How We Got a $2M Ground-Up Deal Funded in 11 Days

The story we are about to tell is real. Names have been changed and the property address has been omitted, but every detail of the timeline, the deal structure, the challenges encountered, and the solutions applied is accurate. We are telling this story not because it was exceptionally complicated or because it required some unusual stroke of luck. We are telling it because it illustrates exactly what fast private lending looks like when it works, and more importantly, because it shows clearly what made it work when a similar deal through conventional channels would have taken 60 days minimum and likely failed entirely.

The borrower was a developer in the Houston metro area with seven completed ground-up projects over four years. Not a beginner. Not a casual investor. A legitimate small developer with a track record, a construction team he had worked with before, and a property in a market he knew well. His problem was simple and acute: he had a land loan maturing in 14 days, and the private lender he had been working with for the construction financing had just informed him they could not fund the full amount needed. He came to Bancaverse with 14 days, a solid deal, a real urgency, and a file that needed work before it was ready to go to lenders.

Day One: The Submission and What Was Wrong With It

The borrower submitted through bancaverse.com/apply on a Tuesday morning. The deal basics were strong: a six-unit multifamily ground-up construction project on a cleared infill lot in a Houston submarket with strong apartment demand. Total project cost of $2.1 million. Loan request of $1.56 million, representing approximately 74 percent loan to cost. The borrower had completed seven prior projects and had a contractor relationship that went back four years. The property was in a submarket the agent knew well from prior deals.

The agent reviewed the file within two hours. Two issues surfaced immediately, both significant enough to affect lender response if not addressed before the deal went out. First, the construction budget had no contingency line. The hard cost estimate was $1.4 million with no buffer. Any experienced lender reviewing a ground-up construction budget without a contingency line is looking at a borrower who either has not done this many times or is presenting an artificially clean number to make the project economics look better than they are. Either interpretation is a problem. Standard practice in private construction lending is a contingency of 8 to 10 percent of hard costs, and experienced borrowers include it without being asked.

The second issue was the exit strategy description. The borrower had written sale to end buyer in the exit strategy field without providing any comparable sale data for new construction in that submarket. New construction comps are different from resale comps. They are typically found in a narrower geographic radius, they reflect different buyer profile assumptions, and they are more sensitive to finish level and unit configuration than resale properties are. A lender underwriting a $1.56 million construction loan against a projected sale exit needs to see that the ARV assumptions are grounded in what new construction is actually selling for in that market, not just a general statement that the plan is to sell.

Days One and Two: Deal Packaging

The agent called the borrower the same afternoon to discuss the two issues. The conversation was not adversarial. The borrower understood both points immediately, which is itself a marker of an experienced operator. They agreed that the contingency was a legitimate oversight and that the exit strategy needed supporting data. The agent and borrower worked together to add a $175,000 contingency line to the construction budget, bringing total hard costs to $1.575 million and pushing the total project cost to $2.1 million with soft costs and interest reserve included. The loan request was adjusted slightly to maintain the 74 percent LTC target.

For the exit strategy, the agent pulled comparable new construction sales in the immediate submarket. Four transactions from the prior eight months were available: three 6-unit multifamily new construction projects and one comparable 4-unit project at a price that was adjustable for unit count. The range of sale prices supported the borrower’s projected exit value with a margin of approximately 12 percent. That margin was noted in the deal memo as evidence that the ARV was conservative relative to the most recent comparable transactions.

The agent also added a deal memo covering three items that the raw submission data did not capture: the borrower’s track record in the specific submarket including the addresses of two prior completed projects within two miles of the subject, the contractor relationship including the years of prior work together and two projects the contractor had completed for the borrower in the prior 18 months, and the submarket demand context including current apartment vacancy rates and absorption data for the specific unit type and price point the project was targeting. This narrative context is what transforms a raw deal submission into a professional pitch that lenders act on rather than a file they add to their review queue.

