LTC lower than LTV

Hi everyone,

I'm doing a modeling project for my bank, involving real estate. I'm running into a situation where a lot of the borrowers have LTC lower than LTV, which implies that the value of the property is lower than the cost of the project. Could this mean anything other than that the property value declined since origination? (Is there any situation where you would engage in a project where cost is higher than property value?)

Thanks!

 

It doesn't necessarily mean that the value of the property is lower than the cost of the project. LTV and LTC are just measures of leverage, all that means is the developer/borrower took out more debt against the stabilized asset than the original project costs. The key metric in determining value vs cost is the net value creation aka Project Value-Project Costs... obviously, in most cases, you don't this number to be negative.

 

I think that's an extremely general blanket statement. There are plenty of ground-up and value-add plays that I have seen that have an LTV higher than their LTC. For the sake of discussion just look up credit tenant lease financing, these deals typically have a DCR of 1.0 through the life of the loan with an LTV or 90-100%...LTC north of 100%.

 

I would disagree. While it's not an everyday occurrence I don't think that it's something that a bank would avoid. It simply means that the sponsor is paying more for the property than the bank/appraiser thinks its worth. For example if someone is seeking a 50% LTC loan ($5MM) on a property with a purchase price of $10MM and the bank believes the property is only worth $9MM they will obviously still make the loan for $5MM, they would just record the loan as 55% LTV for their records.

LTC typically only comes into play when the loan amount gets closer to 100% LTC since banks typically want sponsors to have cash equity in new development deals. Outside of unique circumstances that deflate development costs (i.e. long term land ownership, etc.) it is rare to see a lender go above 100%, or even 90% LTC on a construction takeout in my space (Agency MBS).

 

Why is that? Every loan my firm has done has a lower LTC than LTV. For example, let's say we buy a $100mm building and get a $70mm loan...that is 70% LTV.

Now let's say we add in our transaction costs, improvement capital, etc (call it $10mm)....our total cost is the purchase price ($100mm) + costs stated above ($10mm) = $110mm

$70mm loan / $110mm costs = 63% LTC

LTC should always by lower than LTV.

 

as one of the comments said, it's probably your internal value calc that is causing the difference. MOST often, when banks underwrite, they will use language saying the loan will in no case exceed the lesser of x% LTC, x% LTV and sometimes they'll even throw in a DSCR. The NOI etc required for these metrics is usually derived from the proforma you sent them. However, if you actually run the math out, you'll almost always find the LTC % and LTV % when formulated out to a dollar value, are equal...i.e. say its a 65% LTC loan -- they'll quote you a % LTV that yields the same loan proceeds at the time of underwriting.

 

I'm not sure what everyone is talking about here, but in my experience, LTC is almost always lower than LTC.

If you buy a building for $50mm, the value is $50mm.

Add in transaction costs, capital improvements, etc.. your cost would be $50+mm.

Am i missing something here?

 

Natus qui dolore ut iure cum et. Est maiores quod eaque adipisci molestiae. Odio iste id culpa ad ex repellendus harum distinctio. Repellendus ut quo suscipit aut unde illo magnam consectetur. Aut magnam distinctio consequuntur esse laboriosam aut architecto sint. Dicta qui libero reprehenderit at doloribus quis. Magni enim enim animi fugit ipsum hic.

Possimus aspernatur ad dolor quisquam est et. Vero nisi non omnis. Eum ratione minus pariatur nam.

Quia neque quo repellendus minus impedit iusto. Velit nihil omnis debitis ullam. Asperiores amet et perferendis facilis. Ullam qui rerum et deleniti natus similique quaerat sed.

Laudantium rerum molestiae cumque possimus optio. Corporis et exercitationem in nisi veritatis. Est nisi consectetur nostrum. Pariatur sequi ad repudiandae vero dolorem distinctio.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
Kenny_Powers_CFA's picture
Kenny_Powers_CFA
98.8
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”