News Archive

News

UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School Wins 4th Annual CREFC Real Estate Debt Case Competition  

April 11, 2025

Undergraduate and Graduate Students Compete for $45,000 in Prize Money 
  
NEW YORK, April 11, 2025
– The CRE Finance Council (CREFC), the trade association that exclusively represents the nearly $6 trillion commercial and multifamily real estate finance industry, hosted its 4th Annual Real Estate Debt Case Competition in New York City this week. The event attracted graduate and undergraduate students from 10 U.S. universities with top-rated real estate programs.

Students with a focus on commercial real estate finance participated in this invitation-only competition and competed for a total of $45,000 in prize money.
  
Winners of the 4th Annual Debt Case Competition are: 

  • 1st place - UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School 
  • 2nd place - University of Wisconsin – Madison School of Business
  • 3rd place - Cornell University 

“Now in its fourth year, the CREFC Real Estate Debt Case Study Competition brings together talented graduate and undergraduate students with a deep commitment to commercial real estate finance. We want to thank the student teams participating this year and the senior members of CREFC who served as the competition’s judges. These senior industry professionals offered their valuable expertise in guiding our up-and-coming CRE finance professionals,” said Lisa Pendergast, President and CEO, CREFC. 

“We also want to thank Ares Management LLC for their work in developing a debt case that served as the framework for our competition.”
  
The 10 U.S. universities with top-rated real estate programs invited to participate in this competition include:

  • Columbia University
  • Cornell University
  • Florida State University
  • NYU Schack Institute of Real Estate
  • UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School
  • University of Chicago Booth School of Business
  • University of Florida
  • University of Wisconsin – Madison School of Business
  • UT Austin McCombs School of Business
  • Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
Competitors presented their analyses of a CRE lending decision using a case study based on a real-world transaction. The teams were given one week to prepare their analyses and presentations. At the competition, each team presented to a panel of senior CRE executives who served as judges. Teams were appraised on their overall analysis, conclusion, and presentation skills. Winners from a preliminary round advanced to compete in the final round.
  
The competition supports CREFC’s educational objectives to provide meaningful programming and networking opportunities to students and young professionals. CREFC’s Annual Real Estate Debt Case Competition also helps raise the profile of CRE finance among top universities and their students.
  
For additional information on the Real Estate Debt Case Competition or the CREFC Young Professionals Network, please contact Danielle Nathan.
  
About CREFC
The CRE Finance Council (CREFC) is the trade association for the nearly $6 trillion commercial real estate finance industry with a membership that includes approximately 400 companies and 19,000 individuals. Member firms include balance sheet and securitized lenders, loan and bond investors, private equity firms, servicers, rating agencies, and borrowers. For more than 30 years, CREFC has promoted liquidity, transparency, and efficiency in the commercial real estate finance markets. We function as an important legislative and regulatory advocate for the industry, play a vital role in setting market standards and best practices, and provide education for market participants.
  
Contact:
Aleksandrs Rozens
arozens@crefc.org
646-884-7567
 

Contact 

Aleksandrs Rozens
Senior Director,
Communications
646.884.7567
arozens@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
UNC Kenan-Flagler Business School Wins 4th Annual CREFC Real Estate Debt Case Competition
April 11, 2025
The CRE Finance Council hosted its 4th Annual Real Estate Debt Case Competition in New York City this week.

News

First 100 Days: Regulatory Update

April 8, 2025

The Senate Banking Committee advanced three key nominations on April 3.

  • Paul Atkins (Securities and Exchange Committee Chair nominee) and Jonathan Gould (nominee to serve as Comptroller of the Currency) were both reported favorably to the full Senate in a 13-11 party-line vote.
  • Luke Pettit, nominated to serve as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, received broader bipartisan support and was reported favorably in a 19-5 vote.

The nominees could be considered on the full Senate floor as early as this week. Please see here for CREFC’s Regulatory Tracker.

