The weather in Manhattan was sunny with temperatures in the 70s on May 7 during Commercial Observer’s eighth annual Spring Finance CRE Forum, which attendees no doubt hope signals brighter days ahead for a commercial real estate market that has battled icy conditions the last two years.

The annual CO event was held six days after the Federal Reserve held interest rates steady with no indication of when borrowing conditions may begin to ease after 12 hikes were implemented by the central bank from March 2022 to July 2023. However, lenders and brokers who spoke at the forum inside the Metropolitan Club of New York voiced plenty of optimism that a recovery for the CRE market was around the corner.

SEE ALSO: Date Set for 99-Unit Apartment Complex’s Foreclosure in NoMa

“You’re starting to see the early signs of recovery within the real estate capital markets,” said Tim Johnson, global head of real estate debt strategies at Blackstone (BX) during opening remarks discussion moderated by Cathy Cunningham, CO’s executive editor. “It feels to me and to us at Blackstone that we’re generally on a path toward recovery.”

While the Fed is expected to keep interest rates higher for longer than what was initially anticipated entering 2024, Johnson stressed that market confidence of rates peaking has helped spur more financing activity this year, as evident by credit spreads tightening with commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) deals. He added that a prolonged period of owners holding onto assets will likely result in more transaction volume as investors seek some for opportunities for “capital recycling” 

Among asset classes, Blackstone is sticking to its high conviction themes of industrial and multifamily lending with a particular focus of late on data centers given technological demands like artificial intelligence driving the sector, according to Johnson. He noted though that, even with healthy performing sectors, Blackstone is careful to “pick and choose” which properties to target based on geographic areas with strong population drivers.

The office sector remains severely challenged four years after the COVID-19 pandemic unleashed increasing remote-work trends, but Johnson said there are pockets of opportunities on the lending side in certain submarkets like Manhattan’s Park Avenue, where occupancy levels are strong for newer Class A properties. 

“I think you could see us dip our toes a bit more into lending on high-quality office buildings in geographies where fundamentals are pretty strong given a lack of supply in some of these core markets,” Johnson said. “There is clearly a subset of tenants out there that feel like they need to be in the office and are gravitating toward some of these high-performing submarkets.”

While some modern office buildings are managing to thrive despite continued headwinds from COVID, there remains a myriad of challenges for the overall market with older Class B properties resulting in wider bid-ask spreads.

Indeed, the uncertainty around valuations in office and other property types is one of the biggest differences between the current market location and what transpired with the CRE industry during the Global Financial Crisis, according to Rob Verrone, principal at Iron Hound Management, which specializes in CMBS restructurings. 

“Back then there wasn’t as much of a gray area on what the property is worth,” said Verrone during a fireside chat moderated by Tony Fineman, head of originations at Acore Capital. “Now with remote work and with taxes and insurance through the roof, and then the politics that are going on and no-eviction [rules], no one knows what the property is worth and it’s hard to convince someone unless they have a real upside-down tax position to throw a bunch of money in on black and restructure a deal.”

Verrone, who was previously a CMBS lender at Wachovia before co-founding Iron Hound with Chris Herron in 2009, said workouts have become harder to get done in the current market due to bid-ask spread dynamics, with the process now taking around nine months for the average deal. He said he prefers to close modifications with a private individual or family office than the larger firms that have third-party investors that can often complicate ironing out key details.

There has been some progress of late in steering the CRE market toward a better future, but not enough to open the floodgates due to persistent elevated interest rates and a “steeper” forward curve, according to Dennis Schuh, chief originations officer at Starwood Capital Group.

“You are only selling if you are forced to sell right now,” said Schuh during the third session panel titled “Real Estate Finance Forecast: Comfort Levels Amidst New Changes.” 

“I think people do think real estate is for sale right now and they want to get in, but there’s still a pretty big bid-ask,” Schuh added.

