Dr. Peter Linneman
Leading Economist, Professor Emeritus, The Wharton School of Business
Willy was joined once again by Dr. Peter Linneman for the Most Insightful Hour in CRE, recorded at the 2026 Dominium Capital Partner Summit.
With interest rates at 25-year highs and oil-driven inflation adding new uncertainty, what should commercial real estate investors do now?
Willy and Peter unpacked why Peter believes rates will eventually come down, what owners facing near-term maturities should consider, and why disappearing concessions could signal a turning point for multifamily. They also explored the extraordinary flow of capital into data centers and why Peter believes the sector could eventually become overbuilt, the outlook for office, today’s shortage of equity capital, and where Peter would invest $100 million in commercial real estate right now.
Watch or listen to the replay.
At a glance
1. Who is Dr. Peter Linneman?
Dr. Peter Linneman is a leading real estate economist, founder of Linneman Associates, and author of the widely read Linneman Letter, where he shares data-driven views on the U.S. economy, capital markets, and commercial real estate. He is also a recurring guest on the Walker Webcast, joining Willy Walker for their quarterly segment, The Most Insightful Hour in CRE, helping investors, owners, and lenders make sense of what is happening in the market and what it means for the road ahead.
2. What are the top reasons to watch this webcast?
- Hear why Linneman believes today's elevated interest rates are abnormal and why owners facing near-term maturities may want to consider shorter-term financing.
- Understand how higher oil prices are affecting inflation and why he still expects inflationary pressure to ease.
- Get insight into why improving multifamily fundamentals may show up first through declining concessions rather than significant increases in asking rents.
- Hear where Linneman would invest in commercial real estate today and why a long-term perspective matters in the current market.
3. Why does Linneman believe interest rates are unlikely to remain this high?
The 10-year Treasury is at its highest level in 25 years, which he views as an abnormal rather than permanent condition. Higher oil prices have contributed to inflation, but Linneman argues that even if oil remains elevated, its year-over-year inflationary impact eventually disappears once prices stabilize. He expects inflation to cool and believes rates should ultimately follow, although he is less confident about when that will happen.
4. What should real estate owners facing a near-term refinancing consider?
For owners who do not have to sell, Linneman favors buying time rather than exiting in today's market. Although he typically prefers longer-term financing, he currently sees value in shorter-term options that allow owners to hold their assets and preserve the opportunity to refinance later if rates improve.
5. Why is Linneman becoming more concerned about data centers?
Strong demand does not eliminate the risk of overbuilding. He points to unusually high development yields, aggressive leverage, and capital flooding into the sector as signs that tenants, lenders, developers, and equity investors are behaving differently than they typically would. He expects demand to remain strong in the near term but worries that today's rapid expansion could eventually create excess supply.
6. What does a multifamily rent recovery look like in 2027?
Linneman does not necessarily expect large increases in asking rents during the first half of the year. Instead, he sees declining concessions as an early sign of recovery. As properties lease up and renters have fewer choices, incentives such as one or two months of free rent can disappear, producing meaningful income growth even if face rents remain relatively unchanged.
7. Why is equity becoming a bigger challenge for multifamily owners?
Debt remains available, but higher borrowing costs can reduce the amount lenders are willing to provide, requiring owners to contribute more equity. At the same time, Linneman sees investors remaining cautious after several difficult years in real estate, making equity harder to raise precisely when higher rates are increasing the amount needed.
8. Is office still an attractive investment opportunity?
Yes, but location and quality matter. Linneman sees improving conditions in markets such as New York, San Francisco, and parts of Charlotte, while other markets and submarkets remain challenged. Unlike a few years ago, capital is available for strong office opportunities, but investors still need to be highly selective about what and where they buy.
9. What worries Linneman most about the economy right now?
The Federal Reserve is his biggest short-term concern. He believes monetary policy is moving in the wrong direction and worries that the effects will reach the economy with a lag. By contrast, he views the U.S. economy as highly resilient and believes it has continued to withstand geopolitical shocks and other economic pressures.
10. Where would Linneman invest in commercial real estate today?
He favors apartments in high-growth markets where new construction has slowed dramatically, pointing to Austin, Nashville, and Charlotte as examples. Rather than trying to predict exactly when rents accelerate, he would invest with a seven- to 12-year perspective and give the supply-demand imbalance several years to translate into stronger rent growth.
Willy Walker:
Good afternoon and welcome to another Walker Webcast. It is my great pleasure to have my friend, I'd call him my colleague, my guru, my professor, Dr. Peter Linneman, join me again. I'm in Fort Worth, Texas, at the Dominium annual LP meeting. And it is a real joy to be here with our partners at Dominium and seeing all of their investors in many of the projects that Walker & Dunlop and Dominium have worked on together.
Peter, a lot has happened. The last three weeks have been incredibly tumultuous in the real estate capital markets. My phone has been inundated with Walker & Dunlop customers calling me and saying, can we get you on a call with our team to figure out where the rates are going? Where's the market going? And should I be running to refinance a property today? Should I be selling a property? Should I be concerned about being able to get out of this property a year or two from now? And my feeling here has been that for the last three years we've been in what I've called ‘the hope trade.’ The waiting and hoping that inflation would come out of the system, that the president would replace the Fed chair with a potentially new Fed chair who would start to cut rates in line with what the president has been calling for for quite some time, and that we would be sitting in a sort of a 4% 10-year, maybe even best wishes 3.75% 10-year. And you were very straightforward in saying at the beginning of 2026 the inflation print's looking good. If you strip out a lot of various things such as housing from the CPI and other inflation rents that we should start to see cuts. And you predicted that we would see two rate cuts by the Federal Reserve in 2026.