Additionally, the Banking Committee will conduct a hearing on April 10 on several nominations, including one for Fed Governor Michelle Bowman for Fed Vice Chair for Supervision.

Earlier in the week, House Committee on Financial Services (HCFS) Chairman French Hill (R-AR) and members of the committee sent letters to several financial regulatory agencies requesting the rescission, modification, or re-proposal of specific Biden-Harris Administration actions. In a joint letter to the banking agencies, the lawmakers warned that the cumulative weight of recent regulatory actions “threatens to impair economic growth and the competitiveness of the U.S. financial system.” 

Specific concerns included, among others, the:
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s climate risk guidance;
  • The Federal Reserve’s capital proposals; 
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Section 1071 small business data rule; and 
  • SEC’s digital asset enforcement strategy.

Separately, on March 31, the OCC withdrew its participation in interagency principles for climate-related financial risk management for large financial institutions, with Acting Comptroller Rodney Hood stating that the: 

OCC’s existing guidance for banks to maintain a sound risk management framework applies to all activities conducted by supervised institutions and includes potential exposures to severe weather events or natural disasters.
A Politico article, also published on March 31, reported that “top Wall Street institutions are preparing for a severe future of global warming that blows past the temperature limits agreed to by more than 190 nations a decade ago.”

  • Reports from Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, and the Institute of International Finance (IIF) “describe how top financial institutions plan to continue operating profitably as temperatures and damages soar.”
  • The IIF report stated:
Financial institutions need to recalibrate targets to reflect that 1.5°C are no longer suitable as strategic goals. Reputational concerns may arise in the absence of an aligned view amongst stakeholders on how such processes should be handled, and what criteria may need to be applied.
Please contact Sairah Burki (sburki@crefc.org) with any questions.
 

Contact 

Sairah Burki
Managing Director,
Head of Regulatory Affairs and Sustainability
703.201.4294
sburki@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
First 100 Days: Regulatory Update
April 08, 2025
The Senate Banking Committee advanced three key nominations on April 3.

News

Dueling Congressional Letters Praise and Question New FHFA Director

April 8, 2025

Senate Republicans and Democrats have signaled growing interest—and in some cases, concern—about the direction of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) under Director William Pulte. House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) also raised concerns in a letter sent yesterday. 

Republicans Call for Oversight and Accountability: On April 3, Senate Banking Committee Republicans led by Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a letter to Director Pulte expressing concerns over waste, fraud, and abuse at the agency. 

“The American dream will remain out of reach for so many if the agencies tasked with serving the housing market are serving themselves. I urge you to continue identifying waste, fraud, and abuse, as well as inefficiencies at the FHFA and its regulated entities.” — Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)

To that end, the letter praises Pulte for two specific actions:

  • An interview where Pulte claims to have uncovered a multimillion dollar settlement between the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and “a former Biden political appointee who had worked there only for a few months.”
  • Pulte’s claim that only 49 of 2900 Fannie Mae employees were reporting to the office in person for the full work week.

Democrats Question Recent FHFA Actions and Procedure: Two earlier letters from a mix of Senate Democrats question recent moves by Pulte, including a number of FHFA and government sponsored enterprise dismissals and policy reversals. 

Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) led a letter, co-signed by seven fellow Democrats, that raised concerns and requested answers to a series of questions: 

  • Specific plans on GSE conservatorship exit,
  • FHFA and the GSE personnel cuts, 
  • FHFA’s coordination with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), 
  • Director Pulte’s publication of orders through a personal X account, and
  • The legality of the FHFA Director serving on GSE boards. 
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) led a similar letter that focused on FHFA’s changes to Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s boards. Reed and five of his colleagues allege that the changes to GSE boards resulted in a lack of a majority of independent directors, which the letter claims is required under FHFA and SEC regulations.

Both Democratic letters are a sharp departure from Pulte’s smooth committee hearing (see our previous coverage), though most of the questions during the hearing were focused on the CFPB nominee. 