Lauren Hochfelder, co-CEO and head of Americas at Morgan Stanley Real Estate Investments, said while the majority of sellers now are “forced,” her platform has managed to sell some multifamily assets with interest rates between 4 and 5 percent. She also noted that some industrial properties along the southern border are also attracting investor interest due to nearshoring trends. 

“Where you have secular trends or mega trends repelling demand, I think you are seeing capital really go there,” Hochfelder said. “But the aperture of what people want to invest in has narrowed.”

The panel — moderated by Jay Neveloff, partner and chair, real estate, at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel — also featured Morris Betesh, senior managing director at Meridian Capital, and Sten Sandlund, CEO of Willowbrook Partners, a newly formed private credit lending arm launched by Peebles Corporation. 

Hochfelder stressed the importance of not painting every asset class with a “broad brush,” noting there are bright spots in the office sector globally such as Tokyo, which has an 88 percent utilization rate, and Seoul at 94 percent. She said even struggling office markets in the U.S. have some positive characteristics, with San Francisco having higher rents today than before the COVID pandemic.

The panelists concurred that financing sources for deal flow in 2024 will largely be centered around private lenders given the highly regulated environment facing banks coupled with higher interest rates. 

“After coming out of a crisis, usually the water has to be really warm for some of those traditional sort of lenders to creep back in, so I think they will be slow like they were coming out of the GFC,” Schuh said. 

Insurance capital is undoubtedly playing an increased role filling the lending void of late with the line between debt funds and insurance companies becoming increasingly “blurred,” according to Nishant Nadella, head of single-asset, single-borrower and transitional lending at 3650 REIT. Nadella noted that Insurance funds managed by asset management firms have soared from $200 billion to $800 billion in the last six years, which does not even account for 3 percent of the global insurance market.

“If you look at where the market is going, it seems like it’s going to be insurance dominated and it’s going to be run by folks who get large insurance allocations or reinsurance allocations, and allocate 20 percent to real estate,” Nadella said during the forum’s fourth session in a panel titled “Shifting Lender-Borrower Dynamics & Getting Capital Stacks in Line”

Matt Pestronk, co-managing partner at Post Brothers, noted that insurance companies have an advantage now over banks in terms of driving more CRE capital in the current climate since they can sell five-year annuities that are attractive to investors amid higher interest rates. He said the trend is in the “early stages” and is “growing at an incredibly fast pace.”

The panel — moderated by Kathleen Mylod, partner at Dechert — also included Elliot Markus, vice president in the real estate private credit group at Cerberus Capital Management; Adam Schwartz, senior managing director at Walker & Dunlop; and Adam Piekarski, co-head of real estate credit at BDT & MSD Partners. 

Piekarski stressed that with around $900 million in looming CRE loan maturities on tap this year, surviving for another day is the key, but comes with risks if interest rates aren’t reduced soon. 

“Everyone is trying to survive to buy time and hope that rate cuts come so they can salvage some equity,” Piekarski said. “The game theory of that isn’t it doesn’t come. What ends up happening is that sponsors think their equity is sunk cost and they move on, or is there opportunity for people who’ve been patient with the capital? And all of that is TBD.”

After a short networking break, Goldman Sachs (GS)’ Siddharth Shrivastava, managing director of investment banking, held court during a fireside chat where he made it clear to attendees that much of the pain commercial real estate has experienced since 2020 is now largely in the rearview mirror. 

Shrivastava noted that capital markets in 2024 have seen “a lot of activity in CMBS markets.” Yet despite only $40 billion in CMBS securitization originating across the system in 2023, the first quarter of 2024 saw $20 billion, he said, and “in one quarter we traded half of what was done last year.”

He also pointed out that while refinancings have dominated Goldman Sachs’ real estate activity thus far in 2024, some of the nation’s biggest asset managers — Blackstone, Brookfield (BN) and KKR (KKR) — have made major acquisitions in recent months, and that his own bank is providing an increased amount of credit financed compared to 2023.

