Mamdani Froze the Rent. The Lenders Are Doing the Math.

New York City's rent-stabilized buildings got a cost bill this year that rose 5.3%.¹ They got a revenue bill that rose zero. Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the freeze "a historic victory for New York City tenants".² Five months later, the lenders who finance those buildings have started pricing in the gap. Yesterday he signed a second law that gives nonprofits the first shot at buying the buildings that break. I think he is treating the symptom his own policy is making worse.

Key Highlights

• The freeze: Apartment Order #58 sets the allowed increase at 0% for both one-year and two-year stabilized leases that start between Oct. 1, 2026 and Sept. 30, 2027.³
• The cost side: Operating costs for stabilized buildings rose 5.3%, led by fuel at 11.0% and insurance at 10.5%, and the board projects another 4.1% next year.⁴
• The lenders: Fannie Mae now assumes stabilized rents stay flat for four to eight years and expenses rise at least 5% a year, according to sources cited by The City Reporter, which also reported a Freddie Mac pause that Freddie and its regulator dispute.⁵
• The new law: COPA, signed Nov. 10, gives vetted nonprofits a 20-day window to declare interest and 70 days to offer on covered buildings, plus a right to match later bids, across an estimated 3,400 buildings.^{6, 7}
• The bellwether: Flagstar Financial holds $8.1 billion of NYC loans on buildings that are at least half rent-regulated, and $4.4 billion of that is rated special mention, substandard or nonaccrual.⁸

What Mamdani Promised, and Why It Lands

Let me give the other side its due first, because it deserves it. Mamdani ran on four words. "As your next mayor, I will freeze your rent," he said in ad after ad, according to the Associated Press.⁹ He kept the promise. That alone is rarer in politics than it should be.

And the appeal is real. About 2 million New Yorkers live in roughly 1 million stabilized apartments.⁹ The board's own explanatory statement says the citywide net rental vacancy rate was 1.41% in 2023, and that for units renting at or below $1,750 it was under 1%.³ Of the few vacant units on offer, the typical asking rent was $3,000 a month.¹⁰ If you are a tenant paying $1,600 in that market, a freeze is not an abstraction. It is the difference between staying and leaving.

I understand that. I really do. I just don't think a price ceiling fixes a shortage. It never has.

The mayor's statement after the vote said the board had weighed "tenants' ability to pay, cost of living and building operating costs".¹¹ The board's landlord member saw it differently. Christina Smyth resigned hours before the vote and wrote that the rebuilt board "was required to deliver a rent freeze,".¹² Commercial Observer reported that the board's own net revenue projection implied rents would need to rise roughly 3.4% to 4.5% just to hold owners' net operating income flat.¹³ The board chose zero.

The Mechanism: A Price Is a Signal, Even When You Freeze It

Here's what I keep coming back to. A rent is not just a transfer from tenant to owner. It is the cash flow that pays for the boiler, the roof, the insurance policy and the mortgage. Freeze it while costs climb and the building's value has to fall. That is arithmetic, not ideology.

Look at the cost lines. Taxes, the heaviest weight in the index, rose 2.6%. Labor rose 3.0%. Maintenance rose 6.0%. Insurance rose 10.5%.⁴ And insurance did not start this year. The board's own table shows the insurance component rising every single year from 2017 through 2026, including 21.7% in 2024 and 18.7% in 2025.³ Compound those ten years and insurance costs are about 3.3 times their 2016 level.

Now picture the lender's side of the table. A mortgage is sized off net operating income. Cut the expected growth of income to zero for an unknown number of years, assume costs keep rising, and the loan a building can carry shrinks. That is exactly what sources told The City Reporter that Fannie Mae now does: it assumes no rent growth on stabilized units for four to eight years, covering Mamdani's current term and a possible second, and expenses rising at least 5% a year.¹⁴ Community Preservation Corp. doubled its assumed collection shortfall to 10% and expects to make 50% fewer loans to all-affordable city projects than it did two years ago.¹⁵

Be precise about what is disputed. The City Reporter said Freddie Mac paused new loans. Freddie told The Real Deal there was no pause and that it continues to quote and lend, and FHFA Director Bill Pulte called the report false.^{16, 17} A loan broker told The Real Deal the agencies are still lending but underwriting "judiciously," and that tightening has come from everyone since the freeze.¹⁸ You don't need a formal pause for the math to bite. A smaller loan at refinancing does the same job.

There is an irony here I can't ignore. After the 2019 rent law and the collapse of Signature Bank, the government-sponsored lenders became the lender of last resort for these buildings.¹⁹ One arm of government capped the revenue. Another is now repricing the risk.

The Record: This Has Been Tried

We don't have to guess how rent control ages. We have data.