You made that prediction not knowing we would invade Iran. You made that prediction thinking that oil would be somewhere between $60 and $70 a barrel rather than $90 and $110 a barrel. Other than the Iran war, what did you get wrong?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Well, that was the main one. Really, that was absolutely the main one. When did the 10-year start really looking? It was as the Iran conflict began, and it picked up speed. Anybody who's not told you, really, I think has called me and asked the same questions. And they probably called me because your phone was busy, so I was the second choice to ask those questions.
I can tell you the spirit of what I'm answering people. We are at the highest 10-year in 25 years. That's an abnormal situation. A lot of the people who are saying it's going to stay high forever were the same people in, not you, but the same people that were in 2018 and ’19 saying, “Yeah, negative interest rates make sense.” And they don't. Negative interest rates make total sense.
This doesn't make sense.
I think for a lot of people, in my view, real estate is an 8- to 12-year investment horizon. That's why the research I've done tends to focus on its performance over a longer period. You've got to be around and allow adjustments. And people are judging it after sort of 2 to 4 years. That's like judging who won the NBA championships this past year based on the halftime score. And it wasn't the New York Knicks that won based on halftime scores.
By the way, take another example: the Philadelphia Eagles were winning with 4 1⁄2 minutes to go. Unfortunately, they played 4 1⁄2 more minutes. That's why they played the full game, and they lost. And what you've got to do with real estate, I think, is play the whole game. Don't judge it at halftime. Don't judge it at the middle of the second—
Willy Walker:
Peter, let me jump in there for a second. First of all, so everyone knows, the password to access the online copy, the PDF, of this quarter's Linneman Letter is “go birds, too,” which killed me as a Washington Commanders fan, and not a Philadelphia Eagles fan. I appreciate the fact that you push those birds all the time.
But the issue here is this. Many people's game on a specific asset ends in 2026 or ends in 2027. They have a refinancing coming up. They have an investor who wants to recycle capital. While I get your analogy of, hey, this is an 8- to 10-year game, unfortunately for many people, they don't have another 4 1⁄2 minutes to play as it relates to what to do with a specific asset, whether to sell right now, whether to refi right now, because the clock is running out on it. And so to them, what do you counsel them to do now that their game is coming to an end on that specific asset?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Don't sell if you don't have to in the vantage market. Therefore, talk to you and see about arranging a 2-year or some such product, a 3-year. By the way, and as you know, I'm generally a person that says 7- to 12-year financing on these things. But I play the slope a little bit here right now. And are you exposed as a result of that? Yeah, but you're dead the other way. And better to be dead 2 years from now than to be dead today. I'd rather be alive today, and the option value of it improves. That's what my advice is.
Willy Walker:
You would go on shorter-term floating rate financing to refi your property today, rather than go and get either pref equity or new equity if you can find it, and put longer-term financing on it, even though that would obviously cost you some of your ownership of that asset.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Yeah, and by the way, that's very contrary to my normal view.
Willy Walker:
And you say that because you think rates are coming down?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I don't see them going up. They're at a 25-year high. Let's take a look at inflation while I say that. Inflation for the 30-year average inflation prior to COVID, which totally reshuffled the deck. That's why I'm taking it prior to COVID. It's 2.2% for the things people actually purchase.
For the 2 years prior to the Iranian situation beginning, by situation, I mean bombings, et cetera. March, okay? For the 2 years prior to that, it was 2.3% for those same items, okay? We had kind of stabilized. We then had the oil situation. The oil situation has increased inflation. You go from 60 a barrel to 100 a barrel; let's say 118 a barrel. It's just mathematics, and you get a higher inflation rate. But it doesn't stay inflated. Why? Let's suppose oil stays at 100. Let's just suppose for the next 2 years, assuming oil stays at 100, what's the inflationary impact of oil over the next 2 years if it stays at 100? Zero. What will that do to measure inflation? Pull it down.
Willy Walker:
It's a weighted average. Except for the fact, as you and I have discussed, of the 41,000 goods that are on the CPI print, 70% of them are impacted by the price of oil. What you're saying is those 70% move up, and then once they move up, you're flat.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Then you're flat. That's all I'm saying. I'm just reminding people of mathematics. Even if oil stays up, it will become noninflationary. And much less if some reasonable solution occurs and it falls. Now, why is that relevant? What do I think happens when it stops being inflationary? The Fed will at some point lower the rate. And when they lowered the short rate, we saw what it looked like in February. You, if you started out in your summary. In February, people thought, yep, it's at 4%. The short rate stays the same or falls. And that low rate was at 4%. What happens if there's no inflation that the Fed says they have to tame? And I think you go back down. Much less if oil prices fall because that will really cool down inflation. The Fed will declare success, even though they have nothing to do with success because they don't control the rate of our moves. At least last time I checked.
By the way, did anyone notice? You got a big audience. Did anyone in the audience notice that immediately after the Fed increased the rate by 25 bps, the Iranians immediately said, ‘Oh’, we are repudiating any attempt to go nuclear. We're destroying all our weapons. The Revolutionary Guard is being disbanded. We're opening the Strait of Hormuz. And we're sending lollipops and marshmallows to all Americans' children on their birthdays. Of course not. They have no effect on those things. And yet they pretended as if they did.
And that has roiled the market. There's no doubt. It confuses me. It's confusing everybody. It is not a root family call. There's an important thing to make here. You and I have talked about the federal deficit for years and outstanding debt. There is this silly narrative that for the last 40, 50, 60 years, the investor has been asleep to the fact that the deficit occurs and that the debt outstanding grows. And suddenly, like Rip Van Winkle, they awakened and saw the deficit and scrambled and said, oh, we've got to increase the rate we demand. That's silly. It's just intellectually silly. If it were true, why is it that every country has about the same increase in the long rate rather than being very nuanced, depending on their own fiscal situation? That's why I want to go short.
