Derhake: There's a lot of CMBS shops out there and they have to compete on everything: They're competing on their own margins and on the speed of execution and, unfortunately, there's a lot of pressure on underwriting. So those pressures are there, but I believe that the system is systematically different than it was pre-crisis. I believe the bond buyers are smarter and care about underwriting more, and they're looking to what the issuers are doing about underwriting.

And we know that the B-piece buyers are reading our property condition assessments and our environmental reports. We know this because we get questions. That would not have happened in 2005, 2006 or 2007. So to the extent that the issuers need to care about selling their product and selling the B-piece particularly, they're going to pay attention to our reports and everything else in the underwriting.

GlobeSt.com: In other words, a lot of the impetus on the CMBS side is coming from the market, whereas on the bank side it's more regulatory. How are regulated institutions approaching risk management?

Derhake: Bank regulators come and ask all sorts of questions. They drill down relatively deep into the underwriting process when they start getting into things like environmental risk management and construction risk management. They are asking lenders about their policies—making sure they have policies to begin with—and that their procedures comply with the policies. They're even getting into little issues such as who reads the reports, and attorneys are even looking at the balance sheets of the report providers. That puts pressure ion the lenders to use larger due diligence firms.

GlobeSt.com: As 2015 goes on, will we see a greater appetite for risk management practices as a result of market projections?

Derhake: As competitive pressures to win deals increase, that might come at the expense of attention to risk management. However, I think risk management and credit standards are going to hold better than they did in '05, '06 and '07.

GlobeSt.com: What properties will need to focus on seismic risk management as requirements across the board are shifting?

Derhake: If you're a West Coast lender or have a big West Coast portfolio, a major earthquake event poses a systemic risk to the portfolio. In addition to an earthquake event, there is a code-driven risk to your portfolio in that the City of Los Angeles has announced that there are 13,000 buildings in the city that are going to have to comply with the Resiliency in Design program, by retrofitting or otherwise addressing the seismic requirements. There's a similar ordinance in San Francisco.

For lenders, this poses both a risk and an opportunity. It's a risk because if you're there may be a significant capital event to address this problem, and it's an opportunity because lenders could lend the money to facilitate the retrofits.

GlobeSt.com: What are you seeing with construction lending?

Derhake: For us, construction risk management is our fastest-growing area. Construction as a whole is up a lot year over year, but more and more lenders are using robust construction risk management services. They have also become more sensitive to who performs the services. They're demanding that registered engineers and architects opine on their project budgets. They're also interested in working with larger firms that they know can stand behind their opinions during the down cycle.

GlobeSt.com: What recommendations are Partner's professionals giving to clients, in view of the increasing focus on risk management?

Derhake: I believe that to underwrite real estate, you need to do everything well, from appraisals to environmental due diligence. And if you look at the guys that were doing everything well top to bottom, those are the ones that did the best through the last downturn. Lenders shouldn't lose sight of any of the details.