Every new fund on my desk is a debt fund now. Is that the trade or the crowd?

Question

Five offerings have come across in the last four months and four of them are credit. Two are first time debt funds from equity shops that have never originated a loan, one is a traditional investment house extending into real estate lending, one is a second vintage from an actual bridge lender. Private real estate fundraising was up 13 percent to $172 billion in 2025 and a lot of that increase seems to be aimed at the same place.

The case for debt is straightforward. Current income from month one instead of a five year hold with a J curve, someone else's equity absorbing the first 30 percent of loss, and a two to three year duration so you find out whether you were right before the fund's term is up. Banks pulling back leaves origination volume for whoever will do it.

The case against is also straightforward. When everybody launches a credit fund at once, spreads compress and underwriting standards go with them, because a fund with a fee running has to deploy. A first time credit team at an equity shop is learning workout on my dollars. And the equity side is where the repricing happened, so buying at today's basis with a five year hold is the position that actually benefits from rates coming down rather than the one that gets refinanced away.

I don't know which of these I believe. The debt pitch is more comfortable to read and I've learned to distrust that in myself.

omar_haddad · Answer

I'm the borrower in these funds, or the guy doing the work for the borrower, and it looks different from underneath.

The loans getting written at 11 and 12 percent are funding renovation scopes, and the scopes are the part that slips. I've been on jobs where the sponsor budgeted $18k a unit, opened the first walls, found galvanized supply lines and a panel that couldn't carry the new HVAC, and the real number was $27k. That gap comes out of the interest reserve first, then out of the timeline, and then the loan hits maturity with the property half stabilized. Which is exactly the extension-and-PIK story @vellum posted in the other thread.

So when a credit fund tells you they're at 70 percent loan to cost, ask whose cost. If the sponsor's renovation budget is 30 percent light, the real attachment point is higher than the document says. A first time credit team out of an equity shop at least knows what a scope should cost, which is one point in their favor over a bond desk learning real estate.

tonyv88 · Answer

From managing other people's portfolios, the sponsors in trouble right now are the ones who bought in 2021 and 2022 with floating debt and a rent growth assumption. The sponsors buying today are underwriting flat rents and paying attention to what the insurance renewal does. Those are different populations and lumping them into one view of the market gets people the wrong answer.

Which makes me lean equity on a 2026 vintage, with the caveat that I'd want a manager who has held through a bad stretch rather than one whose track record ends in 2021. @tally your last line is the right instinct. Debt reads comfortable because the loss is defined in a document, and the document assumes somebody wants the asset at the price in the appraisal.

Every new fund on my desk is a debt fund now. Is that the trade or the crowd?

2 replies