CRE’s Capital Comeback Is Gradual, Layered and Deeply Selective Article originally posted on Globe St. on March 26, 2026 Private capital is edging back into commercial real estate, but not in the way it did during the era of free money. As stress builds in private credit and geopolitical shocks push investors toward hard assets, the shift is starting to rewire the capital stack for real estate deals: who provides which tranche, at what price and on what terms. In an interview on CNBC, JLL CEO Christian Ulbrich framed real assets as “incredibly attractive” in the current environment, but the implications for pricing and liquidity over the next two years are far more nuanced than a simple “risk-off into property” story. Capital moving, but not all at once Ulbrich described a spectrum of investors, from small players moving into public REITs to larger institutions and ultra-high-net-worth individuals going directly into assets. That segmentation matters because each cohort hits the market differently in terms of timing and risk tolerance. Public REITs are likely to feel the earliest impact as smaller investors rotate out of riskier credit strategies and into listed vehicles that offer daily liquidity and transparent pricing. That should help narrow some of the discounts to NAV and compress yields at the margin, particularly for REITs with core, income-focused portfolios. For private vehicles and direct deals, capital will arrive more slowly and selectively, reinforcing an emerging divide between “have” and “have not” assets rather than lifting the entire market. Over the next 12–24 months, that staggered migration implies a stepwise repricing rather than a single inflection point. Listed valuations stabilize first, then core private assets in top markets see tightening yields as large allocators re-weight, while secondary and structurally challenged assets remain stuck in price discovery. A narrower definition of “core” Ulbrich was explicit that in periods of uncertainty, investors retreat to “the best buildings and the best locations,” highlighting multifamily and logistics but extending the logic to high-quality office and other core assets. In practice, that suggests a narrower, more demanding definition of “core” that will drive greater dispersion in pricing even within the same asset class. For prime, institutional-grade assets in deep, liquid markets, increased demand from capital rotating out of private credit is likely to translate into yield compression and firmer clearing prices, even as debt costs remain elevated by recent rate volatility. Buyers with low leverage or all-equity strategies will be positioned to move first, effectively resetting pricing at levels that still look attractive relative to credit spreads but are materially below 2021 peaks. Outside that narrow band, bid–ask spreads will persist. Assets with lease-up risk, capex overhangs or location issues will not automatically benefit from the “real assets are attractive” narrative. Instead, sponsors will see pressure in two directions at once: equity capital that is highly price-sensitive and lenders that are more conservative on proceeds and structure. The result is a dual market where cap rates for true core grind tighter while secondary assets may require double-digit IRRs, structured capital or discounted exits to clear. Liquidity: deeper at the top, thinner everywhere else Ulbrich’s comments point to a capital stack in which equity is prepared to lean in at the top of the quality curve, but on terms that favor liquidity and downside protection. That has several implications for deal flow. First, transaction volumes are likely to recover unevenly. Core and core-plus trades in gateway and high-growth markets should see a pick-up as investors reallocate from private credit into long-duration, income-producing real estate, especially in segments like multifamily and logistics that offer diversified cash flows. Those deals can be financed with lower leverage and a mix of senior debt and patient equity, supporting more predictable execution. Second, liquidity in value-add and opportunistic strategies may remain constrained. With private credit spreads elevated and lenders focused on asset quality, the cost of borrowing mezzanine or preferred equity-type capital to fill gaps is high. Sponsors that relied on cheap leverage to make riskier business plans work will find the math more challenging. Unless sellers capitulate on price, many of those assets will stay stuck in limbo, dragging on overall market liquidity. Third, the hierarchy Ulbrich outlined—smaller investors in public REITs, mid-sized in private REITs, and institutions in direct deals—implies a layered response in secondary markets. Private REITs, for example, may find it easier to raise capital for clearly defined, low-risk strategies in top markets than for diversified vehicles with legacy exposure. Redemption dynamics will remain a key constraint; the availability of new capital will depend on how quickly these vehicles can recycle their portfolios into the types of assets now in favor.