Except a mortgage broker. Many people ask me what I do, and its often difficult to answer them both concisely, and in layman's terms. Even those who know a thing or two about real estate, too often confuse my role with that of a mortgage broker.
A mortgage broker is a matchmaker of sorts, marrying borrower and lender together...at least until one of them wants a divorce. Sometimes the borrower cheats on the lender in the form of shopping for better rates to take out the existing lender through refinancing, and sometimes the lender cheats on the borrower by packaging their loan and selling it off to a third party.
The simple fact of the matter is that while they want to see a successful partnership, mortgage brokers don't work for the borrower, or the bank, but for themselves. Many consumers assume that a mortgage broker works for them for free, in the form of shopping for the best rates and terms, and then gets paid by the lender for providing them the ability to loan money. Funny. That's the equivalent of a commercial broker telling a buyer that they've scoured the market for better deals, and can't find one better than the deal they are listing for sale.
The truth is that if you, as a consumer, aren't paying the broker a fee directly, then the broker isn't working for you. Sometimes lenders will offer brokers a rate to push to their consumers, and the only way a broker makes money is by inflating this rate until the spread reaches a number representing a fee for which the broker is willing to work. The bigger problem however, is that in recent years, banks offered brokers more to push certain loan terms like adjustable rate mortgages. “The ways brokers were paid created a conflict of interest and really meant that the broker to a very large extent was financially rewarded by betraying the trust of the borrower,” said Representative Brad Miller, a Democrat from North Carolina who co-sponsored the legislation in the House of Representatives.
Real Estate Investment Bankers are different for a whole host of reasons. First and most obviously, is that we offer capital solutions spanning the entire capital stack, not just straight debt. This means we can provide access to secured and unsecured mezzanine, and preferred and joint venture equity in addition to debt. We also provide more ancillary services like access to high net worth individuals for credit enhancements, bridge debt, and hard money. It is our network and creativity in addition to our services that provide value to our clients.
Most importantly of course, is that while any intermediary technically has two clients, the seller and buyer, borrower and lender or what have you, investment banking counsel really only works for one of them, the borrower. Lenders are our client in the sense that they are a vital partner to our business. By working closely with them, we can better understand their needs, desires and constraints to doing business, which in turn helps make our job easier on behalf of the borrower, our true client. It is the borrower who retains us for our services. We earn our fee in that we are only paid thereafter for success. Lenders value investment banking counsel for the relationships we bring to them, not any services we provide them.
Borrowers on the other hand value us for an array of things. First and foremost is our access to capital. Banking is a relationship business, and in today's economy specifically, if you don't have a relationship, you've got nothing at all (deposits help a lot, though!). Second is our ability to structure a client's deal in a way that presents their case to potential lending sources in the most favorable light. This means that we increase the likelihood of funding since we understand how bankers want information presented to them. Third is our industry knowledge. By working with lenders frequently, we know what types of deals they want to see, which means we know the most likely candidates to be competitive for each specific deal. Fourth, we save the client time, and time is money. Many of our clients are successful real estate operators, but they didn't become successful by wasting their time on the phone with 100 capital partners, shopping for the best terms. Others are business owners, where real estate is not their forte. In either case, we act as a trusted advisor to our client. Furthermore, no lender would dare call a real estate investment banker's bluff if we told them we can do better.
So next time when you are speaking with your investment banking counsel, remember why they might be upset with you for insinuating they are "simply" a mortgage broker, and choose your words wisely.
For our Philly-centric readership, you will definitely want to check out The Philly 411, a new monthly contribution to GlobeSt.com, written by Llenrock Group's own Dave Jacobs. The feature discusses interesting commercial real estate related happenings in the greater metropolitan area, including news, rumors, and gossip.
Vornado Realty Trust VNO.N, owner of office and retail properties, said last Wednesday it now expects to raise net proceeds of $710 million from its equity offering, up from an earlier $617 million, as underwriters exercised their option to purchase additional shares.
The company, the most recent real estate investment trust to tap the equity markets for capital, said it intends to use the proceeds for general corporate purposes, including repaying debt and funding acquisitions.
Although the debt markets have been reluctant lately to make large loans to commercial real estate companies, equity investors have shown an appetite for new shares.
Property companies that have turned to the equity market for capital over the past month include Simon Property Group Inc SPG.N, AMB Property Corp (AMB.N), Kimco Realty Corp KIM.N and ProLogis PLD.N.
This makes it easier for these big public REITs to acquire, especially to acquire assets of recently bankrupt General Growth Properties.
All of this news of REITs raising equity with public offerings raises an interesting question. Is this the wave of the immediate future? Are REITs better suited than private real estate companies to capitalize on opportunities in the short run, and thus are better poised for success in the long run?
While private real estate companies, much like REITs can be both narrowly focused by product type, as well as well diversified, both have been hit hard during the current economic downturn. There are several advantages each have over the other.
REITs have the clear advantage in the ability to raise capital. In this environment, the astute investor can see an undervalued stock rather easily, since many stocks are based on historical valuations, dividends, growth etc. Since REITs are relatively lower levered than private real estate funds, their purchasing power is higher during the current economic climate. On the flip side, many worried private investors who haven't seen strong returns from their current and previous investments in private funds may be more hesitant to commit capital in the next fund. As any private operator will tell you, fundraising is as tantamount to large scale success in the industry as finding the right deals to buy. REITs also pay dividends, and are very liquid, which means investors can and will see returns on their investments much more quickly. With funds, capital is promised back to investors within a certain time frame, which if necessary can be many years.
Yet, there are still some clear cut advantages for private companies. The first is return thresholds. Most private real estate funds promise returns in the mid to high teens, sometimes doubling or tripling the returns of many REITs. Private funds are also not subject to the scrutiny of regulators because ownership remains private. As an aside to this fact, private funds aren't focused on quarterly results, and do not have to meet analysts' projections in order to stave off a sell off of their stock, and thus, their capital base. Also, unlike with any public company, with many private funds, returns, to a certain extent are promised, and not subject to the fluctuations of the markets. That being said, if a private operator fails and goes bankrupt, how secure are those returns? An investor is taking a lot of faith that the operator knows what they are doing, and is more innovative than the next guy in being able to remain afloat during unforeseen circumstances, like the tumultuous market we know find ourselves in.
One thing does remain clear in this debate. Cash is king. And REITs have more of it.
What are your thoughts on who is better poised to take advantage of current market conditions?
Posts
All Comments