“You’re seeing acquisitions start with clients requiring commitments, and now you’re seeing an environment where commitments can once again be done,” Shrivastava said. “The overarching thing in all of these is we’re doing it for our best sponsors, our best clients, and so [for them] we’re certainly open to deploying our balance sheet and that’s how we’re thinking about opportunities that come to us.”  

He even hinted that office — no joke — is now attracting CMBS financing after carrying the scarlet letter of shame across CRE since the pandemic hit.  

“We are getting office deals in the CMBS market, there’s conduit deals, there’s been SASB, so that’s been a change in the office side,” Shrivastava said. “The environment for office financing is slightly better than it was last year. And if rates come down and keep coming down, the spigot of office that’s financeable will open up more and more.” 

The optimism about the market continued during the next panel, where four executives at top investment firms pondered whether the pullback of the traditional banking sector away from CRE lending has inaugurated a golden age of private credit. 

“Time will tell,” said Yorick Starr, managing director and investment officer at Invesco. “The retrenchment of banks and some other capital that’s provided here has made the setup an interesting one to sort of be lending at overleverage with great sponsors in great markets.” 

Starr noted that his firm originated $900 million in CRE loans last year but has already hit that total in the first quarter of 2024. “We’re looking at the more distress opportunities out there, not that there’s a whole lot of them, but that’s kind of the opportunity set we’ve found that’s interesting and available to be putting out a lot of capital for use,” he added.  

Mark Silverstein, senior managing director at NewPoint Real Estate Capital, oversees the firm’s proprietary lending products. He said agency lending has increased during a time of high interest rates, as agencies are willing to lend at rates even lower than attractive CMBS financing. And if you can lend at a low rate, he noted, you can obviously lend with a little more leverage. 

“Agencies have been very stable, and they’ve been available for large deals and small deals,” said Silverstein. “They love affordable [housing] and if there’s some affordable component or a green component [in there], the agencies will lean in and drive pricing that will be significantly better.”

Robert Rothschild, senior vice president at InterVest Capital Partners, added that while the current market has good fundamentals, there’s been a break in the capital stack for many assets. With the increase in interest rates, sponsors aren’t able to refinance on deals that they put out in 2021 — creating sizable holes in loans where agencies might have lent at 55 percent loan-to-value, and debt funds might have lent at a 75 percent loan-to-value clip, he said. 

“There’s an opportunity to provide gap finance, to fill that hole between refinancing a floating-rate multifamily loan into an agency deal,” said Rothschild. “That opportunity won’t be around forever. As interest rates ultimately start to come down, those borrowers will get bailed out and be able to refinance and put in only a little bit of equity as opposed to 20 percent of the capital stack.”  

Finally, Laura Rapaport, CEO and founder of North Bridge, broke down the intricacies of C-PACE lending, a form of fixed-rate lending that has historically been used to pay for energy-efficient improvements in commercial buildings. 

Today, Rapaport noted, C-PACE lending has been turned into “a very effective credit product,” as its priced off the 10-Year Treasury at a fixed rate upon closing and usually carries a duration of 20 to 30 years, which allows it to be flexibly used not just for green renovations, but also to finance construction loans, refinancings, rescue capital, and synthetic A notes.

“We’re coming in and working with lenders at TCO [total cost of ownership] takeouts as an alternative to bridge financing,” she said. “Our biggest hurdle is lack of knowledge of how to use it. People are still figuring it out.”  

The final panel of the morning examined lender appetite across asset classes. Contrary to popular opinion, there is an appetite out there to lend on older assets, even office. 

Michael Hoffenberg, founder and managing principal of Trevian Capital, said his firm “loves the `70s and `80s vintage stuff that no one else wants,” namely vintage workforce housing, strategic retail, older student housing and medical office. 

“We’ll take what’s boring and falls into our space,” he said. “We’re going where others won’t, we’re charging a modest premium for it, and we’re helping borrowers get from point A to point B.” 

Zach Hoffman, director of AllianceBernstein, admitted that his firm is spending time in the office space, as he views it as overlooked, but stressed that he’d rather place capital into the ever-dependable multifamily space. 