I don't want to go short. Let me clarify that. You know, it's like I don't want to give rent concessions. I really don't. But the reason I give rent concessions is to get me from here to there. And that's the same thing for the people who have to finance.
Willy Walker:
If I had listened to the Walker Webcast in June, when you said they're going to do two rate cuts in the subsequent two meetings, you actually said that they weren't going to cut in July. They were going to come back and cut in September. If I listened to you then, I said, great, I'm going to float. Because Peter says that rates are going down, the short end of the curve is going to go down. I can play a SOFR plus 200 loan, and I'm going to do well.
Well, if I followed you then, it's cost me 100 basis points between that point and today to have floated rather than to fix a long-term option at that point.
My question to you is, what confidence should we have? And obviously, I'm asking you to try and predict rates, and nobody can predict rates. But why is it that you think that we are at the all-time high when if I listened to you four months ago, I probably would have made the long move?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Well, because of how dramatically it's moved since then. I mean, I don't know how else to say it more obviously.
Willy Walker:
Yeah, I hear you.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I don't think there's anybody. I don't know of anybody. I'm sure there's some hedge fund somewhere. I don't think anybody, when we talked in June, would have ever predicted, I don't know where we're at today—5.35 for a 10-year? I don't think anybody would have picked it. You might have had a few people saying, oh, upper 4s and 5. And so the fact is it's just run to a point that's not justified by economics. That's the simplest way to say it. And I think even the Fed, and I stress even, can figure that out.
Willy Walker:
As you look forward, you just talked about sort of, if you will, a normalized, we get out of Iran, oil comes down, rates come down, the Fed doesn't see inflation pushing rates, and therefore they can cut. Do you think that there's a scenario where something breaks? And if you think that something breaks to get them to cut, what do you think breaks?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Well, obviously something dramatic in Iran. And it's interesting, you've seen the same stuff I did. In the first few months, every little announcement, every head fake on looks like we made progress, oil would drop like $7 to $8. And then it would go back up, and the rate was kind of bouncing with it. And there's almost, people have gotten desensitized to that information, and it's kind of staying at 100, or a little above 100 a barrel. And the rate's saying, I don't want to screw around and figure this out. I'm insuring myself against the Fed being stupid.
Willy Walker:
I think it's actually come down to the low 90s in the last couple of days because of the release of the G7 oil reserves, which I would underscore the fact that China has released so much of their reserves and lowered their oil consumption since the beginning of the Iranian conflict. And now the release of the reserves on the G7 is a big reason why we actually have $90 a barrel oil and not $120 a barrel on oil, and not something that is sustainable, at least on the G7 side of releasing reserves. The Chinese very clearly seem to have built up enough reserves and lowered their demand for oil to be able to stay in their current demand situation for quite some time. And it's kind of ironic that we can look to thank the Chinese for what they've done in keeping oil prices down.
Last night, I filled up on Sunday and it was $4.10 a gallon. I wouldn't be at $4.10 a gallon in Denver, Colorado, if the Chinese hadn't pulled back their oil consumption on a global basis as significantly as they have.
But Peter, let's switch for a moment to unemployment, because I think that a lot of what you're focused on is GDP growth and the overall acceleration of the economy. GDP growth, you're actually looking at ’26 GDP growth, higher than what you'd predicted it would be in ’25. But on the unemployment side, your unemployment calculation is about almost 2x what the official unemployment numbers are.
Talk about that latency or that underemployment in the economy and whether that is people who have permanently retired, so they're a 55-year-old person who's just removed himself or herself from the labor force and therefore, generally speaking, is just going to be a drag on the economy going forward. No criticism to someone who's my age who's decided to step out of the labor force. Or is it someone who is 22 years old, living with mom and dad, and sitting there not employed but has the ability to come off the sidelines and enter the labor force that actually could give us lift from a GDP standpoint.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
The reason my number, so to speak, is higher, is all it is saying, look, just to remind people, the unemployment rate comes from a survey that says, are you employed? And if you answer yes, fine. And if you answer no, they ask you the next question, are you actively looking for work? That's it. And the numerator is those who say they're not employed but actively looking for work. The denominator is the sum of employed and those who say they're actively looking. It's that simple.
What it misses is I'm not employed, and I'm not actively looking. And that is still fairly high. And it's a bit abnormally high. And there's a whole field discussing why that is the case, ranging from rank entitlement to parents that spoil their kids to there are no opportunities to, there's a lot of labor out there. And it's not, not working; it's not unemployed; it's not because of wages not occurring. There's a lot of wage activity that's occurred. I don't think anyone, including me, fully understands why it's as high as it is, but it is. And it's a drag on the economy. It is a drag on the economy.
Willy Walker:
So it's a drag, not a potential catalyzer of significant economic growth.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Could be, but you have to wonder, why are they not there after such a prolonged period? Because as you know, it's been up there for some time. The recovery has occurred. We went through a very hot period. Wages have been up in real terms, et cetera. It probably is much more of a drag. Now I'm interested in employment. On employment, the numbers are really strong. If you look at people getting fired, because nobody's getting fired. Unemployment insurance claims, new unemployment insurance claims, nobody's getting fired. That's great. That's a strong labor market. If you look at new jobs created, it appears fairly mediocre. Kind of a run rate of about 900,000 this year, which is not terrific.
Willy Walker:
It's actually super slow. In comparison to the last, I mean, since ChatGPT was launched in November of 2022, we've added 4.6 million jobs, I believe. And that goes to like 2.1, 1.8 in ’23 and ’24. And then ’25 is somewhere around 700,000 or 800,000. And if you add up all jobs in Trump 2.0, it's a whopping 700,000 jobs.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Let's assume it's going to end this year at around 800,000. Not a great number, not a great cover number. We're down probably to 2.5 million legal and illegal immigrants that came in in a particular year. If you say half of those would have gotten a job, which is not wildly off, that would have been another million workers. If you add the million workers to the 800,000, you'd say 1.8 million, not spectacular, not bad. But absent the immigration, there's a whole bunch of people not looking for work, just not looking for work. And you say, well, why doesn't that? Remember, immigrants get jobs, and they take jobs, but that also increases the demand for jobs. Why? They buy sweaters, shoes. They buy Brooks 9.5 shoes, for example.
