Source: Heuer Dialog, Author: Alexander Sell
Curth-C. Flatow of FAP Group, Rita Marie Roland, the moderator from KPMG, Konstantin Kortmann of JLL Germany and Sabine Barthauer of DZ Hyp
If the broader mood at this year’s Quo Vadis 2026 conference in Berlin oscillated between geopolitics and strategic autonomy, one panel brought the debate back to ground level. Germany’s property market is not suffering from a capital shortage. It is constrained by something far more prosaic: the discipline of realistic exits and the cost of financing sustainable transformation.
In a market long obsessed with liquidity, the real constraint now is valuation discipline.
The discussion opened with a telling transaction: a fully let residential and commercial building in Hamburg, 2,300 sqm, sold to a family office. That was the headline deal of the day. In 2026, this is what activity looks like: smaller lots, equity-strong buyers and little of the institutional scale that once defined the market.
Konstantin Kortmann, CEO of JLL Germany, confirmed the pattern. Residential was the strongest asset class by volume last year, yet large transactions were rare. Private capital, he noted, is currently more prepared to move than in-house institutional money. The market has not frozen; it has narrowed. Deals clear where expectations align and the product is clean. They stall where either side clings to yesterday’s pricing.
Financing is available — but only for the right product. Kortmann was explicit that secondary office stock without a credible repositioning story struggles to attract foreign capital. Even in residential, assets can face refinancing obstacles if they lack a convincing pathway towards climate neutrality. The constraint is product quality, not liquidity.
Sabine Barthauer, CEO of DZ Hyp, framed the bank perspective with similar clarity. “Flight to quality” is visible across asset classes. Prime offices, well-positioned hotels, strong borrowers and long-term investors are once again seeing competitive structures. But banks cannot finance trophy towers alone. The harder work lies in transformation: refurbishments, mixed-use repositioning, financing for the economic middle of the market and the rehabilitation of mono-use districts that no longer function.
Energy performance has moved from aspiration to credit criterion. Assets with very poor efficiency classes and no credible transformation plan are, in her words, “very difficult” today. ESG is no longer a reporting exercise; it now determines credit eligibility. Refinancing remains possible where cashflow is robust and indexed rents have cushioned higher capital costs. But forward-looking uncertainty — from remote work to demographic change — will increasingly separate winners from losers, particularly in the office segment.
The Mikado phase
If banks are selective, can alternative lenders fill the gap? Curth-C. Flatow of FAP Group rejected the notion that debt funds are riding in as white knights. Their approach, he argued, is risk-based and exit-driven, not relationship-based. They can finance complexity — restructurings, refinancing gaps, transitional assets — but only where the exit mathematics are credible within a defined time horizon. The era of highly leveraged rescues belongs to a different cycle.
The discussion then turned to the market’s deeper hesitation. Extensions and forbearance measures continue to buy time. The much-invoked “maturity wall” has not yet forced widespread disposals. Rita Marie Roland, the moderator from KPMG, likened the situation to the well-known German game of Mikado: whoever moves first loses. No one is eager to crystallise losses if cashflow still covers debt service.
Kortmann added a practical observation from the transaction front line. Where rents have grown and price expectations have adjusted, deals proceed. Where sellers engage in valuation “shopping” or underestimate refurbishment and conversion costs, processes unravel early. Once capex for modernisation or office-to-residential conversion is properly priced, many cases no longer add up at legacy book values. In such situations, the rational outcome may be unattractive, but it is arithmetically unavoidable.
The message for investors
Core assets with stable cashflows are gradually regaining financing depth and competitive terms. Transitional and non-core stock will require materially more equity, sharper pricing and credible repositioning plans. Alternative lenders can support that process, but they cannot eliminate the need for write-down realism.
The constraint tightening the German market is not a liquidity squeeze. It is a reluctance to recognise new price levels and to fund the capex required to make ageing assets fit for the next cycle. When movement comes, it is likely to be driven not by a sudden flood of capital, but by acceptance that exit assumptions - not optimism - determine value.