Three deals, three structures: what actually gets a complex case funded.

In our first year of active operations we placed approximately £4.5m of debt and advised on credit strategies scaled to around £50m. The number that matters more than either, though, is a smaller one: how many of those deals would have failed if we had gone looking for a rate instead of a structure. Almost all of them.

There is a persistent myth in commercial finance that the broker's job is to find the cheapest headline number. On a straightforward deal — a let asset, a clean covenant, a comfortable timeline — that is roughly true, and you barely need a broker to do it. But the deals that actually come to us are the ones the headline number cannot solve. On those, the rate is the last question, not the first. The first is whether the deal can be structured to clear a lender's credit process at all. Here are three from the past year, anonymised, that show what that means.

Deal one — a Scottish land bridge, structured around planning

The situation. A client had acquired a former university campus — 140 acres, with planning in progress for a mixed-use masterplan spanning residential, commercial and renewable-energy uses. An existing bridge from the original purchase had reached the end of its term and needed refinancing. The scale of the scheme and the live planning process made a straightforward refinance a hard sell: a lender asked to fund a site whose value is contingent on consents that don't yet exist is a lender asked to take a bet.

The structure. We arranged a 24-month serviced bridge at 65% LTV. What made it fundable was not the leverage — it was a milestone permitting strategy that linked the loan covenants to defined planning milestones. That gave the lender a framework: as each consent landed, the position de-risked on a schedule both sides had agreed in advance, rather than staring at an all-or-nothing outcome 24 months out.

The lesson. On a planning-contingent asset, the lender's real fear is time and uncertainty, not the headline value. Give them a structured, staged view of how the risk reduces and you convert an un-fundable bet into a fundable, monitored process. The rate followed from the structure; it did not lead. The full framework for Scottish deals is on our Scotland page.

Deal two — a development where the equity was already in the ground

The situation. A developer had full planning for 34 new-build houses and had discharged every pre-commencement condition — the scheme was ready to build. The obstacle was not the deal; it was how the equity contribution would be recognised. The client had already put real capital into the site — the land, and significant planning and pre-commencement spend — but a conventional facility would have wanted fresh cash equity at drawdown, effectively ignoring what was already invested.

The structure. We structured the facility so the land value and the planning and pre-commencement expenditure were recognised as equity in the transaction. The bank funds the remaining build costs, drawn in arrears against certified works — an £8m development facility at roughly 65% LTGDV and up to 95% loan-to-cost. The client proceeded without injecting further cash, while the lender kept a disciplined, certified-drawdown structure it was comfortable with.

The lesson. "How much equity do you have?" and "how much cash can you put in on completion day?" are not the same question, and conflating them kills good deals. Where a borrower has genuinely committed capital — land, planning, works — the job is to get that recognised in the structure rather than demanding it twice.

Deal three — a cross-border portfolio mid-restructure

The situation. We were referred a complex portfolio restructuring in Germany: a mix of commercial and residential assets, multiple loans needing refinancing, and haircuts already negotiated with the existing lenders. One significant asset was under an agreed letter of intent for sale, with the proceeds earmarked to reduce overall debt. The client needed a specialist facility to bridge the gap and enable a credible exit.

The structure. We sourced a EUR 11m structured, senior-secured debt facility at 75% LTV — deliberately short-term, sized to bridge the disposal and stabilisation period. The sale proceeds reduce the outstanding debt; the remaining portfolio then refinances onto a local German bank facility, for which a soft commitment was already in place before the bridge was drawn. This is the kind of mandate we arrange across Europe.

The lesson. On a distressed or restructuring deal, the exit isn't a footnote — it is the deal. The bridge only works because the next step was evidenced, not hoped for. Sequencing the disposal, the debt reduction and the take-out facility in the right order is the entire value of the arrangement.

What the three have in common

None of these was won on price. Each was won by understanding what a specific lender needed to see to say yes, and building the deal to give it to them: a planning schedule, a recognised equity position, an evidenced exit. That is the difference between broking as price comparison and broking as structuring, and it is the whole of what we do.

If a lender has said no, the odds are it was a structuring failure, not a value failure. The asset was probably fine; the way the risk was presented wasn't. A different structure — not a different lender chasing the same flawed presentation — is usually the answer.

Bring the awkward parts to the first conversation. We can structure around a problem disclosed at the outset and considerably less around one discovered in diligence. The clients who arrive with the complete picture, including what isn't going to plan, run materially better processes than those who don't.

All deals described are anonymised; figures are indicative of the transactions as arranged. Nothing here is financial or legal advice. HyLend Limited is a credit broker and not a lender, is not regulated by the FCA and only offers non-regulated services, and is a full member of the NACFB.