Willy Walker:
That's an inside joke between Peter and me because I gave him a pair of shoes last year because he was correct in his prediction about the number of rate cuts. Since he is clearly going to be wrong in 2026, I wrote him in our notes earlier saying, “Get ready to send me a pair of 9.5 Brooks,” which is my shoe size. Sorry, go ahead, Peter.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
No, but the people say, oh, immigrants come in, and it's an additional supply of labor that destroys and takes away opportunity. What they forget, and what the research shows, is they also get jobs and they do what everybody else does when they get a job. They add to the U.S. economy's productivity. They buy sweaters, shoes, food, et cetera.
Willy Walker:
But you would see all that show up, Peter.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
And that creates jobs.
Willy Walker:
But yeah, I get that. But that would show up then in inflationary pressure on wages?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Mm-mm, no, no, because roughly, there's a positive net effect, but it's not huge. And the reason is that supply creates its own demand. Just think of immigrants as a new country of 2.5 million people. Okay, a new country comes in, the 2.5 million people go to work, the 2.5 million people get hired because they make stuff that they want. There's a circularity to it, and we're not getting them. We drop them out. And you're right, we lose the labor side, but we also lose the labor demand side because they're not buying as many shoes, and they're not buying as many—just go through the list. The demand is also down. That's why you don't see the spikes.
And you made this great point very articulately; I think it's your MIT presentation, I'm doing this from memory, that you get asked everywhere: are there labor shortages? And it's the same answer the hotel people give, not terribly, a little here, a little there, not terribly. And that's because, yes, the supply got reduced, but the demand got reduced because those immigrants were getting jobs and working and buying stuff. And that coursed through the economy. We've dropped the demand, and we dropped the supply.
Willy Walker:
Let's switch then to a sector that is using a lot of labor right now, which is data centers. If we back up to January of 2025, you and I were together at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and I said to you, what is the best sector for you to invest in? And you said, well, if I want to stay rich, I'd invest in a multifamily. I then said to you, well, what's the get-rich asset class? And you said office. And then I said, well, what's the get-poor asset class? And you said data centers.
In this quarterly letter, for the first time ever, Peter has these canaries in a coal mine. To anyone in the room who doesn't read the Linneman Letter on a quarterly basis. And he goes through and typically has 55 different opportunities for a canary to be dead as sort of a leading indicator of trouble. I think the lowest it's ever been since I've been reading the letter, Peter, is like two or three canaries. I don't think you've ever had zero canaries.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
No, I've never had zero.
Willy Walker:
But over the last three years, it's gone from 12 to 16 to 18 in the most current Linneman Letter, 18 out of 55 potential dead canaries. But this is the first time you've had data centers as a dead canary. And in each one of these sectors, if you will, there can be a potential of five canaries. Peter's just starting to feel the, if you will, the vapors coming out of the coal mine of the canary. It hasn't shown that we've got a real issue down in the coal mine yet, but it's coming along.
Peter, the growth in data centers: in the last five months, we've gone from 570 data centers in the United States to something like 1,300. We've got 2,000 data centers planned to be built. With that amount of capital, the hyperscalers are putting $800 billion into data centers in 2026. With that amount of capital going into it, A, do you think something breaks as it relates to, just, there's defaults, there's no demand, something happens in the data center AI construct that breaks? And then the follow-up to that is, if all that capital continues to flow there and you don't have anything break there, what is suffering from the amount of capital that's going to data centers that would, in a traditional way, be flowing to other asset classes?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Remember how good apartment demand was, rent, occupancy-wise, in what, 2021, first half, ’22, something like that?
Willy Walker:
Boy, do I remember it fondly.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
No supply because COVID had shut it off. And demand, pretty robust demand from credit tenants, namely residents, pretty credit. They pay their rent mostly. How did that end? That ended by a huge supply spurt for a lot of reasons. You still had demand, and the supply spurt overwhelmed.
What's my concern about data centers? You see anything that gives that good a yield; sooner or later, it's going to get overbuilt. I don't know when. And how do I know something? If you look at what's happening in data centers, this is overly broad. Everybody says these hyperscalers are credit—credit tenants. And by the way, you're old enough to remember, just barely, when people were building shopping centers saying Sears and Kmart were credit tenants. And by the time they opened, or a year or two after they opened, one's dead and the other's almost dead. Credit erodes for a lot of reasons, competitive and otherwise. So here, if one of the hyperscalers came to one of our developer friends and said, “Build me an office building” or “build me a warehouse,” what kind of yield on cost would they negotiate it down to on a 15-year lease? 6? 7? Yeah, let's just say 6 to 7% yield on cost because they're who they are.
They're going to negotiate it down, maybe even a little lower, okay? In a data center, what are they doing it for? 10. And by the way, maybe a 9.
Willy Walker:
No, 10, 12?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
What does that tell you? It tells you they're desperate for that product, and they're doing something they normally would not do. No credit tenant would normally do it. Why? They view they're in a race that challenges their existence, which means they're afraid they'll go out of business if they don't win, okay? That's why they're doing it. They want to get it. And we know they're paying a premium.
Now, by the way, let's go to the other capital parts. Let's go to the capital parts. Lenders. Lenders are lending 90%. 85%, 90%. First mortgages. Why?
Because, oh, they're a credit tenant, even though the tenants are worried about their existence. That's why they're willing to pay that rent. And you go, hmm, that's interesting.