“Relative to office, we’re spending time, as everyone else is, in the multifamily space,” he said. “We have a fixed-rate mandate from our parent, Equitable, and so we put out a significant amount of capital in that asset class. Most of that is kind of a bridge to a better capital markets environment.” 

Catherine Chen, managing director of real estate assets at Apollo Global Management (APO), reminded the audience that while her private equity firm’s loans run the spectrum of $30 million to $900 million (and even $1 billion), every deal and transaction is nuanced due to lending ratios and property types. Citing an example, Chen said a $40 million fixed-rate loan with a longer duration is far different than a $40 million loan carrying binary leasing risk, where if things go great the lender gets repaid in 18 months, but if they don’t then they’re stuck with the property for five years. 

To this end, her team originates across multiple vehicles that can do a combination of fixed-rate and floating-rate debt, where she’s found a healthy appetite for multifamily, industrial and retail lending in 2024. However, she caveated this binary lending strategy by emphasizing that base rates haven’t yet hit that anticipated forward curve that makes floating-rate debt so attractive. 

“If you have the cash flow to support debt service, even if it’s interest-only, I think the cost to get that financing done in our fixed-rate bucket is much more attractive than on the floating-rate side,” she said. “If you look at relative value where we can offer on a portfolio side, as well as pricing from a borrower perspective, fixed-rate ends up being more attractive from a relative value, if you have the asset that can qualify for it.” 

Max Herzog, executive managing director IPA Capital Markets, said there’s liquidity in the market today for “all asset classes,” even hospitality, which he described as “overlooked, more expensive capital.”

However, Herzog put a damper on the idea that office conversions will be the white knight for a beleaguered sector struggling with millions of square feet of antiquated, out-of-date space threatened by record vacancies.  

“There’s going to be more conversions than we’ve ever seen over these next two years, but not as many as people think,” said Herzog. “You need to have the right layout, you have to be vacant, a lot needs to make sense for these conversions to happen — it might take care of some part of the office problem, but nowhere near as much as we might hope.” 

Andrew Coen can be reached at acoen@commercialobserver.com and Brian Pascua can be reached at bpascus@commercialobserver.com

In another dramatic reversal, the South Pasadena City Council last Wednesday unanimously voted to re-instate the financial advisory board it abruptly dissolved only six weeks earlier. The lead up to the vote featured an apology from Council Member Jon Primuth for comments he made about Sheila Rossi, Vice Chair of the newly reauthorized Finance Ad Hoc Committee (FAHC).

Despite impassioned pleas from a group of influential citizens, council members initially seemed poised to reject reinstatement. The fog over what drove the alarming deficit projections that  prompted Council in February to create the FAHC was clearing; possible savings in the current fiscal budget that ends June 30 were emerging; and both Council and its standing Finance Commission had since approved the mid-year budget report they’d previously delayed in the wake of the deficit projections.

“Their work is done,” Council Member Jack Donovan said of the FAHC.

Council Member Michael Cacciotti said a renewed FAHC would constitute an unduly heavy demand and inefficient use of staff, particularly in light of the many recent and planned joint council- finance commission meetings. He rejected the mayor’s notion there is a “fiscal emergency” and other “sensationalized” descriptions of the budget, suggested the city spends too much on the finance commission now and blamed concerns over “chronic instability” in finance department staffing on “pressure and comments from community members creating an unwelcome and stressful employment environment.”

But then Primuth, who on March 20 cited Rossi’s “misrepresentations” as the reason for both his loss of confidence in and vote to kill the FAHC, read a long prepared statement. “People are worried the city is running at too much of a deficit. They’re concerned about the integrity of the city’s financial reporting. They are concerned about the anger with which some council members” spoke of the FAHC. “That would have been me.”

Although it was not his intent, Primuth said, “it appears my words had the impact of accusing her of intentionally misrepresenting. And for that I apologize.”