Meanwhile, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) followed up with a letter on April 5 that echoed the themes of the Senate Democrats’ letter and questioned the dismantling of various diversity inclusion offices and programs. Waters cited statutory provisions in Dodd-Frank and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act that mandate Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion at each financial regulator. 
 
CREFC will continue to monitor congressional engagement with FHFA.
 
Contact David McCarthy (dmccarthy@crefc.org) with any questions. 
 

Contact 

David McCarthy
Managing Director,
Chief Lobbyist, Head of Legislative Affairs
202.448.0855
dmccarthy@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
Dueling Congressional Letters Praise and Question New FHFA Director
April 08, 2025
Senate Republicans and Democrats have signaled growing interest—and in some cases, concern—about the direction of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) under Director William Pulte.

News

Senate Passes New Reconciliation Plan

April 8, 2025

On April 5, the Senate passed another reconciliation budget to advance tax legislation and other spending priorities. The bill passed 51-48 with two GOP Senators joining all Democrats in opposition. 

Why it matters: The Senate action gets closer to the House resolution and President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill,” but key differences remain. 
 
By the numbers: The Senate resolution would allow for an extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) as well as new tax priorities. Other provisions raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, allow for additional spending cuts, and provide for new spending on defense, border, and energy.

Tax: Senate GOP leadership opted to use the “current policy” baseline for calculating the expiring tax cuts, which will allow the Senate to renew TCJA provisions without counting them as adding to the deficit. 

  • Reconciliation requires instructions on specific floors and ceilings for raising and lowering the deficit. Procedurally this is done either through spending cuts/increases or tax cuts/increases.
  • Thus, the Senate Finance Committee was instructed to raise deficits by no more than $1.5 trillion—though critics point out it is really $5.3 trillion with TCJA renewal. 

Spending Cuts: Unlike the House bill that mandated at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the Senate bill implements a floor of $4 billion in cuts. 

  • The resolution gives substantial flexibility to Senate Committees in cutting spending, which may help persuade Republicans wary of Medicare cuts but has frustrated some deficit hawks. 
  • A “deficit neutral reserve fund” also serves as a placeholder for $2 trillion in cuts that “include policy changes that reduce the deficit through reconciliation, executive action, or rescissions by Congress and the President.” It is unclear how this will function or if deficit hardliners will accept these cuts as sufficient.

Debt Ceiling: The $5 trillion increase to the debt limit may add extra urgency to the whole timeline. 

  • Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview last week that the government could hit the “X date” as early as May or June. 
  • As we covered last week, the Congressional Budget Office predicted a late summer “X date” but cautioned federal tax collection levels could accelerate the date. Bessent expects to provide a formal update to Congress in mid-May. 
What’s next: With the Senate bill passed, the House must enact the same resolution to begin the next step of reconciliation, which will include specific tax proposals, cuts, and spending. GOP leaders intend to bring the bill to the House floor on Wednesday and will likely lean on the President to convince hardliners that spending cuts will be sufficient, as he did with the previous House bill. 

Contact David McCarthy (dmccarthy@crefc.org) with any questions.
 

Contact  

David McCarthy
Managing Director,
Chief Lobbyist, Head of Legislative Affairs
202.448.0855
dmccarthy@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
Senate Passes New Reconciliation Plan
April 08, 2025
On April 5, the Senate passed another reconciliation budget to advance tax legislation and other spending priorities. The bill passed 51-48 with two GOP Senators joining all Democrats in opposition.

News

Special Elections Recap

April 8, 2025

Special April 1 elections in Florida and Wisconsin attracted national focus because they were seen as a litmus test for voter sentiment toward the new administration and its early policies. 

  • Republicans won both deep-red congressional seats in Florida, though by slimmer margins. 
  • The Wisconsin Supreme Court seat went to a liberal candidate by a margin of 10 points.

The Florida special elections were held to fill vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives’ 1st and 6th congressional districts.

