Goldman Sachs is raising money for a new real estate debt fund, Bisnow can reveal, looking to profit by filling the gap left by banks wary of lending during a period of market volatility.

According to notices filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Goldman has begun raising money for West Street Real Estate Credit Partners IV. One notice stated the fund raised an initial $366M from a group of 201 investors, likely to be the firm’s own employees.

Goldman’s newly renamed real estate debt fund series was previously called Broad Street. It raised $6.7B for Broad Street Real Estate Credit Partners III. The next fund in the series is expected to be even bigger.

That fund raised $2.5B in equity from external clients, added $1.7B from the bank’s own balance sheet and money from employees, and supplemented the $4.2B of equity with $2.5B in debt.

In April, Goldman raised $3.5B for a new real estate fund, West Street Real Estate Investment Partners, to buy buildings and companies. That was the first real estate equity investment fund it had raised since before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008.

But Goldman has made hay raising money for real estate debt funds. This fourth fund would take it to more than $18B raised for real estate lending since 2014.

The timing could be good for a new debt fund. Banks have been wary about lending to real estate given uncertainty about where values are heading amid inflation and higher interest rates, with the threat of recession making income less certain.

That means debt funds can charge higher margins than in an environment of abundant debt liquidity, making a good return lending on better-quality assets.

“Our debt guys are happier than I’ve seen them since we initiated the business, frankly. They’ve big grins on their faces,” one fund manager told the ULI and PwC Emerging Trends In Real Estate Europe report released in November.

“They are able to lend large tickets for fairly good collateral at 400 to 500 over. Sponsors are a little bit less price sensitive than they might have been in a more robust market.”