July 23, 2024

Limited Partner Bargaining Power Leads to Better Deals

Over the last 6 months, we’ve seen some creative trends from developers in response to the competitive capital environment.

In this edition of the Bird's Eye View, we look at deal structure changes that developers are making to attract LP investors, and how these features are making deals more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis.


If you were to focus on media headlines alone, the only logical conclusion is that the world of real estate is a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland from which it will never recover.

Yes, there is uncertainty about the economy, demand growth, and ability to pay higher prices. Land, building and borrowing costs are high. In the U.S., many markets are still dealing with oversupply.


We have no intention of minimizing the challenges associated with those points, though we do want to stick our heads out and highlight some of the positive developments we’ve seen in private real estate over the last 6 months, specifically as a result of increased LP bargaining power.

In this edition of the Bird's Eye View, we look at deal structure changes that developers are making to attract LP investors, and how these features are making deals more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis.

Focus on risk-adjusted returns

When we talk about better deals, we mean deals that are more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. Functionally, this can happen either by reducing risks while maintaining or increasing returns, or increasing returns while maintaining or reducing risks (for more on risk premiums and how they have changed between 2021 and 2024, see our previous article, Where’s the Opportunity in Private Real Estate in 2024).


With that said, let’s take a look at 3 deal features we’ve seen in the last 6 months that have improved projected risk-adjusted returns for LP investors.


LPs Hold the Cards


For the first time in many years, there is heavy competition for capital both inside and outside of real estate, putting LPs in a strong bargaining position. The result is that developers are giving up margin and getting creative to try and attract LP investment. Here are some of the ways we’ve seen this increased bargaining power manifest in deals:


1. Improved Access


We've seen a growing number of developers that have traditionally raised capital solely from institutions open up to the possibility of working with individual investors and family offices, providing access that would have been unheard of three years ago.


Where a substantial portion of project risk comes from execution, being able to invest with AAA developers - those with access to low-cost debt and a proven track record of profitable projects over decades - mitigates some of this risk.


In addition to better access, we are also seeing earlier access to deals, providing a healthier environment to complete proper due diligence.


2. Participation in the Land Lift


It is common for developers to raise capital in two tranches, the first at the time of land-purchase and the second typically when the project is ready to begin construction. In many cases, the land has appreciated in value between the first and second tranches, particularly if it has been rezoned.


In most circumstances, the first-tranche investor, which is often the developer, will keep some or all of this increased land value to themselves. The rationale is that the first-tranche investor(s) took on higher risk by buying unzoned land, and should therefore be eligible for a greater reward. 


This makes sense because particularly in Canada, there is a sizable risk associated with entitlement. Even though these processes are usually successful, they are often lengthy, acting as a drag on returns.

However, we’ve seen some situations this year where second-tranche investors, entering a deal that is ready for construction, have captured the full benefit of the increased land value, making returns to LPs much more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis. 


3. Improving Fee and Profit Split Structures


Some developers have also shifted their compensation and waterfall structures, so that if a deal does underperform, investors take proportionally higher amounts of the profit.


In practice, this concept isn’t new. Preferred returns and hurdle rates have long been used to accomplish this purpose, though we are seeing more creativity and emphasis on structures that reduce downside risk for investors. In other words, if the pie ends up smaller than anticipated, investors are ending up with a larger portion of it than we’ve ever seen. 


Conclusion


Over the last 6 months, we’ve seen some creative trends from developers in response to the competitive capital environment.

While we don’t believe it’s time to hit the “risk-on” button in general, we are excited about the pro-LP deal structures that we are seeing top developers adopt. In our view, these types of measures go a long way toward making private real estate deals more attractive on a risk-adjusted basis, even after accounting for current market conditions.

Author

Hawkeye Wealth Ltd.