  • Republican Jimmy Patronis won Florida’s 1st District with 57% to Democrat Gay Valimont’s 42%, a 15-point margin—down sharply from Matt Gaetz’s 32-point win in 2024.
  • In the 6th District, Republican Randy Fine won 57% to Democrat Josh Weil’s 42.7%, cutting the GOP margin from 33 points in 2024 to just 14. Both Democrats significantly overperformed, signaling a shift in these deep-red districts.

These results may indicate a new trend showing that Democratic candidates can make significant gains in districts that have been reliably Republican. Both parties are parsing this data to see if it signals a potential shift in voter dynamics ahead of the 2026 midterms.

However, in the near term, these victories bolster the Republican majority in the House to 220-213, providing a slight advantage for advancing the GOP’s legislative agenda.

Go deeper: Recent federal workforce reductions have significantly impacted Florida's 1st and 6th Congressional Districts, both of which have substantial federal employment due to numerous military installations and government facilities. Campaign ads focused on recent DOGE cuts and Elon Musk’s role in the government.
 
The 1st District encompasses the Florida Panhandle, home to several military bases such as Eglin Air Force Base, the region’s largest installation.

  • This area has a high concentration of military and civilian federal employees. Given the district's reliance on military installations, recent defense cuts have led to significant local job losses.

The 6th District includes areas such as Daytona Beach and Volusia County, regions with notable federal employment, particularly in Veterans Affairs (VA) services.

  •  The VA has recently proposed eliminating over 70,000 positions nationwide, which has raised concerns about the delivery of services to veterans in this district. With approximately 60% of residents receiving benefits through Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, the proposed cuts have heightened anxieties among constituents.
In Wisconsin’ Supreme Court election, the single seat up for election attracted considerable attention due to its potential impact on the court's ideological balance. Republicans have been concerned that the court’s liberal majority could overturn Wisconsin’s congressional maps, which currently favor the GOP 6(R) to 2(D). 

  • Wisconsin judicial races are non-partisan and the candidates were referred to in national media as “liberal” and “conservative.” 
  • Dane County Circuit Judge Susan Crawford, identified with the liberal bloc, defeated Waukesha County Circuit Judge and former State Attorney General Brad Schimel, a conservative. Crawford's victory maintains the court's 4-3 liberal majority.
  • The election saw unprecedented spending, with total expenditures approaching $100 million. A significant portion of this funding came from billionaire Elon Musk, who contributed over $25 million in support of Schimel and hosted a rally supporting Schimel.
  • Despite the spending, liberal Susan Crawford won by 10 points, framing the race as “the people vs Elon Musk.” Notably, President Trump himself did not get involved in the race, though he endorsed the conservative candidate. 
The bottom line: Elon Musk had a visible impact on the April 1 elections both through his funding GOP campaigns and his personal appearances ahead of the vote.

Democrats may use these special election victories as a playbook for the upcoming midterms. However, the so-called DOGE effect on individual elections may look very different in late 2026 than it does today.

Please contact James Montfort at (Jmontfort@crefc.corg) with any questions.

Contact  

James Montfort
Manager,
Government Relations
202.448.0857
jmontfort@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
Special Elections Recap
April 08, 2025
Special April 1 elections in Florida and Wisconsin attracted national focus because they were seen as a litmus test for voter sentiment toward the new administration and its early policies.

News

CFPB to Revisit Small Business Data Rule

April 8, 2025

In light of ongoing legal challenges, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said on April 3 that it will reissue the Dodd-Frank-mandated 1071 requirements regarding data that lenders must collect and report on small-business loans.

Why it matters: The rule was set to phase in compliance starting this summer, but the CFPB action likely will delay implementation while the rule is changed.

  • Separately, the House Financial Services Committee advanced H.R. 976, a bill to repeal the Dodd-Frank requirement mandating data collection. 
  • The bill authored by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) passed out of committee on a party-line vote 27-22. While the bill could advance to the House floor, the legislation is unlikely to garner 60 votes to pass the Senate. 

