Negative Leverage in Real Estate: When Borrowing Costs More Than the Asset Yields

A man I'll call Ray spent twenty-six years buying small apartment buildings in a mid-sized Midwestern city. He bought his first eight-unit with a partner in the late nineties, refinanced it twice, and parlayed it into a portfolio he ran out of a strip-mall office with one bookkeeper and a flip phone he refused to retire. Ray had one rule he repeated like scripture: never pay so much for a building that the loan costs more than the building earns. Positive leverage or no deal. It kept him solvent through 2008, when half the operators he knew did not stay solvent.

Ray sold the portfolio last year and now sits on the other side of the table, reading private placement memoranda as a limited partner. The first serious one he sent me had a going-in capitalization rate of about 5% and a loan priced around 6%. The asset, on day one, earned less than the money borrowed to buy it. The exact thing he spent a quarter century refusing to do. He wanted to know whether the sponsor was an idiot, a crook, or onto something he'd missed.

Negative leverage is the move every real estate investor of Ray's generation was trained to avoid, and in 2026 a number of disciplined sponsors are doing it deliberately. That sentence should make you uneasy, because it can describe a thoughtful bet on rising income just as easily as it can describe a sponsor papering over a deal that does not pencil. Telling the two apart is the entire exercise. What follows is a working guide to what negative leverage means, why it keeps appearing in this vintage, when it survives contact with reality, and the questions that separate a glide path from a trap.

What Negative Leverage Means

Start with the arithmetic, because it is simpler than the term suggests. Leverage is positive when the property's unlevered yield exceeds the cost of the debt financing it. Buy at a 7% cap rate, borrow at 5%, and every dollar of borrowed money earns a 2-point spread that accrues to the equity. Borrowing amplifies the return. That is the textbook case, and it is the world Ray operated in for most of his career.

Negative leverage is the mirror image. The going-in cap rate sits below the interest rate on the loan. Buy at a 5% cap, borrow at 6%, and each borrowed dollar now earns a point less than it costs. Borrowing drags the equity's current cash return down rather than lifting it. In year one, the levered investor earns a lower cash-on-cash return than an all-cash buyer would on the same building.

Said plainly: the building does not yet throw off enough income to cover the cost of its own mortgage at the margin. The bet is that it will.

Why Negative Leverage Is Showing Up in This Phase of the Cycle

For most of the last cycle, this question was academic. Cap rates sat comfortably above borrowing costs, and the spread was wide enough that you had to work to construct a negative-leverage deal. The spread has since compressed, for reasons that have little to do with sponsor behavior and a lot to do with the rate environment.

Cap rates are generally sticky. Sellers anchor to the prices their assets fetched in the prior cycle and resist marking them down, so cap rates have repriced upward only partway. Debt, by contrast, repriced immediately and fully. When the Federal Reserve held its policy rate steady at an elevated level in its April 2026 statement, citing still-firm inflation and a labor market no longer accelerating, it confirmed that financing costs are not snapping back to the 2021 world any time soon. The result is a window where high-quality assets still trade in the 5s while the loans against them price in the 6s. The spread inverted. Negative leverage stopped being a hypothetical and became a feature of today’s real estate capital markets.

None of that, by itself, tells you whether any given deal is sound. It only explains why the question is suddenly in play on so many term sheets.

When Negative Leverage Can Still Work

A negative-leverage entry is defensible when the income is going to grow, and grow on a schedule the sponsor can underwrite rather than wish for. The whole bet rests on the gap between today's in-place income and tomorrow's.

Picture a value-add multifamily asset bought at a 5% going-in cap with debt at 6%. The sponsor's plan is to renovate units as leases roll, push rents toward a demonstrable market level, and trim operating costs. If that plan lands, the yield calculated on the original purchase price, the yield on cost, climbs each year. At some point it crosses the 6% cost of debt, and the leverage flips from negative to positive without anyone refinancing. From there forward, each borrowed dollar earns more than it costs again.

‍

There is a second exit from the trap: the refinance. If rates ease over the hold, or if the now-higher income supports a larger loan at a better rate, the sponsor refinances into positive-leverage territory and often returns a chunk of equity in the process. A disciplined underwriting does not depend on this. Rates are not a sponsor's to forecast, and a plan that only works if the Fed cooperates is a plan resting on a hope. The deal has to pencil on the income growth alone; the refinance is upside, not the thesis.

The companion model accompanying this article runs that glide path year by year, so you can see how sensitive the crossover is to the one assumption that matters most: the rate of income growth.

