How it Affects Buyer's Ability to Meet Cash Obligations


Take a $10M hypothetical purchase in June of 2020. Let’s assume this building is operating at a 5 cap today with slight meat on the bone to push to a 5.5 cap through renovations. Going-in, the building produces $500,000 in NOI. The market is a 4.5 cap stabilized for this product, so you walk into a nice positive spread, and you plan to exit in a few years at a 5 cap. Seems conservative to expand the cap 50 bps in 3 years.


To structure this deal, the various funding partners who put up the cash are expecting a return that mimics their risk and position in the capital stack.


Let’s say you, the borrower, secured 70% of the purchase through Fannie or Freddie Mac at 4% (for simplicity, this is the amortizing loan constant). You fund the remaining 30% with equity that commands an 8% return paid current from cashflow.


Will the deal be able to service the total cashflow obligations?


Let’s do some simple math.


70% X 4% = 2.4%

30% x 8% = 2.4%

2.4+2.4= 4.8%


For each dollar of cost, the building must produce 4.8% annually to pay debt and equity partners. We bought a 6% cap so the property will cashflow above that 8% hurdle, providing excess cashflow to equity partners.


Fast forward to April of 2023. Insurance and taxes have risen astronomically. Labor is tight, construction is volatile. For simplicity, let’s just say you want to sell your building. Let’s assume the building produces the same NOI of $500,000/year because rising expenses offset your revenue increases.


You go to sell at your projected 5 cap… but buyers are telling you you’re crazy. Why?


Let’s look at what new buyers’ weighted average cash obligations would be on each dollar of cost.


The buyer can secure new debt at 6.5% (fully amortizing, loan constant) to cover 60% of the purchase price (tightening credit). The remaining 40% is funded via equity now commanding a 9% return paid current (equity wants to be better compensated since they can go get risk free money at 4-5%)


What does this deal need to service annual cashflow obligations?


60% x 6.5% = 3.9%

40% x 9% = 3.6%

3.9+3.6 = 7.5%


Weighted cashflow obligations increased 36% for the new buyer – largely impacting the price they can pay for this asset. To meet those obligations, the buyer can only pay $6,666,666, a 33% spread between the bid of the new buyer, and the expectation of the seller. To pay $10M, the buyer would require $750,000 in NOI to service their cash obligations. That equates to a 50% increase in NOI. Not going to happen.


The bid/ask spread is even higher today as treasury rate yields have risen in response to a bigger than expected jobs report & hawkish commentary from the Fed, further stressing permanent financing and floating rate note holders.

Building to Hold vs Building to Sell

By Christian O'Neal • July 31, 2025
Why Building and Holding Real Estate for the Long- Term Delivers Superior, Tax-Efficient Yield 

Rent Control - Does it Work?

By Christian O'Neal • July 31, 2025
Rent Control: A Well-Intentioned Policy That Misses the Mark In the debate over affordable housing, few policies stir as much emotion—or controversy—as rent control. Advocates see it as a way to shield tenants from rising rents. Critics argue it does more harm than good. When you examine the economic evidence and real- world outcomes, the conclusion becomes clear: rent control is a deeply flawed solution to a real problem. What Is Rent Control? Rent control is a policy that limits how much landlords can increase rent, either through caps tied to inflation or fixed annual percentages. On paper, it sounds compassionate: protect renters from displacement and make cities more affordable. But in practice, rent control reduces the supply of available housing, discourages new development, and often hurts the very people it's meant to help. Why Rent Control Backfires 1. It Discourages New Construction Developers are less likely to build in markets where future rent growth—and thus returns—are capped. Why take the risk of developing multifamily housing in a city where your upside is limited and your operating environment is politicized? 2. It Drives Property Owners Out of the Market Faced with strict rent regulations, landlords may convert rental units to condos or remove them from the market altogether. Fewer units mean more scarcity, which ultimately drives prices higher for everyone else. 3. It Distorts Housing Allocation Rent control encourages long-term tenants to stay in apartments they might otherwise outgrow or vacate. This locks up valuable housing stock and prevents more dynamic turnover, often freezing lower-cost units in place for higher-income tenants. 4. It Creates a Two-Tiered Market Markets with rent control often develop into two separate ecosystems: regulated apartments that are underpriced and hard to find, and unregulated units with inflated prices to compensate for suppressed supply. The California–New York Split: A Tale of Two Approaches Historically, California and New York have been peers in over-regulating rental housing. But recently, they’ve taken different paths: California's Recent Steps Forward:  Voters rejected rent control expansion (Prop 21 and earlier Prop 10)  Streamlined approvals and reduced CEQA abuse to promote new development New York's Recent Moves Backward:  Passed “Good Cause Eviction” law—effectively rent control in disguise  Political calls for rent freezes and demonization of landlords If you’re an open-minded apartment developer evaluating both markets today, California’s message is increasingly: We need you. New York’s? Not so much. To be fair, both are still difficult places to build housing, and cities like Los Angeles and Berkeley remain deeply anti-development. But California has shown progress by recognizing that you can’t claim to be pro-housing while simultaneously vilifying those who create and operate it. A Misalignment of Incentives A core problem with rent control is that it treats housing supply as fixed and ignores the private sector's role in expanding it. If developers and operators are stripped of potential upside—and burdened with unpredictable political risk—they simply stop building. Even well-intentioned pro-development plans (like NYC’s "City oare undermined when operators believe they’ll be punished after delivery through hostile regulation or public scorn. You can't be truly pro-development unless you're also pro-operator. Policies that foster collaboration, not scapegoating, create the conditions for long-term affordability. The Real Way Forward Instead of imposing artificial caps, cities should focus on increasing housing supply through zoning reform, expedited approvals, and public-private partnerships. The more units that come online, the more pricing power shifts away from landlords and toward tenants—naturally. Rent control is seductive in its simplicity but devastating in its consequences. It’s a policy that tries to solve a supply problem with demand-side restrictions—and in doing so, it often makes things worse. At Alpha Equity Group, we believe that smart, sustainable development is the key to housing affordability. And that requires sound economics, not political theater.