As reported by American Banker, the CFPB, in a legal filing in Revenue Based Finance Coalition v. CFPB, stated: 

CFPB's new leadership has directed staff to initiate a new Section 1071 rulemaking. The CFPB anticipates issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as expeditiously as reasonably possible. Because the anticipated rulemaking process may be moot or otherwise resolve this litigation, holding this matter in abeyance would conserve the Court's resources.
Background: The CFPB rule, effective as of August 2023, requires small-business lenders to collect data on the race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation of those who apply for small business loans. The stated goal was to monitor the accessibility of small business loans and fight discrimination under federal fair lending laws. 

Why it matters to CRE: The CFPB did not exempt commercial real estate mortgages from the final rule.

However, several factors would likely have limited the impact to CREFC members.

  • The small business threshold generally impacted a business with under $5 million in gross annual revenue.
  • Affiliate revenue counted in determining if the borrower is a small business. If the legal borrower was a special purpose entity, the owners or affiliate revenue could have proven that it was not a small business.
  • A lender must have made 100 loans to small businesses in each of the preceding two years to be required to report. For CREFC members, that means 100 loans made to borrowers with under $5 million in gross annual revenue (including affiliates). But the threshold is institution-wide, not limited to a particular business line.
  • Multifamily loans were excluded from 1071 reporting since they are already accounted for in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) reporting.
Yes, but: Financial institutions with a dedicated small business lending platform would likely have been impacted. Therefore, they would have had to report data on their CRE loans to small businesses, even if that business line had not made 100 CRE loans. 
 
CREFC will continue to monitor 1071-related developments.

Contact David McCarthy (dmccarthy@crefc.org) and Sairah Burki (sburki@crefc.org) with any questions.
 

Contact 

Sairah Burki
Managing Director,
Head of Regulatory Affairs and Sustainability
703.201.4294
sburki@crefc.org

David McCarthy
Managing Director,
Chief Lobbyist, Head of Legislative Affairs
202.448.0855
dmccarthy@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
CFPB to Revisit Small Business Data Rule
April 08, 2025
In light of ongoing legal challenges, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said on April 3 that it will reissue the Dodd-Frank-mandated 1071 requirements regarding data that lenders must collect and report on small-business loans.

News

Capital Markets Update Week of 4/8

March 4, 2025

Private-Label CMBS and CRE CLOs

Three transactions totaling $1.9 billion priced last week:

  • BANK5 2025-5YR14, an $884.4 million conduit backed by 25 five-year loans secured by 72 properties across 17 states and Washington, D.C., from Wells, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, and BofA.
  • ARES1 2025-IND3, a $563.9 million SASB backed by a floating-rate, five-year loan (at full extension) for Ares Management on 37 industrial properties totaling 7.4 million sf in nine states. The loan proceeds are being used primarily to pay down corporate debt that helped finance the property acquisitions.
  • GSMS 2025-800D, a $473.7 million SASB backed by a floating-rate, five-year loan (at full extension) for DigiCo Infrastructure REIT, an Australian REIT established by HMC Capital, an alternative asset manager. The loan is secured by the borrower's fee-simple interest in a hyperscale data center property currently under construction, located in Elk Grove Village, Ill. The conversion of the data center is expected to be completed in phases and is subject to completion guaranty. According to Commercial Mortgage Alert

Some deemed the unstabilized nature of the collateral to be overly aggressive for a CMBS issue, while others welcomed the chance to invest in higher-yielding securities in a sector being billed by bankers as an up-and-comer.
By the Numbers: Year-to-date private-label CMBS and CRE CLO issuance totaled $46.5 billion, representing a 127% increase from the $20.5 billion recorded for the same period in 2024. 

