Michael Comparato
Analyst · Raymond James
Gabe, thanks for the question. I appreciate it. I'll channel my inner Charles Dickens and say it's kind of a tale of 2 -- the best of times and the worst of times when it comes to Class A new vintage to the older stuff. It seems like everybody, whether that is equity or credit, wants to be in the nicer, newer vintage, higher-quality assets. It's easy for an equity investor to walk into their investment committee or look themselves in the mirror and say, okay, I'm buying a brand-new asset below replacement cost, construction starts have declined, supply is declining. If I own this thing for 5, 7 years, 10 years, as long as I just operate it correctly, don't over lever it, I'm probably going to have a pretty good investment experience. For credit guys, it's the same exact conversation. It's slightly different, but it has the same foundations, which is this is the best -- new best asset in the market. If the buyer is below replacement cost, we're substantially below replacement cost. And I just think that, that's a very, very easy thesis for people to understand and sink their teeth into. For example, I mean, Austin is the most -- probably 1 of the 3 most oversupplied markets in the country. We closed 2 loans last quarter in Austin on brand-new delivered stuff, I think 2024, maybe even the 2025 vintage assets, where we were lending at $135,000 to $140,000 a unit. And we just kind of all looked at ourselves and said, if that's not money good, wow, like we're in trouble. So I think that everybody is kind of piling into that space. And I think the exact same is true of people avoiding kind of the 1970s and 1980s vintage stuff. It feels like that has to correct a little bit more on cap rates. There are a small handful of equity investors that are actively trying to play in that 1980s vintage stuff. And I don't think you're going to get more equity investors there until you see returns adequately reflect the additional risk of buying kind of that older vintage asset. So I would say we've generally avoided it as well from a lender standpoint. But with the void there, we are slowly talking about does it make sense to go back into some of that 1980 vintage stuff if we're getting paid appropriately, if our attachment point is priced appropriately. So definitely a tale of 2 different worlds, and it will be interesting to see how that kind of plays out over the course of the next 12 to 18 months. But I do still think that older vintage stuff has to correct a little bit more. With respect -- I'm sorry for the long-winded answer, but with respect to equity investment, yes, with respect to the equity investments, we always look at them and just say, is this the type of stuff that we want to own long term? As you and I have talked about, as I've talked about with the market, we are generally bullish on commercial real estate. I think what's always left out of that question of debt versus equity is duration. And commercial real estate is an outstanding inflation hedge. If you own it long enough and just let inflation compound and let inflation do a thing, you're probably going to have a good investment experience. So every time we've got a loan that is downgraded to a 4 or downgraded to a 5, we sit in the room and we have a conversation, hey, is this the type of asset that we want to own for the next 5, 7, 10 years? Or is it time to move on, take our licks and just reinvest the capital. So -- and that question -- that answer is different, obviously, for every asset and location that we look at. But it is certainly something that we take into consideration. I think there's probably some assets that we wish we kept a little bit longer, but it is something that certainly goes into the narrative and something that we talk about actively.