What is the difference between bridge and construction financing?
Bridge financing is short-term capital on an existing property — acquisition, value-add, lease-up, or repositioning. The property already exists; the loan funds an operational change. Construction financing funds new building from the ground up (or major rehabilitation that adds significant square footage / changes use). Construction loans have draw schedules tied to construction milestones; bridge loans typically fund at close minus an interest reserve. Both are floating-rate and interest-only.
How is loan-to-cost (LTC) different from loan-to-value (LTV)?
LTV is loan amount divided by property value — used on stabilized properties. LTC is loan amount divided by total project cost (land + construction + soft costs + reserves) — used on construction and value-add deals where there is no stabilized value yet. Lenders size construction loans by the lower of LTC and as-stabilized LTV. Most construction lenders cap at 75% LTC and 70% as-stabilized LTV, taking whichever is more conservative.
What is an interest reserve and when is it required?
An interest reserve is a portion of the loan amount funded at closing and held to cover interest payments during periods when the property isn't cash-flowing. Required on all construction loans (the property doesn't generate revenue until stabilization) and most value-add bridge loans where the property's current cash flow won't cover full debt service. Sized to project the gap between current cash flow and full debt service through stabilization, typically 12–24 months of interest. Once stabilization is achieved, any remaining reserve is released to the borrower.
Why are bridge rates so much higher than permanent rates?
Three reasons: (1) Risk — the property isn't yet performing at permanent-loan thresholds, so default probability is higher; (2) Capital cost — bridge lenders fund through warehouse lines or institutional debt funds, which themselves require higher returns than agency or CMBS investor capital; (3) Term — short-term floating-rate debt prices wider than long-term fixed because of the capital deployment efficiency. Typical bridge premium over agency permanent: 200–400 bps. The math has to work — pay the bridge premium for 12–24 months, then refi into permanent and capture the rate compression.
How does the take-out commitment work?
A take-out commitment is a permanent lender's written agreement to refinance the bridge loan at maturity (or at stabilization), assuming the property meets the agreed performance thresholds. Some bridge lenders require a third-party take-out commitment at closing as a condition of funding; others accept a sponsor's representation that take-out will be available. The strongest structure is a take-out commitment from an agency or CMBS lender that wraps directly into the bridge underwriting — eliminates the refinance risk and tightens bridge pricing 25–75 bps.
Are construction loans recourse?
Yes, almost always — at least during the construction period. The lender wants the principals personally on the hook through the riskiest phase (entitlement, hard cost overrun, weather delays, contractor disputes). Many construction loans transition to non-recourse at "completion" (CO issued and minimum stabilization achieved). Some institutional sponsors with strong track records get non-recourse at close, but they are exceptions.
What is a completion guaranty?
A completion guaranty is a separate guaranty (in addition to the standard repayment guaranty) where the principals personally agree to fund any cost overruns or contractor issues required to deliver the project at completion. The lender uses it as a backstop against construction risk. Common on most construction loans. Can be partial (capped at a dollar amount) or full (uncapped). Always negotiate the cap — uncapped completion guaranty is a different risk profile than capped.
When does mezzanine debt make sense vs more equity?
Mezz makes sense when (a) the sponsor doesn't want to dilute equity further at the current property valuation, (b) the deal's expected return on cost exceeds the mezz coupon (so leverage is accretive to sponsor IRR), and (c) the senior+mezz combined leverage still leaves enough buffer for stabilization risk. It does not make sense when senior + mezz pushes total LTC above what the property can support if anything goes wrong — over-levered deals lose to mezzanine lenders first when stress hits.