The lenders are viewing it as no risk. How has that generally turned out in history? That when lenders view something as having no risk, it turns out well when they provide 90% debt or 85% debt. Why are they doing it? They have no exposure to it currently in their portfolio. They got a lot of apartment exposure. They got a lot of warehouse exposure. They have a lot of office exposure, a lot of this. They all say, okay, we're going to go get it, and we're going to get it while the getting's good. They're flooding into it. And they're doing something we don't—so we see tenants doing something we don't normally see. We're seeing lenders do it. And then we see equity providers saying, hmm, I got crushed in real estate in the 3.5 years on everything else. Let me try it there, especially with 90% leverage. And by the way, the developer makes the development fee. They have to work hard for it. I'm not taking anything away from it. But the developer's development fee with 90% leverage, they can't lose as the developer. I think it gets overdeveloped in a strange way. Remember the office market in the 1980s. You had very good demand growth, and yet somehow vacancy got to 18% in spite of great demand growth. That's because of unbelievable lending. That's why I have concerns. If the tenants are worried about—just think of this for a second.
The tenants are worried about their existence. Why aren't the rest of the capital stack worried about their existence?
Willy Walker:
Well, they also, though, I mean, they have multi-trillion-dollar market caps. I mean, I hear you say that they're “worried about their existence.” And by the way, your concerns as it relates to the hyperscalers, if you listen to the All-In podcast, which I listen to on a weekly basis. I'm just stealing from the guys from All-In. This is not my own research, but I listened very intently last week. And in their discussion last week, they talked about a couple of things that concern me on exactly this topic, Peter.
The first one was they looked at frontier models versus open models. And 90 days ago, frontier models were 80% of AI usage in the United States, and open models were 20% of AI usage in the United States. 90 days ago. Today, it's the inverse. It's 20% frontier models and 80% open models. So at Walker & Dunlop—
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Willy, do you think that has anything to do with why they're now saying, oh, let us get together, let us get together with the government and regulate and set up barriers? And who do you think they're going to set up barriers against?
Willy Walker:
1,000%. It's called regulatory capture. It's, let's put up barriers so that we can create whatever monopoly, duopoly, triopoly you want to put together. But let me keep going on this for two seconds because at Walker & Dunlop, we use ChatGPT. We have a closed environment of ChatGPT that makes it so that we can keep all of our data, all of our analysis inside of our own environment. It's protected, and I love it. Except for the fact that we spend a tremendous amount of money on tokens with ChatGPT. And my CTO is going to come to me sometime in the next 6 to 12 months and say, if we moved from ChatGPT to an open model, we pulled a server and put all of this on our own servers, we would drop our token usage from X to Y, and we would save Walker & Dunlop X million dollars a year.
And by the way, we don't need to be using frontier models at Walker & Dunlop. I'm trying to process mortgages for everyone in this room. If I were trying to solve cancer, I got to stay on ChatGPT or Anthropic and keep on that frontier model. But for W&D, my big issue right now is not necessarily the capabilities of the technology. It's the implementation challenges I have of taking the technology and putting it into our work streams to make it so I can process loans for all of you quicker, more efficiently, and more cheaply.
And so as I think about that shift in just the last 90 days of the frontier models, you listen to the All-In hosts talk about it. And they sit there, and they talk about if these frontier models don't stay six months in front of the rest, their value goes to zero. That's their words, not mine. That's their words.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
That's the existence of concern.
Willy Walker:
That's the existence of concern. That's exactly what you're talking about. I don't know. I don't like, personally, if you said to me, Walker & Dunlop's future is based on, and I know Pete is here from Wells Fargo, so let me just use him as an example. Walker & Dunlop's existence is based on staying six months in front of Wells Fargo on everything that you do as it relates to loan origination and loan processing. I might be running for the exits pretty quick.
And so I just think about that change in the amount of capital that's gone to these data centers. But the one conflicting point, Peter, in your quarterly letter that I want to have you discuss is this: after all of that doubt you have about data centers, you state that demand will exceed supply in data centers between now and 2030. If you think we have another 3.5, 4 years of demand exceeding supply, why are you concerned about a crisis?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Oh, because when it ends, it'll end. I mean, just play out. By the way, I don't know if the scenario you say is what happens, but play out what you say.
There are so many variations. One variation: okay, the five hyperscalers, one of them wins and the other four lose. And so anybody who has the winner in their data center wins. But the ones who had the losers, what are they going to do? And you say, well, they'll repurpose it by selling it, by releasing it to the winner. Do you think the winner is going to pay as much rent when they're not desperate, when they're not in existential mode? And so the rent gets negotiated down if it does get reused, or the Chinese win, or somebody comes up with a whole leapfrog on the technology.
Look, I'm old. And when I see unusual things, when I see one unusual thing, I say, well, that's nice. When you see a whole bunch of unusual things happening at once, it generally doesn't end that well. Doesn't mean it doesn't end forever. It's just, it's got a kind of too much, too much, too soon. I'm not anti-AI. I'm not saying et cetera. It just seems like too much, too soon. And the fact that the tenants are saying, I'm willing to give you almost double the yield on that product that I give you on any other real estate product I'd ask you to do, tells you how desperate they are.
Willy Walker:
Let's switch to other real estate products. Last call, we talked about multifamily. You were really excited on the last call about the fact that starts were down by 40% to 60%. And then in this quarterly letter, you say, “We're going to start seeing rent spikes,” your words, rent spikes in 2026 and 2027.
First of all, I would say to you, I don't think I have a single client at Walker & Dunlop who has said, I see spiking rents right now. And we're in October of ’26. We only got two and a half more months to get spikes into the system for ’26. But do you really think we're going to see rent spikes in ’27 in multifamily? And if so, where are you predicting they will come?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
How many have gone from eight weeks' concession to zero to three weeks? Not everybody.