Starting with some “background,” Primuth then explained why he now felt the FAHC should be re-instated. Since the vote to disband it, Finance Director John Downs apologized for the “financial reporting discrepancies that had caused so much turmoil.” One citizen told Primuth he’d counted six times incorrect reports had been pushed out. This caused “a collapse of confidence in some people in the city’s own numbers.”

Now the department is producing reliable monthly reports, though “more improvement is needed” Primuth continued. The alarming projections were based on an inflated baseline. Council and the Finance Commission have taken steps to ensure more reliable projections, given staff direction to update policies, and discerned long- and short-term cost saving–without major staff cuts–by recognizing a slowdown in capital improvement spending, savings from budgeted-but-unfilled staff positions, and that some large costs–such as Caltrans housing, legal expenses, temporary contract staffing, and Housing Element development–are one-time or diminishing expenses.

The city’s financial troubles must be addressed in a way that is “transparent, collaborative and respectful,” Primuth concluded. The FAHC, with its original four members, should now be charged with making recommendations on how the city can improve its financial reporting, precisely because they have experienced what things are like without it. Therefore “they should be the ones to lead the way. That will improve public confidence.”

“There’s been a kerfuffle over the last couple months,” summarized Council Member Janet Braun, who along with Mayor Evelyn Zneimer and citizens Peter Giulioni and Sheila Rossi made up the FAHC. But it’s been good, because it brought out issues–“where things stand, what needs to be looked at.” Sometime, Braun said, “you need a little bit of kerfuffle to get to the bottom line.”

She said the FAHC should be reauthorized to focus on actual financial figures and the protocols for their presentation, rather than be left trying to reconcile budget figures with unreliable or unavailable interim actuals. The FAHC could also help with prioritization of the capital improvement program (CIP).

Mayor Zneimer agreed, adding the FAHC could address the “inadequacies” of the city’s Springbrook financial software, the antiquity of which has contributed to the financial reporting problems.

Citing the heavy calendar of budget meetings and milestones over the next month, and a renewed sense that council, finance commission and finance staff are working more smoothly together, the council ultimately elected reauthorize the FAHC to commence in July after the new budget is adopted, and charged it with reviewing the city’s year-end actual financial results, making  recommendations for the presentation and reporting of the actuals, and advising on CIP priorities.

Non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI) has been in the news. This form of financial intermediation has grown fast since the global financial crisis (GFC), and its size now equals that of banks in many countries (Acharya et al. 2024 ). Presumably, this growth reflects the demand for, and economic benefits of, the specific services offered by non-bank financial intermediaries (NBFIs). Yet, NBFI has also been in the news as a factor behind some recent financial stresses (e.g. FSB 2020). These events, including severe dysfunctioning in core bond markets, have necessitated large central bank interventions. Related, some have questioned the spare wheel role of NBFI, the notion that it will help with financing the real sector in times of stress. Rather, some recent analysis (e.g. Forbes et al. 2023, Aldasoro et al. 2024) suggests that NBFI is less willing than banks to tie borrowers over during crises and may actually be more procyclical. 

Reflecting this, in a recent paper (Claessens 2024) I review research and policy work on NBFI from a financial stability perspective. Reflecting its growth, stability, and procyclicality issues, NBFI has been researched more recently (for another review, see Aramonte et al. 2023) and received much more policy attention (e.g. FSB 2024). In some sense, this reflects a catching up with the attention long given to banking. But there are many differences. For one, NBFI is more diverse than banking, including as it does money market and other asset management vehicles, pension funds and insurance corporations, making for many aspects to cover and issues to consider. I therefore focus on market-based forms, and within that subset, on debt-related intermediation, as that is most closely associated with financial instability. And, as NBFI emerged more recently, it has led to crises only lately. Since NBFI-related financial instability is very episodic, there are few such events – less so than related to banking. Together, this has made it harder to study its financial stability properties than for banking.