Pace of Issuance Slowing: January and February issuance this year was at one of the fastest paces in years; however, issuance started to slow in March, with only 1-3 deals pricing per week, as trade uncertainty and potential recession talk took hold. According to BofA Global Research,
This is not to say that the new issue ‘spigot’ has been shut off, although until market volatility decreases it is likely to slow to a trickle of the pace seen earlier this year.
Spreads Widen as Economic Growth Expectations Lowered

  • Conduit AAA spreads widened by 13 bps to +105, while A-S spreads widened by 20 bps to +160.
  • Conduit AA spreads widened by 40 bps to +220, while A spreads widened by 30 bps to +250.
  • Conduit BBB- spreads widened by 50 bps to +550.
  • SASB AAA spreads widened by 5 bps, ranging from +145 to +155, depending on the property type.
  • CRE CLO AAA spreads widened by 5 bps to +150/+155 (Static/Managed), while BBB- spreads were unchanged at +370/+385 (Static/Managed). 
Agency CMBS
  • Agency issuance totaled $2.3 billion last week, comprising $1.1 billion of Freddie K and Multi-PC transactions, $874.8 million of Fannie DUS, and $328.2 million of Ginnie transactions.
  • Agency issuance for the year totaled $33.8 billion, 30% higher than the $26.1 billion for the same period last year.
The Economy, the Fed, and Rates…

Economic Data

March Jobs Report Exceeds Forecasts: Nonfarm payrolls increased by 228,000 in March, well above the Wall Street consensus estimate of 140,000. This strong performance suggests the labor market was holding up well before President Trump's aggressive tariffs start making their way through the economy. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2% from 4.1%, largely due to rounding effects.

Manufacturing and Services Weakness: The ISM Manufacturing PMI slipped into contraction in March, while the Services PMI pointed to slower expansion. Most indicators of services activity fell below their 10-year averages – including employment, which slipped into contraction. Tariff front-running likely supported activity measures in March, masking further weakness beneath the surface.
 
Job Market Outlook Deteriorates: Some economists expect the impact on the labor market to be severe, with projections for unemployment to rise nearly a percentage point to 5% this year. Bloomberg economists project the unemployment rate could reach 4.8% by the fourth quarter as the economy absorbs the impact of tariffs.

JPMorgan Forecast: JPMorgan economists raised the odds of a recession in the global economy to 60% from 40% previously. Chief U.S. economist Michael Feroli now expects real GDP to contract, projecting growth of -0.3% for the full year (4Q/4Q), down from 1.3% previously.

Bear Market Implications: According to research by Ned Davis Research, bear markets accompanied by recessions had a median duration of 528 calendar days and a market decline of 32.8%. Bear markets that occurred without recessions had a median duration of 224 days and a decline of 23.3%.

Federal Reserve Policy

Powell's Cautious Stance:
Fed Chair Jerome Powell said it was "too soon to say what will be the appropriate path for monetary policy," but expressed concern that the economic impact of new tariffs will likely be "significantly larger than expected" and could include "higher inflation and slower growth."

Inflation Concern:
Powell warned that while tariffs would generate "at least a temporary rise in inflation, it is also possible that the effects could be more persistent." He emphasized the Fed's "obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem."

Policy Dilemma:
The combination of higher prices and weaker growth poses a dilemma for the Fed. In a moderated discussion, Powell acknowledged that the combination of higher unemployment and higher inflation would be "difficult" for the Fed to navigate given its dual goals of fostering a healthy labor market and low, stable inflation.

Rate Expectations Shift: Money markets are now fully pricing in four quarter-point rate reductions by year-end, with rising odds of a fifth cut – up from just three cuts priced in before the levies were announced. However, Bloomberg Economics now projects the Fed is likely to cut rates only once this year, by 25 basis points, as it prioritizes its price-stability mandate over its full-employment goal.

Inflation Projections: Alan Detmeister, a former Fed economist now at UBS, forecasts that the Fed's preferred inflation gauge could spike to around 4.5% by the end of the year before peaking close to 5% in early 2026 as growth slows. Inflation could remain stuck around 3% into 2027.

