It is bad for borrowers, however, in that it represents yet another form of risk. "Certainty of execution is, well, uncertain," Friedman says.

"Eighteen months ago a lender would have taken a $300 million loan on its own, closed the deal, and then securitized it. Now, that same lender will make a successful syndication a condition to closing." Lynch agrees that most syndications now happen far earlier in the deal cycle.

In general, Friedman says, syndications are an inefficient way to distribute a deal, at least compared to the marvelously efficient CMBS markets of the last few years. "Syndications create time pressure, the need for new documentation. Also because the market hasn't been doing so many of these, people's skills and contacts are rusty. Banks may have dismantled their internal syndication desks as CMBS became the dominant form of finance."

The main reason why syndications -- at least in this credit cycle -- fall so short compared to the CMBS markets is that most of them have been pari passu syndications, Scott McMullin, executive managing director in HFF's Los Angeles office, tells GlobeSt.com.

CMBS skillfully carved up different tranches of risk and then sold those tranches to investors willing to accept the greater risk -- or conversely, investors willing to pay more for the investment grade-rated tranche. By contrast, pari passu notes do not distinguish risk or allow one class of investor to take precedence over another. Basically, all of the securities or obligations are equally entitled to payment.