With these caveats in mind, I first document the rapid growth of NBFI. While it has slowed down recently, since the GFC its growth has exceeded that of other financial assets (Figure 1a; for more details, see FSB 2023b). NBFI assets now account for nearly one-half of total global financial assets (Figure 1b).  In 2022, approximately 65% was held by so-called other financial intermediaries (OFIs) – institutions other than central banks, banks, public financial institutions, insurance corporations, pension funds, or financial auxiliaries. Among OFIs, about three-quarters are collective investment vehicles (CIVs), such as money market funds (MMFs), fixed-income funds, balanced funds, hedge funds, and real estate investment trusts. Relative to GDP, between 2012 and 2022 they grew by 7 percentage points in the UK, 3 percentage points in Italy, 2 percentage points in Japan, 1 percentage point in the US, roughly doubled in Brazil and South Africa, and increased by one-third in India. While attribution is difficult, the low interest rate environment, generally low asset price volatility, as well as technological advances and financial reforms likely drove this growth.

Figure 1 Total global financial assets and the NBFI share

Notes: The NBFI sector includes all financial institutions that are not central banks, banks, or public financial institutions. Included are all Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Chile, China, the euro area, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Türkiye, the UK, and the US. Panel a includes data for Russia up until 2020; panel b does not include data for Russia.
Source: FSB (2023b).

Stress periods related to NBFI are rare and can be triggered by many shocks, but they appear to have increased in frequency.  The onset of the GFC, the global COVID-19 outbreak in March 2020, and, most recently, the start of the war in Ukraine have been associated with NBFI-induced financial stress. Most were due to CIVs, which have features that make them susceptible to runs and have driven the NBFI growth since the GFC. But it can be other NBFIs too, as in the UK in September 2022 when gilt interest rates rose following a mini budget announcement, triggering a crisis among pension funds as collateral calls related to so-called liability-driven investments could not be met.

Research has documented the benefits of NBFI in terms of greater access to finance and economic impact, relating these to its specific comparative advantages in maturity and liquidity transformation; its specialisation (for example, some CIVs invest (mostly) in one specific asset class) and ability to finance riskier but more productive segments; its greater allocational efficiency relative to banks (due to its more decentralised nature), at least for some types of investments; and its risk-pooling and diversification benefits for final investors. NBFI’s complementary relationships with banks and capital markets, which can be from the supply and demand side, are also argued to provide benefits.

The risk-reduction benefits of NBFI arise in large part from the diverse forms of financial services it provides. NBFI generally uses instruments that involve greater risk-sharing among a wider pool, which can benefit borrowers. Also, since NBFIs do not have very highly levered balance sheets and are not core to the payment system as banks are, individual NBFI failures tend to have less systemic consequences. Evidence also supports that better-developed capital markets, typically associated with more NBFI, mitigate the negative real effects of crises. But NBFI comes with its own risks, related specifically to interconnections and interactions between liquidity and leverage, and can be procyclical too.

The connections between NBFIs and banks, often referred to as shadow banking, have been extensively analysed post-GFC, as they contributed to that crisis. These links are much smaller today due to various reforms. Still, they and related risks remain (e.g. Acharya et al. 2024), as the large impact of the bankruptcies of Archegos Capital Management and Greensill Capital on some banks showed.

The main systemic risk analysed in relation to NBFI recently has been its fragile liquidity. The underlying mechanisms are well-known (Aramonte et al. 2023) and were present in several recent stress events. At its core are the interactions between liquidity mismatches and leverage with risk-management practices, with the latter influenced in part by regulation. Fragile liquidity can arise from those NBFIs that issue liabilities with near-money characteristics yet are backed by illiquid assets and channelled through vehicles with no (or limited) ability to generate their own liquidity. These forms include MMFs and other types of CIVs. When faced with large-scale redemptions and other withdrawals, such CIVs can quickly run down their buffers. Additionally, in times of stress, fund managers typically hoard cash. Both behaviours can make CIVs want to sell assets at times of few buyers. The demand for liquidity services from dealers may rise, but their supply is not elastic either. Market imbalances may follow. Depending on the size and concentration of investments CIVs hold, this can lead to fire sales and potential market dysfunctions, with spillovers to other parts of the financial system and the real economy.