Trump's Tariff Policy

Historic Tariff Levels: President Donald Trump announced "reciprocal tariffs" that were higher and more extensive than anticipated, raising the average U.S. tariff rate to nearly 22%, its highest level in over a century. Bloomberg Economics estimates this represents a jump from 2.3% in 2024.

Market Response: Stock markets plunged, with investors pricing in higher near-term inflation expectations and lower interest rates. The dollar fell – contrary to what standard economic models would predict. The S&P 500 suffered its worst two-day plunge since March 2020, with the gauge down 6% on Friday.

Global Retaliation: China announced a 34% tariff on all U.S. goods starting April 10, in addition to targeted actions against poultry producers and weapons makers. This retaliatory move intensified fears of a global trade war and caused stocks to take another leg lower on Friday.

Market Value Destruction: Over a two-day period, U.S. markets lost more than $5.4 trillion in market value as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell indicated that the Trump administration's tariffs "could have a persistent impact on inflation." The Nasdaq 100 entered bear market territory, with a 20% drop from its February peak.

Consumer Impact: A Yale Budget Lab analysis found that Trump's overall tariffs could cause price levels to rise 2.3% in the short term, translating to an average loss of $3,800 in purchasing power per household based on 2024 dollars.

Treasury Yields and Bond Market

Plunging Yields: Treasury yields have plunged in the two days following President Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement, reflecting deepening concerns about the economic impact of tariffs. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note settled Friday at 3.99%, down 26 bps from the prior week and down from 4.79% in January.

Unexpected Bond Rally: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent had been seeking lower Treasury yields to reduce government borrowing costs, as well as those of businesses and consumers. However, the bond rally has been "particularly noteworthy because it has happened even though investors are worried that Trump's policies could lead to higher inflation and a larger budget deficit" – conditions that would normally push yields higher.

Fed vs. Market Views: Many investors had been hesitant to buy Treasury bonds because they believed Fed policymakers would remain cautious about cutting rates, with inflation above their 2% target. However, concerns about growth have been brushed aside as investors focus "almost entirely on the threat of a stumbling economy and the prospect for rate cuts."

You can download CREFC’s one-page MarketMetrics, which includes statistics covering the economy and the CRE debt capital markets, here.  

Contact Raj Aidasani (raidasani@crefc.org with any questions.

Contact 

Raj Aidasani
Managing Director, Research
646.884.7566
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
Capital Markets Update Week of 4/8
April 08, 2025
Three transactions totaling $1.9 billion priced last week.

News

FHFA Rescinds Multifamily Lease Policies

April 1, 2025

Newly appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte published orders on social media platform X last week, rescinding a 2024 FHFA directive entitled “Aligned Policies on Multifamily Rental Payment Flexibility and Lease Notices.

Why it matters: The order eliminates a Biden-era policy requiring that GSE multifamily loan documents mandate various notices and grace periods for tenants.

Background: In July 2024, the FHFA announced mandatory tenant protections, via loan agreements, for multifamily properties financed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs). The effort was part of a broader push to examine tenant protection policies at the GSEs, including possible rent control.
 
  • The July 2024 press release noted that this is “the first time that tenant protections will be a standard component of Enterprise multifamily financing.”
  • Effective February 28, 2025, covered housing providers would have been required to provide tenants with the following:
    • 30-day written notice of a rent increase;
    • 30-day written notice of a lease expiration; and
    • 5-day grace period for rent payments.

Last week, FHFA Director Pulte ordered the rescission of an advisory bulletin requiring the GSEs to develop a “climate-related risk management framework into its existing enterprise risk management program.”

As covered in CREFC’s most recent Policy and Capital Markets Briefing, Pulte revamped the boards of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is now chair of each board. Freddie Mac CEO Diana Reid was let go and FHFA Chief Operating Officer Gina Cross and Human Resources Director Monica Matthews were placed on leave.

