Throwing Good Money after Bad? Cash Infusions and Distressed Real Estate

By Cornell, Bradford; Long, Francis A. et al. | Real Estate Economics, Spring 1996 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Throwing Good Money after Bad? Cash Infusions and Distressed Real Estate

Cornell, Bradford, Long, Francis A., Schwartz, Eduardo S., Real Estate Economics

Consider the following problem. Because of a downturn in the real estate market, the owner of a major office building faces a situation in which the cash flow produced by the building is now less than the interest payment on the mortgage. The building is not divisible, so a fraction of it cannot be sold piecemeal to meet the mortgage payment. In addition, the drop in the value of the property has increased leverage to the point where further borrowing is no longer possible. As a result, the owner has only two choices: (1) make up any interest shortfall by injecting new equity into the project; or (2) walk away and give the building back to the lender.

This problem is not unique to real estate. Highly-leveraged enterprises often face the same tradeoff if assets are illiquid or if further borrowing is not feasible. Because real estate projects are usually highly leveraged, the analysis is particularly applicable to real estate.

The injection of new capital into real estate projects occurs frequently; from 1990 to 1993 dozens of private partnerships and closely-held real estate firms injected cash in order to retain control of their operations. High profile examples include numerous injections by Olympia and York into the Canary Wharf project before it finally collapsed. More recently, this scenario has been repeated by the Canadian real estate firm Trizec, which has been infusing cash into projects for the last three years.

These examples raise questions regarding the circumstances under which it is optimal for owners to inject cash to retain control of a project and regarding the valuation effects of such infusions. The analysis developed here provides an answer to these questions in the context of the familiar contingent claims model of capital structure developed by Black and Scholes (1973), Merton (1974) and Black and Cox (1976). A number of interesting insights emerge from this analysis. We show that it is not optimal for the owner to default as soon as the net cash flow of the project becomes negative.(1) The owner has a strong incentive to inject capital and continuing meeting debt-service obligations until the cash drain reaches a critical value.

A surprising implication of this analysis is that if the owner follows the optimal strategy of injecting capital into the project and continuing to make mortgage payments, the mortgage lender can actually be worse off. The intuition for this striking result is that even though the mortgage lender may receive more interest payments when the owner injects cash, the lender is harmed because default is postponed until the value of the property is much less. Thus, mortgage lenders experience greater losses if default ultimately occurs.

An important implication of our analysis is that the benefits to the owner from following the optimal strategy can be many times larger than the present-value costs of the necessary cash injections. The intuition for this is that the cost of relaxing cash-flow constraints is not directly related to the corresponding transfer of wealth from the mortgage lender to the owner of the project. These results indicate that there are significant economic rents to be obtained from providing funds to distressed real estate ventures. This may explain why real estate organizations are often structured in a fashion that facilitates making cash infusions. Finally, we show that the optimal cash-injection policy may explain the well-known tendency for real estate transaction volume to decline when market prices fall, and to recover only after a significant drop in value.

Because our analysis is set in the context of rational option pricing, there are aspects of real estate restructuring that it cannot address. Most importantly, it does not take account of strategic and agency theoretic issues that arise when the entire financial structure of a distressed property is renegotiated under incomplete information. These problems are addressed in related papers including Benveniste, Capozza, Kormendi and Wilhelm (1994) and Riddiough and Wyatt (1994).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Throwing Good Money after Bad? Cash Infusions and Distressed Real Estate


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?