iv. How Data Quality Affects Cost of Capital

The link between legibility, underwriting confidence, and pricing.

Overview

Cost of capital is often explained through market conditions, interest rates, and asset class risk. While these factors matter, they obscure a quieter determinant that operates asset by asset: data quality. When asset information is incomplete, inconsistent, or unverifiable, capital providers compensate by pricing in uncertainty. Over $1.7 trillion in commercial mortgages face maturity through 2026, with two-thirds of banks tightening lending standards—the highest level outside recession periods. In this environment, data quality becomes a material differentiator determining which assets can refinance on favorable terms and which face elevated costs or reduced proceeds.

Data quality does not change market risk or eliminate sector-wide repricing. It changes how confidently risk can be assessed and priced. Assets with strong documentation command tighter spreads, higher leverage, and more flexible covenants not because they are fundamentally safer but because their risk can be understood precisely rather than buffered against unknown exposure. This distinction compounds across refinancing cycles, creating persistent cost advantages for assets that can explain themselves clearly through verifiable records.

Capital is Priced Under Uncertainty

Lenders and investors do not price assets based on optimism or pessimism about quality. They price them based on uncertainty about what they can verify. When information is weak—when maintenance records are incomplete, performance claims cannot be substantiated, or compliance status requires investigation rather than simple verification—assumptions widen to accommodate possibilities that better data would eliminate. Downside scenarios receive greater weight in sensitivity analysis because positive cases cannot be demonstrated convincingly. Buffers increase across multiple dimensions to protect against exposures that clear documentation would quantify precisely.

These adjustments manifest directly in transaction terms: higher interest rates that reflect information risk premiums rather than asset risk alone, lower loan proceeds as loan-to-value ratios compress to protect against valuation uncertainty, stricter covenants that impose tighter operational constraints and monitoring thresholds, and reduced leverage that forces higher equity contributions even when asset performance would support more aggressive structures with better documentation. Research analyzing commercial lending finds that underpricing loans to meet competitive pressure erodes net interest margins while creating long-term risk exposure—yet differentiated pricing requires confidence in asset-level risk assessment that weak documentation cannot support.

These pricing adjustments are rational responses to informational risk, not judgments about asset quality. When two comparable properties compete for financing and one provides comprehensive, verifiable documentation while the other requires extensive investigation to establish basic facts, lenders price the informational difference even if underlying fundamentals are similar. The penalty for poor data quality is real and measurable in basis points, leverage ratios, and covenant flexibility.

Why Uncertainty Translates Directly into Pricing

Capital providers operate under constraints imposed by internal risk models, credit committees, and regulatory requirements that demand specific inputs for pricing decisions. When asset data cannot support precise inputs—when expected useful life must be inferred from age rather than verified through condition assessments, when reserve requirements cannot be calibrated to documented maintenance patterns, when expense forecasts lack historical basis, or when terminal values rest on generic assumptions rather than performance trajectories—models default to conservative parameters that increase perceived risk and raise required returns.

Each parameter adjustment cascades through pricing calculations. Shorter assumed useful lives increase annual depreciation charges and reduce supportable debt service. Higher reserve requirements reduce cash available for distributions and debt service coverage. Elevated expense forecasts compress net operating income and reduce property value. Lower terminal values reduce overall investment returns and increase equity requirements. These model adjustments are often invisible in final pricing but collectively produce materially different outcomes between well-documented and poorly documented comparable assets.

Federal banking regulators monitoring commercial real estate exposure emphasize that rigorous stress testing and risk-based pricing strategies must account for asset-level vulnerabilities. When data quality prevents confident stress testing because downside scenarios cannot be bounded with evidence, institutions apply wider stress ranges and more conservative assumptions. This is not regulatory conservatism—it is rational response to information environments that make differentiated risk assessment impossible.

Data Quality Versus Data Volume

More data does not automatically reduce cost of capital if it does not improve confidence in specific ways that underwriting processes require. Capital markets care about data that is consistent across time so trends can be established and projections grounded in historical patterns, traceable to authoritative sources so provenance can be verified and reliability established, verifiable by third parties so representations can be confirmed independently rather than accepted on assertion, and aligned with financial representations so operational claims match accounting records and cash flow explanations.

Large volumes of unstructured or conflicting information increase review effort without narrowing uncertainty. An asset with decades of maintenance records stored inconsistently across multiple systems, using varying terminology, and lacking clear links to specific equipment or outcomes, does not benefit from this volume during underwriting. Appraisers and analysts must invest time reconciling conflicts and establishing basic facts rather than evaluating risk characteristics. This friction increases diligence costs and timelines while failing to improve pricing confidence. Quality reduces friction by enabling efficient verification. Volume often increases friction by requiring extensive interpretation before information becomes usable.

