Can you explain in a bit more detail what that means exactly?
I will try.
typically the legal entity that operates retail premises will finance the acquisition of those premises by taking a loan. unlike say your mortgage or car loan, these loans have additional conditions (covenants) that need to be satisfied aside from ‘make the payments on time’. A typical one is maintaining the loan to value ratio (LTV) above a certain level. The mechanics of how and when the value can be reasessed vary and are specific to the loan, but typically have to do with the cash flow potential of the property.
so, if you as a debt funded landlord have some empty premises that you are ‘just about to get a tenant for, any day now’ you can say that it still has the higher earning potential. But if you bite the bullet and start writing long leases at lower prices, then you will be pushing that ratio down toward breach. And if you breach, the lenders will have some recourse which will be unpalatable to the landlord; perhaps callign the loan, or ratchetiing up the interest rate, or exercising some kind of debt-to-equity covnersion right.
this article from a few years back illustrates the dynamic that can result:
Shopping centre owners are falling foul of their debt terms, forcing lenders to consider the most effective response
www.recapitalnews.com
I dont know what the situation with the balance sheet of ‘The Arch Company‘ is, but in 2018 blackstone led a 1.5 billion raise to buy out network rail, with apparently some 750 million coming from Merrill lynch (there are articles in the FT from 2018/19 on this but they are behind a paywall). Typically the terms of these things will be ‘commercial in confidence’ So not a lot of info on the covenants.
Hope that helps. More generally, to appreciate the complexity of leveraged financing have a look at this:
https://www.cliffordchance.com/cont...n-us-and-european-leveraged-finance-terms.pdf
You might want to skip reading that unless you like having a headache which requires several stiff drinks. The complexity from all of this arises from the old truism: “if you owe the bank a little money and cant pay, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a lot of money and cant pay, the bank has a problem.”
just another case of entirely legitimate mechanisms in financial capitalism leading to bad incentives and negative consequences.