Same project. Same stated borrower assumptions. Two preliminary capital structures.

What stronger qualification and underwriting structure may change.

This privacy-safe comparison uses two nonbinding term sheets issued on August 7, 2026 for the same Nashville-area ground-up project. It illustrates potential capital impact, not a claim that Sponsor Network alone caused each difference.

CAPITAL IMPACT

The largest change was the cash required.

The stronger structure increased total proceeds and maximum LTC while reducing required equity, estimated immediate cash, and liquidity.

$214,027.94less estimated cash required$426,996.00 reduced to $212,968.06

95% vs. 80%maximum loan to cost15 percentage points higher

18.75%more total loan proceeds$224,250 more, from $1,196,000 to $1,420,250

Calculated as $426,996.00 − $212,968.06 = $214,027.94 and ($1,420,250 − $1,196,000) ÷ $1,196,000 = 18.75%.

PROJECT ECONOMICS

The underlying project stayed constant.

Two single-family residential properties in the Nashville, Tennessee market. The exact address and all borrower and lender identifiers are intentionally omitted.

Purchase price and as-is value$335,000

Construction budget$1,054,545.45

Construction contingency$105,454.55

Total project cost$1,495,000

After-repair value$2,300,000

Loan purposePurchase + construction

The source term sheets do not separately identify hard and soft costs within the construction budget. No split is inferred here.

SOURCES AND USES VIEW

How the project capitalization changed.

Both structures included a $1,160,000 construction holdback. The difference was the initial advance and equity contribution.

Lower-leverage structure

$1,196,000 total loan$299,000 equity

Initial advance: $36,000
Construction holdback: $1,160,000
Estimated cash requirement: $426,996

Stronger structure

$1,420,250 total loan$74,750 equity

Initial advance: $260,250
Construction holdback: $1,160,000
Estimated cash requirement: $212,968.06

TERM-SHEET COMPARISON

Leverage, pricing, fees, reserves, and payments.

All values below are transcribed from the preliminary source documents or calculated from their stated figures.

Capital measure	Lower leverage	Stronger structure	Difference
Maximum LTC	80%	95%	15 points higher
Maximum LARV	65%	70%	5 points higher
Total loan amount	$1,196,000	$1,420,250	$224,250 more
Initial loan amount	$36,000	$260,250	$224,250 more
Construction holdback	$1,160,000	$1,160,000	No change
Required equity	$299,000	$74,750	$224,250 less
Estimated cash requirement	$426,996.00	$212,968.06	$214,027.94 less
Required liquidity	$532,450.55	$318,422.61	$214,027.94 less
Interest rate	10.00%	9.25%	0.75 points lower
Term	18 months	18 months	No change
Interest type	Interest-only, non-dutch	Interest-only, non-dutch	No change
Origination fee	2.00%	1.50%	0.50 points lower
Broker fee	2.00%	2.00%	No change
Other stated fixed fees	$7,200	$7,200	No change
Estimated closing costs	$68,196.00	$72,531.50	$4,335.50 more
Interest reserve	$59,800.00	$65,686.56	$5,886.56 more
Draw inspection fee	$350	$350	No change
Prepayment penalty	None stated	None stated	No change
Total monthly payment	$9,966.67	$10,947.76	$981.09 more
Extension option	Not stated	Not stated	Not available in source

Other stated fixed fees combine the underwriting, appraisal, legal, processing, and feasibility-report fees. The source documents state that closing costs include an estimate of title fees.

WHAT CHANGED

More proceeds and less borrower cash, with a larger debt position.

$224,250 more total loan proceeds and initial funding.
$224,250 less stated equity required.
$214,027.94 less estimated immediate cash and required liquidity.
Maximum LTC increased from 80% to 95%; maximum LARV increased from 65% to 70%.
The stated rate and origination percentage were lower.

The tradeoffs

Total debt increased by $224,250.
The stated total monthly payment increased by $981.09.
Estimated closing costs increased by $4,335.50.
The interest reserve increased by $5,886.56.
Higher leverage reduces the borrower's equity cushion and requires the project to support more debt.

WHAT DID NOT CHANGE

The deal still had to underwrite.

The project type, purchase basis, as-is value, construction budget, contingency, after-repair value, construction holdback, 18-month term, interest type, broker percentage, fixed third-party fees, draw fee, and stated borrower experience and FICO assumptions were the same.

Final terms remained subject to appraisal, credit, title, legal review, verification of the submitted information, definitive loan documents, and the lender's final underwriting decision.

Hypothetical fee sensitivity.

If a $20,000 sponsor fee had applied and had been separately approved and documented, the $214,027.94 reduction in estimated immediate cash would have exceeded that hypothetical fee by $194,027.94.

The $20,000 figure is a hypothetical sensitivity only. It is not a fee quoted for this transaction and does not establish that sponsor support caused or was used to obtain either term sheet.

LIMITATIONS AND DISCLOSURES

Preliminary terms are not a commitment.

Both source documents were nonbinding letters of intent dated August 7, 2026. Terms could change or be withdrawn based on appraisal, borrower credit, liquidity, property condition, title, legal review, due diligence, and other underwriting factors.

The comparison illustrates how sponsor strength and underwriting structure may affect leverage. It does not guarantee that another transaction will receive similar terms or that Sponsor Network alone caused the differences shown.

The public case study omits the street address, borrower, guarantors, signatures, lender identity, contact information, account data, and document identifiers.

See my likely capital path Submit a complete deal