Willy Walker:
Not, I mean, I'm not going to say not anybody, but I'm not, I'm not hearing that right now. That's the one; just double-click on that for a second, Peter, because I think that that is a super important point right here that a lot of people are sitting there saying, oh, we need to get back to annualized 2, 3, 4% rent growth for me to make this pro former go. And they are forgetting about the fact that if you go from three months' concessions to two months' concessions to one month's concessions, you're picking up 10% NOI on each one of those months going away.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
That's my point. That's my point. For example, we've got a project, and I'm not saying this typically; we've got projects where we haven't made inroads on concessions, but on actually two of our projects in the last three months, we've gone from two months to zero. Now I view that as a notable spike. By the way, did we raise the rent? No, we did not raise rent. But that's a notable spike. I think that's what you're going to see in [2027]. You're going to see a little bit more of it at the end of this year. And by the way, our portfolio isn't perfectly representative. I live in Boston, and I have other places.
By the way, the dynamics of how it happens is interesting. And I had kind of forgotten. When you have 15 new buildings, all very cool, all very neat, all in the same basic submarket and all 20% to 70% leased, a tenant can walk in and get whatever floor they want, whatever unit size they want, whatever view they want, whatever direction they want. Now when those buildings get to 85% to 90%, the owner still sucks. Right? It's still not wonderful at 85.
The tenant can't walk in and say, “But I want an east view on the 13th floor” because there aren't that many units. And that's why the concessions start going away at that very micro level. And that is starting to happen; it depends on the market. But that's starting to happen.
Let me be clear. I don't think you're going to see in the first half of 2027, 10% face rent increases. But I do think you're going to see a month or two of concessions kind of fall by the wayside as things lease. That would be huge.
Willy Walker:
If this is the beginning of the multifamily trade that we've been waiting three years for, do rates kill it?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Well, it's a two-edged sword. Let's take it in three parts. One, you financed me on a 10-year note in 2022. I don't give a shit about any of that. About any of the rate stuff. You're my hero. You financed me in 2021, 2022. I was going to do a five-year. You convinced me to do a 10-year. Ta-da. That's one group of people.
Willy Walker:
Pause for two seconds on that. There is a huge amount of paper outstanding that was a 10-year loan with five years I.O., written in 2021 and ’22, that is coming to the end of their I.O. period and going to amortize loans in ’26 and ’27. And that could be a pressure point for many borrowers. I just point out that Peter's saying you did that ’22 loan. It was a 10-year loan, but it likely had half-term I.O. And then all of a sudden it becomes an amortizing loan. That could put some pressure into the system in 2027.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
But I don't worry about the interest rate part. I worry about a lot of things. I worry about coverage. That's one group. The second group is: do I have a higher interest rate because of my construction loan, or I did put in a five-year or a three-year, or I was repositioning? Yeah, that's a sincere problem.
As you know, the debt will be there. The debt market is working. I think it's just working more expensively. And so a loan that would have been a 65% loan now only pencils as a, you know the math probably better than I do, a 58% loan, which means I got to come up with 7% more equity. And the one thing that's been scarce over the last year and a half is not the debt; it's the equity. And so now when equity is still scarce, I've got to go out and find more equity.
That's a challenge. And that's the interest rate challenge that it raises.
Now, on the other hand, people are getting more income on their fixed income instruments. They'll actually get a little boost in spending power. It's just redistributive. But it is a two-edged sword. By the way, how much development occurs in the next 12 months? More or less than you thought three months ago? Less.
Willy Walker:
You answered the question for me, but yes, I would say less. And which is interesting because the numbers are telling you that now's a great time to be putting the shovel in the ground. The issue is putting the capital together to do it. And then the other question is, does someone want to go into a construction loan right now? Or do they want to go into having equity on the sidelines to buy distressed assets that are existing, have good occupancy in them, but the capital structure is upside down. Someone's going to throw the keys back, and you can step in and buy that asset. I would think that a lot of the dry powder is waiting for that rather than getting into this next development cycle for a 2- to 3-year return.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Our friend Jon Gray has said this type of thing several times, which is a lot of investors with a bad taste in their mouth over the last three years. Think more institutional or big family offices. And they went into things 3 years ago, 3.5 years ago, and it may not have been catastrophic what they did in real estate, but it's not great. And so you come to them and say, now is the time; three years from now there's going to be nothing new coming online. Or right now is the time, let's go in and buy something. And they're going, yeah, I don't know.
I just don't know. The stock market's going up, up, up. Why don't I just stay in the stock market? I'm okay there. And maybe I do data centers. Somebody's got highly leveraged.
No, but think about it. Somebody's got a highly leveraged development that they're offering them the equity slice of. And maybe I do that instead. And it doesn't mean all the capital's going there, but it's a challenge to come up with equity these days still. And in some markets, if I had a really nice property and I had a, I don't know, a six cap on it in Austin. And I said, Willy, you guys are the best. I know Wells Fargo's there. I'll let you both have the assignment.
Willy Walker:
So is PNC and a bunch of other people. I had a lot of competitors in the room. It's all good.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I'll give you guys the split assignment. Go out and raise 35% equity for me. You're going to tell me I don't think I can do it. I got better things to do with my time. And that's a challenge. That's a challenge.
There may be opportunities, but there's no money for it. There's kind of a debt for it, but there's no equity for it. And the interest rate being up means you need even more equity at a time when the equity was already short.
Willy Walker:
Two quick things to round out on multi-, and then I want to go to the office for a moment. On multi-, just a couple of things that Peter said that I would underscore. First of all, it's been too quick since this rate move to really see an adjustment in debt yields on debt funds and other providers of capital. The agencies, you've clearly seen them move up on their expected debt yields on their lending, but on debt funds so far, we're still seeing them stay in the sort of 7% to 8% debt yield range and not move up to the sort of 8% to 9%. If debt yields stay down that low, they obviously will be preferred in the marketplace.