Please contact Sairah Burki (sburki@crefc.org) with any questions.
 

Contact 

Sairah Burki
Managing Director,
Head of Regulatory Affairs and Sustainability
703.201.4294
sburki@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
FHFA Rescinds Multifamily Lease Policies
April 01, 2025
Newly appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte published orders on social media platform X last week.

News

First 100 Days: Regulatory Update

April 1, 2025

The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on March 27 to review several high-profile nominations including:

  • Paul Atkins for Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair;
  • Jonathan Gould for Comptroller of the Currency; and 
  • Luke Pettit for Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. 

Atkins, who faced criticism from Democrats because he served as a commissioner at the SEC and sought to deregulate investment banks prior to the 2008 financial crisis, defended his deregulatory record. He said he would restore the agency’s focus on capital formation and depoliticization and noted that GSE reform remains incomplete: 

What troubles me is that some of the key factors are still unaddressed. That’s Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac’s activities in the marketplace, and how that could potentially create problems in the future.
Gould committed to supporting removing reputational risk from bank examinations and ending de-banking practices, while facing questions over digital asset guidance and his past work with large corporate banks.

What they're saying: Pettit emphasized the need for supervisory reform following the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and voiced support for Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).

  • When asked by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent meant by a comment that financial regulators should be “singing in unison,” Pettit suggested Treasury is not looking to exert direct control over federal banking agencies and that bank regulators “do operate independently.”

However, according to Semafor, the Treasury Department is drafting recommendations for streamlining banking regulators like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), “after concluding that the agencies and their workers likely can’t be merged without a green light from Congress.”

  • Why it matters: Treasury Secretary Bessent appears to be building on a recent order President Donald Trump signed directing the Fed and other independent agencies to submit regulations to the Office of Management and Budget for review.
What's next: The Senate Banking Committee will vote on Atkins, Gould, and Pettit in Executive Session on Thursday, April 3. Please see the Regulatory Tracker for an updated status on the financial regulators.
 
Last week also saw the unwinding of a key Biden-era regulation.
 
On March 28, the federal bank regulatory agencies announced their intent to:
 
  • Issue a proposal to both rescind the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) final rule (issued October 2023) and 
  • Reinstate the CRA framework that existed prior to the rule. In 2023, the Biden administration revamped the CRA rule requiring banks to lend to lower-income communities in areas where they have a concentration of mortgage and small-business loans, rather than just where they have physical branches, to bring, as reported by Politico, “the CRA into the modern era of online banking.” 
  • CREFC will share with members the publication of a new proposal. Please see here for our 2022 response to the Biden proposal.
On March 27, the SEC ended the legal defense of its climate risk disclosure rule, with SEC Acting Chair Mark Uyeda calling the rule “costly and unnecessarily intrusive.” In a statement, SEC Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw, the agency's only Democratic commissioner, criticized the decision as an unlawful violation of procedure:
 
This time by skirting the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). We are now firmly in a period of policy-making through avoidance and acquiescence, rather than policy-making through open, transparent, and public processes. This approach does not benefit the markets, capital formation, or investors.
Please contact Sairah Burki (sburki@crefc.org) with any questions.

Contact  

Sairah Burki
Managing Director,
Head of Regulatory Affairs and Sustainability
703.201.4294
sburki@crefc.org
The information provided herein is general in nature and for educational purposes only. CRE Finance Council makes no representations as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, usefulness, or suitability of the information provided. The information should not be relied upon or interpreted as legal, financial, tax, accounting, investment, commercial or other advice, and CRE Finance Council disclaims all liability for any such reliance. © 2025 CRE Finance Council. All rights reserved.
First 100 Days: Regulatory Update
April 01, 2025
The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on March 27 to review several high-profile nominations.

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

No content found

Become a Member

CREFC offers industry participants an unparalleled ability to connect, participate, advocate and learn!
Apply Now

Sign Up for eNews