Such collectively destabilising behaviour and dynamics were analysed well before recent events. New theoretical and empirical work has clarified old and identified new channels, highlighting the large role of leverage in general, and more recently the role of NBFI. Several papers show how stresses in the US Treasury market in March 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the form of the dash for cash related to NBFI actions (e.g. Schrimpf et al. 2020, FSB 2020). Open-ended funds investing in corporate bonds amplified the bond market stresses in March 2020 as they liquidated assets on an elevated scale (e.g. Claessens and Lewrick 2021). And large margin calls led to price spillovers and stresses in commodity markets in March 2022 when energy and other prices spiked following the invasion of Ukraine (e.g. Avalos and Huang 2022). Finally, the procyclicality of NBFI shows up in the reduced access to external financing domestically, but also in cross-border financing, during stress periods (e.g. Fleckenstein et al. 2020, Chari 2023).

Especially following bouts of stress leading to large-scale central bank interventions, policy work has increasingly focused on NBFI. Areas addressed or covered in policy proposals include MMF resilience; liquidity management in OEF; margining practices; the liquidity, structure, and resilience of core bond markets; and US dollar funding and related external vulnerabilities for emerging market economies. Additionally, the role of central banks in responding to market dysfunction has been analysed. Progress with these reforms and policy proposals is summarised in FSB (2023a). While policymakers have been active, the paper points out the many outstanding issues and suggests further analytical work.

One last challenge is data. While many parts of the NBFI sector, at least as covered here, are very transparent, in many ways more so than banks, there are large data gaps which hurt market discipline and supervisory effectiveness. At the same time, analysis of the UK September 2022 event (Pinter 2023) showed that by matching various price and quantity data, it could have been anticipated. Nevertheless, steps can be taken to enhance the disclosure and availability of data and address remaining data gaps.

References

Acharya, V, N Cetorelli and B Tuckman (2024), “Transformation of activities and risks between bank and non-bank financial intermediaries”, VoxEU.org, 29 April.

Aldasoro, I, S Doerr and H Zhou (2024), “Non-bank lending during crises”, CEPR Discussion Paper 18989.

Avalos, F and W Huang (2022), “Commodity markets: shocks and spillovers”, Bank for International Settlements Quarterly Review, September: 15–29.

Aramonte, S, A Schrimpf and H S Shin (2023), “Non-bank financial intermediaries and financial stability”, in R S Gürkaynak and J H Wright (eds), Research Handbook of Financial Markets, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chari, A (2023), “Global risk, non-bank financial intermediation, and emerging market vulnerabilities”, Annual Review of Economics 15: 549–72.

Claessens, S (2024), “Non-Bank Financial Intermediation: Stock Take of Research, Policy and Data”, CEPR Discussion Paper No. 18945.

Claessens, S and U Lewrick (2021), “Open-ended bond funds: systemic risks and policy implications”, Bank for International Settlements Quarterly Review, December: 37–51.

Fleckenstein, Q, M Gopal, G Gutierrez and S Hillenbrand (2020), “Nonbank lending and credit cyclicality”, Harvard Business School Working Paper.

FSB – Financial Stability Board (2020), Holistic review of the March market turmoil.

FSB (2023a), Enhancing the resilience of non-bank financial intermediation, Progress Report.

FSB (2023b), Global monitoring report on non-bank financial intermediation 2023.

FSB (2024), FSB Work Programme for 2024.

Forbes, K, C Friedrich and D Reinhardt (2023), “Funding structures and resilience to shocks after a decade of regulatory reform”, VoxEU.org, 29 June.

Pinter, G (2023), “An anatomy of the 2022 gilt market crisis”, Bank of England Staff Working Paper 1019.

Schrimpf, A, H S Shin and V Sushko (2020), “Leverage and margin spirals in fixed income markets during the Covid-19 crisis”,  Bank for International Settlements Bulletin 2. https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull02.pdf