Rebecca Diamond and her co-authors studied San Francisco's 1994 expansion of rent control. Landlords covered by the law cut their rental housing supply by 15%, mainly by selling to owner-occupants and redeveloping. The authors concluded the lost supply "likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately undermining the goals of the law".²⁰

St. Paul, Minnesota passed rent control in November 2021. Kenneth Ahern and Marco Giacoletti found property values fell 6% to 7%, an aggregate loss of $1.6 billion, and that the renters who gained most had higher incomes while the owners who lost most had lower incomes.²¹ In their published follow-up, apartment buildings with at least eight units lost 13.7% of their value.²² The policy aimed at landlords. A large share of the bill landed on small homeowners next door.

New York has its own version of that study already running. The Fiscal Policy Institute, which defends the freeze, cites a 2021 NYU Furman Center finding that buildings with 26% to 75% stabilized units lost an average of $50 per square foot in value compared with market-rate buildings.¹⁷ That was before a zero.

The Second Document: COPA

This is where yesterday's news matters. On Nov. 10 Mamdani signed the Community Opportunity to Purchase Act. "This law will give New Yorkers a tool to keep their homes out of the hands of predatory investors seeking to make a quick and easy buck," he said.²³

How it works: when an owner of a covered building decides to sell, qualified nonprofits get 20 days to signal intent and 70 days to make an offer. If the owner rejects them and tries to sell again within 12 months, the process restarts, and the nonprofit can match the best bid.⁶ Covered buildings have four or more units and either sit in a city enforcement program for a year, average three or more hazardous violations per unit, or carry HPD affordability agreements.²⁴ An HPD spokesperson put the universe at about 3,400 buildings.²⁵ It takes effect in November 2027 and creates no dedicated acquisition fund.²⁶

To be fair, the final bill is narrower than earlier drafts, and owners are not forced to sell.²⁵

But think about who buys distressed buildings and why. A buyer pays for a stream of rent. Under a freeze, the stream doesn't grow and the costs do. COPA changes who gets first look at that stream. It does not change the stream. A nonprofit that buys a 0% building with 5.3% cost growth inherits the same squeeze, now without a deep-pocketed owner to absorb it. And every private buyer now has to price in a 90-day head start for someone else and a 12-month right to match. Friction is a cost. Buyers discount for it.

The deeper problem is that the city keeps adjusting ownership and price while the shortage sits untouched. No owner, nonprofit or otherwise, fixes a 1.41% vacancy rate by owning the same units.

The Free-Market Read

I want to be careful here, because the best defense of the freeze is a good one. The Fiscal Policy Institute argues the freeze "is not the primary driver of financial stress." It notes the average one-year stabilized increase over the past decade was just 1.78%, far below the 5% cost growth lenders now assume.²⁷ Tenant advocates add that owners like the bankrupt Emerald Equities borrowed heavily expecting rent increases that the 2019 law later barred.²⁸ The board's income study also shows net operating income rose 6.2% nominally from 2023 to 2024.¹⁰

Some of that is right. Over-leveraged buyers who paid for deregulation that never came made bad bets, and they should lose money on them. A free market lets bad bets fail. I'm not asking anyone to bail out a landlord.

But notice what that argument concedes. If 1.78% a year was already too little to cover costs, a zero makes the gap wider, not narrower. The same study counted 1,628 distressed buildings out of 17,764, a 9.2% rate.¹⁰ Those numbers predate the freeze. The freeze lands on top of them.

Here's the part that frustrates me most. Mamdani's own statement said he would keep working on "lowering building operating costs like insurance".¹¹ That's the right instinct. Property taxes are the largest weight in the cost index.⁴ The city sets them. A government that cut the cost it controls, and let more buildings get built, would do more for tenants than one that freezes the revenue it controls and then subsidizes the wreckage. I've written about states doing the supply side right, from California overriding local zoning near transit to Florida opening the door to factory-built homes. Supply is the only thing that has ever made rent cheaper.

Price controls fail for a simple reason. Prices carry information. When you freeze the price, the information doesn't disappear. It moves somewhere you can't see it, into a deferred repair, a smaller loan, a building that quietly comes off the market. The surface is incomplete.

The Numbers Investors Should Know

Flagstar Financial is the cleanest public window into this market. At Sept. 30 its NYC multifamily book was $12.9 billion, of which $8.1 billion was on buildings with at least 50% rent-regulated units.²⁹ Inside that $8.1 billion, $3.7 billion was pass-rated, $2.7 billion was special mention or substandard, and $1.7 billion was nonaccrual, with debt-service coverage of 0.74 times on the nonaccrual loans.⁸

The bank raised its third-quarter provision to $76 million, up $58 million from the prior quarter, "primarily due to the impact of higher interest rates on the New York City rent-regulated multi-family portfolio".³⁰ Its CFO said about $2.9 billion of loans on buildings more than 50% rent-regulated in New York City mature or reset in 2027, and that reserve coverage on that NYC slice rose to 3.37%.²⁹ Management also said the bank does not adjust for potential rent increases until they appear on financial statements.³¹ Under a freeze, they won't.

The stock traded at $10.40 this morning, a market value of about $4.3 billion, near the bottom of its 52-week range of $9.93 to $15.44.³²

The Bear Case Against My View

I could be wrong, and here's how.

First, the freeze is legally two years. If the next board returns to normal increases, lenders that assumed four to eight flat years will have been too harsh, and values snap back. Second, the landlords' lawsuit could overturn the freeze. A judge ordered the city to turn over its communications with board members, and the case is still pending.^{28, 33} Third, the Fiscal Policy Institute may be right that debt loads and rates, not the freeze, are doing most of the damage, in which case falling rates would ease the stress no matter what the board does. Fourth, St. Paul's authors found no statistically significant change in rents after their city's law once they used finer location controls, which cuts against the claim that controls always push market rents up quickly.³⁴

And the honest limit on my argument: most of the 1,628 distressed buildings were distressed before June. The freeze makes their math worse. It did not create it alone.

What I Would Watch: Flagstar (FLG)

I'm not giving a stock idea today. There isn't an honest one. The clean beneficiaries of a rent freeze are tenants who already hold a lease, and you can't buy shares in them. So instead I'll tell you the one listed name I'd watch as the scoreboard for this policy.

Flagstar is shrinking the problem on purpose. Total multifamily and commercial real estate loans fell $1.1 billion in the quarter while commercial and industrial loans grew $2.0 billion.³⁰ Management says the multifamily loans now resetting carry coupons under 3.9%, so every loan that refinances or pays off at today's rates helps margins.²⁹ That's the bull case, and it doesn't depend on the freeze at all.

The bear case runs straight through the freeze. Watch three numbers on the fourth-quarter report. One, the nonaccrual balance in the 50%-plus rent-regulated book, now $1.7 billion. Two, the provision, now $76 million. Three, how much of the 2027 rent-regulated reset pays off versus rolls into a workout. If nonaccruals climb as the first frozen leases renew, the market will be pricing the freeze directly. If they hold flat while the C&I book keeps growing, the bank is outrunning the policy. I keep a running record of every idea and watch list here, winners and losers: the FMR Idea Scorecard.

What To Watch Next

• The freeze lawsuit: A ruling in the landlords' state case could come at any time, and a federal challenge to the 2019 rent law is also pending.²⁸ I track dated catalysts like these on the Deregulation Investor's Catalyst Calendar.
• Official agency guidance: Neither Fannie Mae nor Freddie Mac has published the underwriting change on the record.³⁵ A written policy either way would settle the dispute.
• COPA's rules: HPD has a year to write the qualified-entity list and notice portal before the law takes effect in November 2027.³⁶ Watch whether any acquisition financing shows up with it.
• Next spring's board vote: The board projects operating costs rise another 4.1% from 2026 to 2027, with insurance up 16.9%.⁴ If the next order is another zero, the four-to-eight-year assumption stops looking harsh and starts looking right.

A freeze is a promise that the bill will not come due. It always does. The only open question is who gets handed it, and New York is about to find out.

Related analysis

• Britain Rewrites the Rulebook on Land Near Train Stations
• Basel Endgame Is Dead. The Capital Relief Is Not Where You Think.
• The FTC Just Told Redfin It Has Six Months to Compete With Zillow Again

Know someone who rents, lends or invests in New York housing? Forward this one along.

The Free Markets Report is provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. All opinions and views mentioned in this report constitute our judgments as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time. Information within this material is not intended to be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and should also not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any individual investor. Trading signals produced by the Free Markets Report are independent of other services provided by Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC or its affiliates, and positioning of accounts under their management may differ. Please remember that investing involves risk, including loss of principal, and past performance may not be indicative of future results. Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC, its members, officers, directors and employees expressly disclaim all liability in respect to actions taken based on any or all of the information on this writing. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any security. The Free Markets Report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a complete description of our investment services or performance. THE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO MIGHT RECEIVE IT. THE INVESTMENTS DISCUSSED MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR ALL INVESTORS. INVESTORS MUST MAKE THEIR OWN INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN PARTICULAR FINANCIAL SITUATIONS AND OBJECTIVES. This report is not an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed as an offer to provide investment advice or services. Nothing in this report shall be construed to be an offer to provide investment advisory services in any jurisdiction in which Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC is not authorized to provide such services. All investments involve risk, including the risk of loss of principal. No representation is being made that any security, account, or strategy is or is likely to achieve results similar to those shown. Investing in securities involves risks, and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest in securities. Before investing, consider your investment objectives, and Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC's charges and expenses. This report is not a prospectus and does not contain all of the information necessary to fully evaluate any security or strategy discussed, including, but not limited to, the risk of adverse effects of related market developments. You should not rely solely on the information contained in this report, and should seek advice based on your situation from a licensed investment professional. Carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of any investment product before investing. This report may not be copied or distributed without the express written consent of Lead-Lag Publishing, LLC. Any decisions made based on any or all of the information in this writing are the sole responsibility of the user, and the user should exercise caution and take appropriate advice before acting.