> If they sign a lease at a new lower rent it basically triggers a re-check of "can they repay the loan based on their rental income?", which comes back as "no". That trigger _doesn't_ occur if you just leave the building empty, with _no one_ paying rent, because your last mark to market rent was high enough.

Minimum DSCRs have long been used to monitor the current value of a property, and less income is less income.

https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/real-estate/commercial-ter...

> It's a shell game that eventually leads to the loan defaulting, but both the bank and the building owner are happy to pretend they can't see the train coming down the tracks at them.

This makes no sense. Why would a lender not want to keep tabs on their investment? What does shell game (a game where someone is intentionally deceived) even mean here?