Recent analysis of commercial real estate lending trends notes that competitive pressures influence pricing more than sound risk-based strategies in many markets, with institutions under-pricing to match competitors despite creating long-term exposure. Differentiated pricing that reflects actual asset quality requires data supporting confident risk discrimination. Without verifiable documentation enabling precise risk assessment, institutions face binary choice: price conservatively and lose competitive deals, or price aggressively without evidence supporting the decision. Neither outcome is optimal; both reflect information quality constraints.

How Data Quality Affects Leverage

Leverage is fundamentally a function of confidence in asset performance and value stability. Assets supported by high-quality data allow tighter risk margins because lenders can quantify exposure precisely rather than buffer against unknown risks. They support higher loan-to-value ratios because appraisals rest on verified evidence rather than conservative assumptions about worst-case conditions. They reduce reliance on contingency assumptions because documented performance demonstrates behavior under various conditions rather than requiring generic stress scenarios.

Conversely, weak data forces lenders to protect downside exposure through structural mechanisms. Lower leverage directly reduces dollar exposure to potential losses from value declines or income disruptions. Additional reserves and guarantees provide buffers against uncertainties that documentation would clarify. Equity cushions protect lenders from conditions they cannot assess confidently through available information. These protections are expensive for borrowers—they reduce proceeds, increase equity requirements, and lower overall returns—yet they are rational responses when information quality prevents precise risk assessment.

This dynamic persists across refinancing cycles, compounding impact on returns. An asset financed initially at 65% LTV due to information quality issues faces the same constraint at refinancing unless documentation improves materially. Over a 30-year hold period, this persistent leverage penalty reduces cumulative returns significantly compared to a comparable asset maintaining 75% LTV through superior documentation. The difference is not asset quality but informational quality enabling confident underwriting at higher leverage.

The Role of Data in Covenant Design

Covenants are mechanisms for managing uncertainty over loan terms when complete information is unavailable at origination. When asset data is weak—when current condition cannot be verified, maintenance patterns are unclear, or performance trajectories are uncertain—covenants become more restrictive to compensate. Monitoring thresholds are set conservatively with limited flexibility because lenders cannot distinguish normal variation from meaningful deterioration without baseline documentation. Triggers for additional reserves or equity injections are set broadly because specific risks cannot be quantified precisely.

When data quality is high, covenants can be more precisely calibrated to actual risk. Monitoring can be more responsive, adjusting to verified conditions rather than generic thresholds. Exceptions can be handled through evidence—documented performance supporting temporary relaxation—rather than suspicion that any deviation signals underlying problems. This flexibility has material value during economic cycles when temporary market dislocations affect performance without indicating fundamental asset problems. Well-documented assets can demonstrate that covenant breaches reflect temporary conditions, while poorly documented assets face presumptions of deterioration.

Research on loan workouts and modifications confirms that extending maturity dates without addressing fundamental issues simply defers problems. However, distinguishing between temporary market conditions and fundamental deterioration requires documentation establishing what has actually occurred operationally. Without this evidence, lenders cannot confidently extend accommodations even when appropriate, forcing more aggressive enforcement of terms that damages both parties unnecessarily.

Equity Pricing Reflects the Same Dynamics

While equity investors tolerate more uncertainty than lenders, they are not immune to data-driven risk assessment. Poor data quality leads to higher target returns reflecting information risk premiums, wider valuation dispersion as different investors make divergent assumptions about unverifiable conditions, and increased preference for liquidity to enable exit if assumptions prove wrong. These factors raise implied cost of equity even when underlying asset performance is strong.

Equity capital is patient but not blind. Institutional investors conducting portfolio allocation rely on comparable information across holdings to assess relative performance and risk. When some assets cannot provide verification supporting performance claims, portfolio managers apply conservative assumptions rather than accepting representations. This systematic discounting affects capital allocation decisions—poorly documented assets face higher hurdle rates for incremental investment even when operational teams claim conditions warrant expansion. The penalty is not skepticism about management but rational response to information asymmetry that prevents independent verification.

Why Cost of Capital Improvements Compound

Improvements in data quality rarely produce dramatic single-step changes in pricing. Their effect is incremental and cumulative across transaction cycles. Each financing event where diligence proceeds efficiently without extensive investigation, where appraisals support assumptions without requiring conservative buffers, where underwriting relies on verified performance rather than protective assumptions, builds institutional confidence. Lenders and investors develop track records with specific assets demonstrating that documentation quality enables accurate risk assessment.