Date

July 23, 2024

Share

By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. November 1, 2025
“To a landowner, there is nothing more important than security of title. Once you have fee-simple title in B.C., it has to mean that land is your land. And that is very fundamental to our province – and in fact, to the country.” - Niki Sharma, BC Attorney Genera l
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. October 4, 2025
Introduction Canadian farmland hasn’t posted a single annual decline in value since 1992 . Take a second to soak that up. More than thirty years, multiple recessions, inflation spikes, a housing crash and a tech- bubble. Through it all, farmland kept climbing. In a world where many asset classes appear vulnerable to technological disruption or shifting consumer preferences, the core value in farmland is tied to a necessity that will always remain constant. Food. In this edition of the Bird’s Eye View , we discuss the case for investing in Canadian farmland and share the most compelling points and potential risks from our due diligence on this asset class.  The Investment Case for Canadian Farmland In our view, farmland has six main features that make farmland investment attractive: 1. Consistent Performance and Low Volatility - A 30+ year track-record of positive annual returns is astounding, even more so when you consider that the average annual increase over that period has been 8.1%. Past performance doesn’t guarantee future returns, but there is merit to the fact that farmland has been remarkably consistent through periods of high market volatility. When considering that the figures above don’t account for any profit from the land, farmland has done an impressive job of delivering returns comparable to U.S. equities, but with a volatility profile that more closely resembles bonds. 2. Natural Scarcity - Most cities are established near fresh water and fertile soil. Thus as populations grow and cities expand, that development inherently reduces the base of potential farmland. While most provinces have some level of agricultural land protection program in place, the fact remains that there is a finite amount of farmable land, and each year there is less of it. 3. Diversification and Inflation Hedge - Farmland has a long track record of holding its value when inflation eats away at other assets. Rising food prices translate directly into stronger farm revenues, which in turn support rental income and land appreciation. Additionally, over the last 50 years, farms have averaged an increase in productivity of ~1.5% per year by adopting new technology and processes (machinery, irrigation, nutrient management), which serves as a natural inflation hedge. Unlike equities or bonds, farmland’s performance has shown little correlation with public markets , giving it genuine diversification benefits. 4. Investor-Tenant Alignment - For anyone feeling exhausted with the rhetoric about ‘greedy developers’, it may come as welcome news that investors and landlords aren’t automatically the bad guy in the farmland space. Research shows that farmers are able to drive higher levels of profitability per acre when renting compared to when purchasing farmland , and that trend is accelerating. While renting doesn’t necessarily outperform ownership over the long-run when accounting for land appreciation benefits, it does improve cashflow. Since farming is capital intensive, renting land allows farmers to allocate funds that would have otherwise gone to land, toward equipment and operations that improve yield and profitability. Since farmers’ profitability depends on sustaining yields, they are naturally incentivized to care for the soil and manage the land well, which not only supports their own returns but helps preserve and even enhance the underlying land value. As a result, the ‘renter’s mentality’ sometimes seen in other real estate sectors is far less common in farming. 5. Comparative Affordability - In housing, the current challenge is that people can’t afford to pay what developers can feasibly build. In comparison, while farms are comparatively less affordable than they were 5 years ago, the gap is far less dramatic than it has been in housing. Farm values and rents have rapidly increased, but the revenue generated by those farms has also substantially increased , which has slowed the loss of affordability. While current affordability levels are still a concern in the space, farmers can still operate profitably at current price levels and as shown on the chart below from Farm Credit Canada , we are nowhere near the peaks of unaffordability that farmers experienced during the 1980’s:
By Hawkeye Wealth Ltd. August 23, 2025
Introduction On paper, the cure for unaffordable housing is simple: build more. In practice, the very act of building undermines the incentive to keep building. The federal government has set a target of 500,000 new homes per year by 2035, but supply follows returns, not political will. As more units come online, margins shrink and investors retreat, a dynamic made worse by slowing population growth. In response, experts across Canada have signed competing open letters and budget submissions, each offering prescriptions for how to restore affordability. In this edition of The Bird’s Eye View , we explore the widening gap between Canada’s housing ambitions and the market realities on the ground. We look at why supply targets are so difficult to reach, how policy prescriptions diverge between advocates and developers, and where governments may need to adjust course to bring targets and incentives into alignment. The Scale of the Challenge By 2035, the federal government wants to see 500,000 new homes started each year ( Source ). CMHC estimates that for that same year, between 430,000 and 480,000 annual starts will be needed to restore affordability to 2019 levels ( Source ). Hitting these targets means roughly doubling today’s pace of 245,367 starts. The critical, often unstated requirement behind these supply targets is profitability. If projects don’t offer an attractive risk-adjusted return, they simply won’t get built. That challenge is already visible in Vancouver and Toronto, where housing starts are down because many projects just aren’t worth the risk of building for the returns projected. In the CMHC’s Housing Market Outlook Summer Update , CMHC cut housing start forecasts for every year from 2025–2027, with the 2027 baseline revised downward by 5.5% only five months after the previous forecast: