CRE Maturities Move From Delays to Decision Time
The question's not whether a loan is performing but whether the capital stack still works, according to Dundon Advisers' Victor Baev.
CRE loan maturities are no longer just a looming deadline for commercial real estate borrowers. After several years of extensions, modifications and delayed resolutions, the market is moving into a more decisive phase, one in which income-producing assets may still struggle to refinance under today’s higher borrowing costs, lower leverage and reset valuations.
For Victor Baev, managing director at E1 Capital | Dundon Advisers, the key question is not simply how much debt is coming due but whether each loan can support a refinancing under current underwriting standards.
In this interview, Baev discusses the pressure building around maturing CRE loans, the proceeds gaps often complicating refinancings, the lender calculus behind extensions and enforcement and the difference between a manageable maturity issue and deeper asset-level distress.
READ ALSO: 2026 Top Commercial Real Estate Finance Firms
As CRE loan maturities move from wait-and-see into a more critical phase, what makes a loan financeable today, and what usually prevents a viable takeout?
Baev: As we see it, “financeable today” means the loan can clear current capital markets math—not just that the property is performing. Lenders are sizing to in-place net operating income, current debt yield, debt service coverage, loan-to-value and cap rates at today’s financing cost. The loan has to work on day-one cash flow, not on a heroic leasing, rate cut or valuation recovery assumption. A durable rent roll, a property type with multiple lending channels and a sponsor who has shown a willingness to support the asset will generally find a takeout. The proceeds may come in below the maturing balance, but if the asset is liquid, the sponsor credible and the gap manageable, the loan typically can get refinanced or modified.
What prevents a viable takeout is usually not the lack of lending capacity, but a proceeds gap. A loan underwritten at a 3.5 percent coupon supported far more proceeds than the same cash flow supports at 6.5 or 7.0 percent, and senior leverage that once reached 70 or 75 percent of value now stops closer to 55 or 60 percent, often against a lower collateral value following a markdown. Even a performing property can face a meaningful gap between the new loan and the old balance. Add an expiring rate cap, deferred capital needs, weak leasing velocity or a thin lender base for the asset class and the gap widens further. At that point, the question becomes who writes the equity check to bridge it, and that decision, more than anything happening at the property, determines whether the takeout happens.
How are lenders deciding which borrowers or assets deserve more time and which situations require foreclosure, a note sale or another resolution?
Baev: The first screen is sponsor behavior and new money commitment. A borrower who engages early, funds shortfalls and brings a credible plan will almost always get a conversation about time. A borrower who has stopped funding the asset has effectively made the lender’s decision.
The second screen is asset trajectory. If occupancy and net operating income are stabilizing, an extension or modification paired with a paydown, reserve funding or fresh equity can be rational for both sides. If the numbers are still deteriorating, more time simply transfers value from the lender to the borrower. This is when lenders start looking harder at foreclosure, note sales and discounted payoffs.
Different lenders also run that math differently. Banks are under pressure from regulators and their own boards to show resolution progress, which has pushed more of them toward note sales, where they give up some recovery in exchange for speed and certainty. In securitized structures, appraisal reductions and the priorities of the controlling class steer the special servicer’s path.
Foreclosure is usually the last path chosen because it is slow, expensive and uncertain. It tends to be the outcome when the sponsor has walked away, the updated value sits clearly below the debt, the asset needs capital that the current borrower will not provide and the lender believes a new owner with capital and a plan can create more value than another extension.
LIKE THIS CONTENT? Subscribe to CPE’s Capital Markets Newsletter
In the current market, the borrowers and assets getting time are those where time is value-preserving. The situations moving toward foreclosure, note sale or liquidation are those where time is simply delaying loss recognition.
Recent CMBS data shows both sides of that decision tree: Some large loans have cured or reverted to current after resolution discussions, while others have moved into foreclosure or liquidation, particularly in office and challenged retail. According to May remittance data, there were liquidations of $213 million across 10 notes with an average loss severity of 71.9 percent, including Pecanland Mall in Monroe, La., and 200 West Monroe, a CBD office tower in Chicago, as two of the larger losses. Conduit and SASB delinquencies also rose alongside several high-profile office foreclosures.
As senior lenders reduce leverage, are borrowers filling the gap with debt or equity?