The Red Flags Behind a Negative Entry

Here is where Ray's instinct earns its keep. Negative leverage without a credible, specific path to positive carry is a warning, not a strategy. The same 5%-in, 6%-borrowed entry produces two completely different deals depending on what sits underneath it.

‍

When you encounter a negative-leverage entry, the questions are concrete. Where does the income growth come from, and is it documented—signed leases, a real loss-to-lease gap, a market with absorption—rather than asserted? What happens to cash distributions in the early years while the spread is still negative, and is the sponsor candid that they may be thin or paused? Does the model quietly assume a refinance or a cap-rate compression at exit to rescue a return that the operations alone do not produce? A deal that needs both falling rates and rising rents to clear its hurdle is leaning on two bets, and it’s no given that these factors will conspire – rates typically fall when economic conditions worsen, and wage growth and fundamentals may not support rent growth.

A negative-leverage deal with answers to those questions is a calculated position. A negative-leverage deal without them is a sponsor hoping you run the arithmetic after you wire the money.

The Balance Sheet Behind the Spread

There is a question underneath all of this that rarely makes it into the marketing, and it is the one Ray, as a former operator, asked first: who is holding the deal while the income catches up?

A negative-leverage entry means thinner cash flow in the early years and a real chance that distributions are reduced or suspended while the business plan plays out. That is survivable for a sponsor with a deep balance sheet and patient capital. It can be fatal for a thinly capitalized sponsor who needs current cash flow to cover their own obligations and holds no reserve to carry an asset through a soft stretch or a refinance window that arrives late. The structure that is tolerable for one is reckless for the other.

This is one of many scenarios where GP/LP alignment is particularly critical. Lightstone invests at least 20% of the equity into each Lightstone DIRECT offering, and underwrites income growth on conservative assumptions rather than heroic ones. A negative-leverage signature is acceptable in that model because the firm has the institutional balance sheet to carry an asset through the catch-up period, generally capitalizes reserves up-front, and has meaningful capital riding on the same outcome as its limited partners. The same deal, led by a sponsor with only a sliver of equity and no reserves, is a different and more dangerous animal. The arithmetic on the page is identical. The risk of being wrong changes materially.

What the Glide Path Doesn't Promise

The maximalist version of this argument would have you believe negative leverage is fine, sophisticated even, and Ray's old rule was anachronism. Don’t be so sure. Three things can break the logic:

1) The income growth can fail to materialize. Renovations run over budget, a submarket softens, new supply lands next door, and the loss-to-lease that looked like easy upside turns out to be priced correctly already. If the yield on cost never reaches the cost of debt, the leverage stays negative for the life of the hold, and the early cash-flow drag never reverses.

2) The refinance window can close. A plan that tolerates a late or expensive refinance is sturdier than one that requires a cheap one, but if the hold stretches because rates stayed high, capital stays tied up longer than the underwriting assumed, and the annualized return compresses even when the deal eventually works.

3) The capital stack can run short of reserves. A sponsor who does not budget for the lean years, the capital expenditures, the leasing costs, the paused distribution or two, faces hard choices at the worst possible time. Ray's scripture was never really about a number. It was about refusing to stand anywhere he might need to be rescued.

Positive Leverage Was a Rule; Negative Leverage Is a Question

Ray's rule kept him in business for twenty-six years, and I would not tell him to discard it. The rule was about discipline, and that discipline matters even when the rule no longer fits the math of the moment. The discipline is this: never own a building when the plan for debt service cannot be seen clearly, on paper, before you commit. In a wide-spread market, positive leverage was taken for granted. In a compressed-spread phase of the cycle, the clarity must show up deal by deal: income growth you can document, a sponsor who can carry the asset while it grows, and capital that does not need to be bailed out by a rate cut nobody can promise. A negative-leverage deal is not the disqualifier his generation took it to be. But it does raise serious questions. The deals worth your money are the ones that answer before you have to ask.

Soren Godbersen is Chief Growth Officer at Lightstone DIRECT. This article is for informational purposes only and is not tax, legal, or investment advice. The figures used are illustrative and are not tied to any specific Lightstone offering or any promise of returns. Investment outcomes depend on individual circumstances and the specific terms of each offering. Consult a qualified financial advisor before acting on any of the above. Past performance does not guarantee future results; all investments carry risk.

Further reading: Federal Reserve, April 29, 2026 FOMC statement; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2026 Consumer Price Index; U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investor Bulletin on Private Placements Under Regulation D.