The question I have on that is, where are they on the health of their existing book? There's $232 billion of non-agency multifamily debt maturing in 2027, $232 billion. And it stays actually pretty consistent for the next four years at 230 to 250 billion of non-agency multifamily debt outstanding. If those portfolios on bank balance sheets, at debt funds, at life insurance companies stay relatively healthy, I think the ability for capital to come from those sources of capital is almost unlimited. But if they start to see cracks in their existing books, what do they need to do from both the debt yield standpoint as it relates to deployment of capital to be able to deal with their books? So far, it's way too early to tell whether there are fissures on the credit side of things. Those will start to show up in this higher interest rate environment. The one other thing that we have clearly seen is the agencies have almost no refinancings in 2026. They have very low refinancing in 2027. They've only got $47 billion of refinancings in 2027. So very low, but then they start to step up pretty dramatically in ’28, ’29, and ’30, the agencies get into really big numbers. If you add up non-agency and agency debt, multifamily debt outstanding that matures in the next four years, it's $1.5 trillion, $1.5 trillion. It is an enormous amount of debt that needs to get rolled in the next four years.
And so two things on that. One, how does the credit perform between now and then? And then how much of that non-agency multifamily debt gets refinanced by the agencies? Remember, if they only have 47 billion of refinancings in 2027, and they've got a cap from the regulator of 160 billion, they've got to go out and find 100, 110 billion dollars of loans not in their portfolios today to go finance next year. That's a huge amount of capital coming from the agencies that are trying to find solutions for those loans that a bank, a debt fund, or a life insurance company may or may not want to refinance. I just put that out there as it relates to the state of multifamily financing and what's coming up in ’27.
Let me go to office for a second with you, Peter, because when I went back and referenced that conversation you and I had in January of 2025, and you said, “Stay rich multifamily, get rich office.” If you'd listened to Peter in January of 2025 and bought an office in San Francisco or New York, you would have absolutely crushed it over the last 18 months. And I mean, crushed it. That was exactly at the beginning of this cycle for office.
You were clearly directionally right, Peter, as it relates to offices as an asset class, but you had to be pretty picky because if you bought an office in Denver, you're flat on your rear end right now. You had to pick the right city. But if you picked an office in San Francisco or New York, off-the-charts returns. You make a point in the letter that in ’26 into ’27, we're only delivering 9 million square feet of office in the United States, which is about 10% of normal annual deliveries of new offices. Is the office an asset class today where you can basically close your eyes and throw a dart at the dartboard and win?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
No, because the quality is so varied. I mean, I think I saw a piece in the Financial Times Monday that a hedge fund signed with Related on Madison Avenue for some number like, what was it, 380 a foot?
Willy Walker:
Yeah, 380. And when I was in New York three weeks ago, I had someone say to me directly, “We will see a $400 per square foot lease signed in Manhattan in the next year.”
Dr. Peter Linneman:
And you couldn't have done it; I'm not being cute. You couldn't have done that blindfolded. You really couldn't have done that blindfolded. On the other hand, Charlotte, suburban Charlotte is doing quite well right now. Capital's returning; rent and occupancy are doing okay. You're right about Silicon, San Francisco doing okay. Parts of LA suck. I mean, downtown LA really sucks. It varies. Chicago's still weak.
The interesting thing to me about the office is if you, I don't think you can just throw a dart, but if you have any degree of taste, let's put it that way, okay? Two years ago, if you had taste, you couldn't get capital. You just couldn't get capital. You might've had good taste. You might've picked all the right places two, two and a half years ago. Debt would have said no. Equity would have said no, except for the odd family office or somebody doing it with their own money, like Neil Bluhm or a high wealth family or Steve Ross or somebody like that.
Today, if you've got good taste, there's a capital market out there. It's not the greatest capital market in the history of office, but it's there. But I don't think you could show up with any old thing.
Willy Walker:
I mentioned previously on data centers that you have 18 canaries. What canary scares you the most right now?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
In the short term, the Fed. It's interesting; it doesn't normally scare me the most because I expect so little from them over the years. Not unique to this Fed, by the way; not unique to the current people, not unique to the people before them. I just was kind of Milton Friedman-trained to not expect much help from the Fed and to expect more opposition to a good economy than otherwise from the Fed. And they've kind of lived up to that.
I don't normally—but I think they're dangerous right now. I think they're going the wrong way, and it's just really obvious it's the wrong way. And there's going to be a lag. It's not going to take effect instantly. The Fed worries me much more than normal. The AI stuff—the data center and the money going into it doesn't worry me in a two-year, three-year kind of context because it's going to occur. They do have that money. They make money off of their advertising company part, and they're just putting it into that.
Think about it. Most of the money going into data centers as an equity or into AI in general is coming, think of Meta. What is Meta? It's an advertising company. What's Google? It's an advertising company. They're advertising companies. These are advertising companies who are going big into that. But in the next few years, they have the cash flow to do it. That doesn't worry me.
I don't think the geopolitical situation could get much worse. Think about it, we shrugged it off. Seriously, we shrugged off. We, the U.S. economy, shrugged off Ukraine. We shrugged off Iran at the economic level. We shrugged off the Iranian. We shrugged off the Israeli Gaza. We shrugged off. We shrugged off.
I made this comment. I don't know if you know who Jack Reacher is. He's this 6'5", 255 muscle-bound genius who has judgment and is kind. And there's a Prime show based on his books. And Jack Reacher gets hit in the head with a pipe. And you think, well, that's the end of Jack Reacher. But two minutes later, he's dealing justice. And then he gets stabbed five minutes later. But six minutes after that, he's dealing justice. Because he's 6'5", all muscle, brilliant, and he's just a force. That's the U.S. economy. And so you can damage it. The Fed has damaged it. Tariffs have damaged it. Taxes damaged it in the past, et cetera.