Into the Future – Making Sense of Rates in a World That Doesn’t

By Christian O'Neal • June 24, 2025
In the world of capital markets, clarity is often fleeting — and today, it feels downright elusive. The Federal Reserve’s latest June dot plot offered little in the way of certainty. While the median projection sees the Federal Funds Rate in the mid-3% range by the end of 2026 , the dispersion among voting members is striking. Seven members predict no rate cuts in 2024 , reflecting just how divided the committee remains in the face of conflicting data. This latest update marks a 25-50 basis point shift downward from May , but the overarching theme is one of caution, not conviction. That sentiment is mirrored in the economic projections. Core PCE inflation , the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, is now expected to end 2025 at 3.0% , 30 basis points higher than earlier forecasts. Meanwhile, real GDP is forecast to slow from 2.3% in Q4 2024 to just 1.7% in 2025 — another sign that the lagged effects of monetary policy are expected to begin to show. At the same time, the Fed’s balance sheet has shrunk dramatically, from a peak of $9 trillion in April 2022 to just $2.3 trillion today . That quantitative tightening, coupled with a lack of consistent inflation suppression, leaves both equity and bond markets vulnerable to further volatility. This all feeds into an uncomfortable truth: rates are likely to remain higher for longer , and the market is struggling to price that reality. The VIX index , a 30-day forward-looking gauge of volatility in equities, is trending higher. When volatility rises even as indices fall, credit spreads widen , liquidity tightens, and financing risk surges. For commercial real estate investors , this has enormous implications. As we explored in our recent article on CRE Price Discovery , the market remains in flux. The bid-ask spread in real estate is still somewhat wide, and most transaction activity today is being driven by maturing debt — not opportunistic investments banking on future growth. This means valuations are being forced downward, especially for assets that were purchased or refinanced at ultra-low rates in 2021–2022. Consumer behavior is also in transition. Household formation is slowing, and personal savings rates are slowly ticking up although they are significantly down from longer term averages – which could reflect folks bracing for economic turbulence. U.S. household formation currently stands at 1.058 million, down 7.68% from last month’s 1.146 million and down 47.73% from 2.024 million a year ago. Looking globally, demand for U.S. Treasuries remains a critical economic indicator that has trickling effects on the economy . A strong bid-to-cover ratio — like the 2.67x seen at the June 11th 10-Year Treasury auction , with nearly 88% of bids from foreign banks — is encouraging. It suggests continued faith in U.S. fiscal credibility and currency strength despite market apprehensions in our strength, such as the US credit rating being downgraded by Moody’s. This equilibrium is rather fragile. Should the U.S. continue to run massive budget deficits with a debt-to-GDP ratio north of 120% , investors may begin to demand higher yields — or worse, seek refuge in alternative stores of value. Gold is one such store. The World Gold Council recently reported that 76% of central banks expect to increase their gold holdings over the next five years , up from 69% in 2023. This flight to real assets reflects growing concern about the long-term value of fiat currencies — and a desire to hedge against systemic risk. The Bottom Line  Rates are likely to remain high through 2025 and into 2026 Inflation remains persistent but progress has been unclear Growth is slowing, and volatility is rising Real estate is repricing around debt maturity events Global capital is shifting cautiously, looking for safety At Alpha Equity Group, we believe this is a time for discipline, not risk-taking. We’re staying patient, watching the data, and investing defensively — focusing on secured debt positions and capital preservation. While others chase uncertain upside, we’re building long-term value through downside protection while we wait out the convergence of dozens of factors completely outside our control.
Show More