Over time, this confidence reduces baseline risk premiums applied to the asset independent of current market conditions. Assets with established patterns of clear, verifiable documentation face lower information costs in due diligence, more efficient underwriting processes, and more competitive pricing as lenders compete for well-understood credits rather than pricing defensively against information gaps. This reputational effect compounds like credit rating improvements—slowly building advantage through consistent demonstration of documentary quality.

The practical impact is measurable. An asset that refinances ten basis points cheaper due to documentation quality saves meaningful dollars on a $50 million loan. Over multiple cycles, these savings compound. Equally important, superior documentation enables maintaining target leverage through market cycles rather than facing forced deleveraging during stressed periods when poor information prevents lenders from confidently supporting existing structures.

Data Quality Does Not Override Market Conditions

Establishing realistic expectations: strong data quality cannot eliminate macroeconomic risk, interest rate volatility, or sector-wide repricing driven by fundamental shifts in demand or financing availability. When interest rates rise 300 basis points, all borrowers face higher costs. When office occupancy falls structurally due to remote work, all office assets face valuation pressure. Data quality does not create immunity from market forces.

What data quality ensures is that assets are not penalized unnecessarily beyond market-driven factors. In benign markets, documentation quality may not matter much—capital is abundant and terms are competitive regardless of information quality. In stressed markets, clarity becomes differentiator. When two-thirds of banks have tightened standards and $1.7 trillion in mortgages faces refinancing into higher rate environment, lenders distinguish between assets they can underwrite confidently and those requiring excessive assumptions. This distinction determines which assets can refinance on acceptable terms and which face forced sales or distressed modifications.

Risk premiums should reflect actual exposure rather than informational ambiguity. Decisions should be differentiated based on evidence rather than generalized across categories due to inability to distinguish individual assets. In adverse markets, clarity becomes more valuable, not less, because it enables transactions that information gaps would prevent. This is practical advantage with measurable financial impact rather than theoretical benefit.

Why This Guide Matters

Cost of capital is often treated as external and uncontrollable—determined by central banks, market sentiment, and sector dynamics beyond individual influence. In reality, a meaningful component reflects how well an asset can be understood through available documentation. Data quality influences cost of capital not by changing fundamentals but by changing confidence in risk assessment. When capital providers can see clearly into asset conditions, maintenance patterns, and performance trajectories, they price risk more precisely rather than buffering against unknown exposures.

Precision is cheaper than uncertainty. This is not philosophical claim but economic reality: information risk commands premiums measurable in basis points, leverage ratios, and covenant terms. Organizations that invest in documentation quality—maintaining verifiable records continuously, establishing clear provenance, enabling efficient verification—realize these savings repeatedly across financing cycles. The guidance is direct: treat data quality as financial infrastructure affecting capital costs rather than administrative overhead. Establish what constitutes verifiable evidence for key underwriting inputs. Maintain documentation continuity enabling efficient diligence. Demonstrate conditions through records rather than assertions requiring investigation.

The commercial real estate financing environment remains challenging through 2026, with elevated interest rates, tightened lending standards, and substantial refinancing volume competing for cautious capital. In this environment, informational advantages that enable confident underwriting become material differentiators. Assets that can demonstrate conditions clearly transact; those requiring extensive investigation to establish basic facts face friction, delays, and defensive pricing. Data quality is not ancillary concern—it is determinant of capital access and cost operating at individual asset level within whatever broader market conditions prevail.

---

Keywords: cost of capital, asset data quality, real estate finance, underwriting risk, loan pricing, valuation confidence, investment risk, asset legibility, information risk, leverage optimization

References

• Abrigo. (2025). Trends in Commercial Real Estate Lending and Risk. Analysis of pricing strategies, risk-based underwriting, and data requirements in CRE lending.

• Bank for International Settlements. Risk, Uncertainty, and Capital Allocation. Framework for how information quality affects capital pricing and allocation decisions.

• Deloitte. (2025). Commercial Real Estate Outlook 2026. Analysis of $1.7 trillion refinancing wave and data quality challenges affecting loan origination.

• International Monetary Fund. (2024). US Commercial Real Estate Remains a Risk. Analysis showing 11% price decline and tightening lending standards with two-thirds of banks restricting credit.

• International Valuation Standards Council. Information Reliability and Financial Decision-Making. Standards on how information quality affects valuation confidence and pricing.

• OECD. Uncertainty, Transparency, and Investment. Research on relationship between information transparency and capital costs across asset classes.

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Data Quality and Real Estate Risk. Professional guidance on documentation requirements and their impact on risk assessment reliability.

• U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2024). Commercial Real Estate: Trends, Risks, and Federal Monitoring Efforts. Report on CRE market conditions, delinquency trends, and bank exposure.