But it's like Jack Reacher. It just keeps getting up. And if you don't know Reacher, you've got to watch it. Just watch one episode. You'll get it. Or read one book. You'll get it. That's the U.S. economy.
I mean, it's not Germany's economy. It's not England's economy. It's not France's economy. It's not the Japanese economy. They're all powerful, but they go down for the count sometimes, like for a decade or more.
Willy Walker:
You pointed to the Fed and that that's your biggest concern right now. Do the House and the Senate flipping Democrat at the beginning of November concern you?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Not so much in the economy. As you know, I seriously try to distinguish between social issues and economic issues. And I'm not trying to say economics is more important. It's just that I have a more comparative advantage. Once you get to the social, I just have opinions.
Willy Walker:
And I'm not looking for it from a social standpoint. I'm also not trying to have you predict the election. I'm trying to go to something that a lot of people are trying to build into their calculus as it relates to what do the back two years of a Trump administration look like if the House and the Senate both flip?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
And what will happen is they'll go, they'll try to impeach. They'll have so much fun trying to impeach that they'll leave us alone.
Willy Walker:
Well, the one thing that I've said on that question, Peter, numerous times is how many times has the Trump administration gone to Congress in the first two years of its administration to ask for it to approve anything that it has done? And the answer to that is basically nothing. If you thought that they had no impact on the first two years, why do you think they'll have any impact on the back two years?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
My gut is it will be strangely good for the economy, mainly because a full Democratic Congress will spend at least a year trying to impeach. And not just him. They'll try to impeach. And that'll keep—it's like, give the kids candy and a screen to keep them busy when you're babysitting.
Willy Walker:
We're going to pull that clip out and put that as the clip of this.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
It will be like candy and screens for kids; that will be impeachment for them and they'll kind of leave us alone.
Willy Walker:
If I gave you one hundred million dollars of equity and you said that we're in an equity-starved world right now. If I gave you one hundred million dollars of equity to put into commercial real estate right now, where are you putting it?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I do it with a long-term view, 7 to 12 years. And I'd be buying in the markets where nothing is being built. And I know there's a big demand. All right. And I would capitalize myself to say, I don't know when I'm going to get a 20% rent increase. I don't know if it will occur in two or four years, but it's going to happen. And I would do apartments in those markets. And who are those markets? Austin, Nashville, Charlotte.
I'm not trying to be exclusive, but you get the point. They're markets where I have high confidence of growth, and nothing's going to get built because they were so overbuilt. Everybody's been burned on building there, but you're going to get growth. But I wouldn't bet on the timing of getting the rent spike. I bet on getting the rent spikes, but I wouldn't bet it's going to happen in six months. I would try to give myself a 4-year window, 5-year window for that to occur. And I think I'd win.
Willy Walker:
And if I asked you to pair that long trade with a short trade, what would you short?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
If you said short in the current, where you got to cash it in. I've already answered data centers if I have to cash it in in 5 years, 6 years, 4-, 5-, 6 years. But I don't think data centers lose in the next 4 or 5 years. 4 years because there's just so much money already committed, with one exception. Maybe here's what I'd say. I'd say you don't know what you're doing and you try to develop a data center because you can get, you think you can get, 90% loans. You think you can get the community to go along. You think you can get electricity. You think you can get—and you haven't been to those wars. And those are tough contracts development-wise of time, timelines and so forth.
So if I were to short, I don't think I'd short the big, I don't know what, 4 or 5 that do data centers because they know what they're doing. Will they make mistakes? Of course, we all make mistakes, but they'll get it. They'll get it. And so it's the guys rushing in behind them saying, and I know several such people saying I'll get 900 million in debt. I'll scrape together 100 million in equity. I'll do a data center for a billion, and they've not built one before. They built warehouses. They just have not dealt with it. That would be the short of going into that. That's the short. Why is it short? Because I think what you're going to find is after a year or more, nothing will have occurred except they burned through a lot of your money.
Willy Walker:
Final one, Peter, for you is this. What's the single forecast in this most recent Linneman Letter that you have the least confidence in?
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I have high confidence in the inflation discussion. I don't have as high confidence in the interest rate following the inflation part. Back to what we were talking about earlier, because my discussion was the inflation part occurs as oil prices stabilize and/or fall. And therefore, shortly thereafter, the interest rate falls. That would probably be, the first part of that, I have high confidence in the oil part and, therefore, the inflation part. I don't have as high a confidence on, and therefore in a reasonable timeline, the Fed follows suit. Because they tend to be late and arrogant and so forth.
Willy Walker:
Yeah, I would remind you that we have a president who's been focused on that for quite some time. I think the moment he sees the light of day on that one, he's going to put some serious pressure on it.
Peter, as always, a wonderful discussion. Your data is as good as it gets. Thanks for the time. Thanks for the candor.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
I have one question for you, Willy. What color shoe do you want?
Willy Walker:
That's a great question. We'll take white. It's all good. I get them dirty pretty quick.
Dr. Peter Linneman:
Good, good, good. I just want it on record.
Willy Walker:
It's all great. Thanks, everyone, for joining us this week and this quarter for the quarterly Linneman discussion. And we'll see you again next week.
Thanks.
Related Walker Webcasts
The New Market Playbook with Liz Ann Sonders
Learn More
August 26, 2026
Finance & Economy
The Most Insightful Hour in CRE Part 26 with Dr. Peter Linneman
Learn More
July 8, 2026
Finance & Economy
Rethinking Money, Time, and Life with Bill Perkins
Learn More
May 13, 2026
Finance & Economy
Insights
Check out the latest relevant content from W&D
News & Events
Find out what we're doing by regulary visiting our News & Events pages