Baev: Both things are happening, and the split depends on how deep the hole is. For assets that are close to penciling, the structured capital markets are open. Preferred equity, mezzanine debt and private credit capital are actively bridging the space between a smaller senior loan and the maturing balance, particularly where the asset is still performing, the sponsor is credible and the gap is not so large that the new capital is simply protecting an impaired basis. That has become one of the most common execution paths for maturities that need time, but not a full ownership reset.
The capital is expensive. For cleaner situations, low-to-mid-teens all-in is a reasonable shorthand. For rescue capital, the required return can move into the high teens and often comes with PIK, fees, equity participation, governance rights or a path to control. That cost only makes sense where the sponsor believes property value can recover enough to refinance the capital out or sell the asset within a few years.
Where the gap is larger, the marginal dollar still comes from common equity, either the existing sponsor writing a cash-in check to defend basis, a new investor recapitalizing the deal at a reset value or existing equity being diluted behind a preferred-equity or rescue-capital layer. Rescue capital is selective by design. It wants a repriced basis, structural priority and downside protection. It can resolve situations by restructuring them, but it usually means forcing the capital stack to recognize the new value of the asset.
So, the answer is not that preferred equity, mezzanine debt, private credit and rescue capital eliminate the maturity problem. They create more paths to resolution for assets that are still financeable. But when the old loan balance is too high relative to current NOI and value, the marginal solution is still common equity accepting dilution, writing new money or handing the keys to a new capital provider. The maturities that clear fastest are the ones where the sponsor accepts that math early.
Office distress has drawn the most attention, but not every maturity problem is the same. For CPE readers, how should we distinguish between a technical maturity default, operating distress and deeper asset impairment?
Baev: A maturity default is a capital-stack and capital-market conditions problem, not necessarily a property problem. The property may be performing and current on debt service right up to maturity, but the loan cannot be refinanced at the existing balance under today’s rates, values and lender advance rates. In CMBS, that often shows up as a performing or nonperforming matured balloon loan. These situations can be frustrating, but they are also the most fixable: the solution is usually an extension, a paydown, new equity, preferred equity, mezzanine capital, or some other structure that right-sizes the debt until the asset can be refinanced or sold.
Operating distress is a cash flow problem. Occupancy is falling, leasing velocity is weak, expenses have run ahead of rents and debt service coverage is eroding. That may still be curable with capital and competent management, but only if the lender believes the net operating income trajectory can stabilize with time, capital and better execution. The key underwriting question is whether the trend line is actually bending, or whether the borrower is simply asking for more time while the collateral continues to deteriorate.
Deeper asset impairment is a demand problem. The building no longer earns its keep in its current form. That is where a meaningful share of commodity office sits today, especially older buildings in weaker locations with limited tenant demand and high capex needs. Lower rates do not solve that by themselves. Those assets need a basis reset large enough to fund conversion, repositioning, or a new ownership plan, and in some cases, they ultimately transfer to the lender or a new capital provider.
The practical test for readers is to ask where the problem lives: in the capital stack, in the operating statement or in the asset itself. The remedy is different in each case.
LISTEN TO: FTI Experts’ Hub Podcast: Why Property Valuations Diverge
What would need to change for more overleveraged or maturity-constrained CRE loans to move through the system: lower rates, more lender loss recognition, more equity, stronger NOI growth, or something else?
Baev: All of those levers matter, but they are not equal. Lower rates help the marginal deal. Every 50 basis points of rate relief moves some loans back into refinanceable territory by improving DSCR and debt yield. Stronger NOI growth helps, too, though it moves unevenly across property types. It matters for multifamily, industrial, hotel and better retail. It matters much less for a lower-tier commodity office asset with impaired tenant demand. Neither one rescues a deeply underwater loan.
The real constraint is price discovery and loss recognition. There is capital available for CRE, but it seeks to invest at the right valuation. That means lenders, bondholders and existing sponsors have to accept where the asset actually clears today. Until that happens, the market remains stuck in a standoff. Every sale, appraisal reduction and discounted payoff creates a data point that brings transparency for the next deal to clear.
This process has been accelerating, and transaction pricing has bridged a wide bid/offer. From where we sit in the securitized markets, that is the encouraging part of the story. CMBS trades in public markets, which forces conversations that bank balance sheets can defer. The faster lenders accept the implied valuation, the faster equity sponsors recalibrate and allow the CRE maturity wall to turn from a standoff into a transaction pipeline.
So, lower rates would help, NOI growth would help, and more equity is necessary. But the system really starts moving when the old capital stack accepts the new value of the asset. Once that happens, there is enough capital to finance the survivors.
You must be logged in to post a comment.