Day Three: Lender Selection and Pitch

The packaged deal went out to four lenders on Wednesday morning. The selection of these four was not random. Each was selected based on specific match criteria: active in Texas construction lending, comfortable with a loan size above $1.5 million, accustomed to underwriting experienced ground-up developers, and with a track record of closing construction deals in 10 to 15 days when the file is clean. Two of the four were lenders with whom the Bancaverse agent had placed multiple prior Texas deals. One was a lender the agent had used twice before in Houston specifically. The fourth was a lender with a newer Texas program but a strong regional reputation and a demonstrated willingness to move fast on clean files.

Each lender received the full deal package: the property description and location, the construction budget with the contingency, the comparable new construction sales supporting the exit ARV, the borrower’s track record summary, the contractor profile, and the deal memo with the narrative context described above. The package was presented in a format consistent with how these specific lenders preferred to receive deals based on prior experience, which meant no lender had to work to find the information they needed. Everything was where they expected it to be.

The pitch was transparent about the timeline urgency. The land loan maturity was disclosed. Lenders were told that the borrower needed a funding commitment within seven to eight days to have reasonable certainty of closing before maturity. This is information that, in the hands of a poorly positioned broker presenting a weak deal, would create leverage against the borrower and lead to exploitative terms. In the hands of a well-positioned agent presenting a clean deal to lenders who know and trust the source, it creates urgency on both sides and motivates fast review rather than delay.

Days Four Through Six: LOIs and Borrower Decision

The first LOI arrived Thursday afternoon, less than 30 hours after the pitch went out. By end of day Friday, three of the four lenders had submitted terms. The fourth passed on the deal citing a temporary pause on Texas construction commitments due to internal portfolio concentration concerns, which had nothing to do with the deal quality and was communicated professionally and promptly.

The three LOIs presented to the borrower were identified only as Capital Partner A, Capital Partner B, and Capital Partner C. The borrower saw the rate, term, origination points, LTC cap, draw schedule structure, prepayment provisions, and any special conditions from each. Lender identity was not disclosed until the borrower made a selection, which is standard Bancaverse protocol and ensures that the borrower’s decision is based on deal economics rather than brand familiarity or prior relationships that might not reflect current terms.

The terms ranged meaningfully. One lender came in at 11.75 percent with 2.5 points and a 72 percent LTC cap, which would have required the borrower to bring additional equity to close. One came in at 10.75 percent with 2 points at 74 percent LTC, fully covering the project. The third came in at 11.25 percent with 1.5 points at 73 percent LTC. The borrower selected the middle option based on the combination of rate, points, and full LTC coverage that eliminated the need for additional equity contribution. The cost of capital on the selected terms was approximately $168,000 in annualized interest plus $31,200 in origination points, which against a projected project profit of over $400,000 represented a reasonable financing cost for a deal of this complexity and scale.

Days Seven Through Eleven: Underwriting to Close

From LOI selection to funded was five business days. The lender’s process began immediately upon the borrower’s selection and DocuSign of the LOI. The title company was ordered the same day. The lender’s construction review team, which was responsible for evaluating the budget and draw schedule, had already done preliminary review during the LOI period and needed only to formalize their analysis and generate the draw schedule documentation. The appraisal was waived based on the lender’s internal policy for construction loans with experienced borrowers, supported comparables, and permits in hand, which was confirmed upfront during the matching process.

The borrower’s entity documentation was in order, having been prepared in advance based on a standard document checklist provided at submission. Insurance binders were issued the day after LOI selection. The land was free and clear of encumbrances except for the maturing loan, which simplified title significantly. Wire instructions were confirmed on day ten, and the funds hit the title company’s escrow account on day eleven from the initial submission date, or five business days from LOI selection.

The land loan matured three business days after the construction loan funded. The developer had time. The deal was intact. And the construction project started on schedule rather than two months behind after a conventional financing process that may or may not have succeeded.

What Made This Deal Work and What You Can Learn From It

Speed in this case came from preparation, not luck and not magic. The deal worked because the submission was complete and correct once the initial gaps were addressed, because the lender targets were appropriate for the deal rather than random, because the pitch included the context lenders needed to evaluate quickly, and because the borrower had the documentation ready to move through underwriting immediately upon LOI selection. Remove any one of those elements and the timeline extends by days or weeks.

The curated lender selection was arguably the single most important factor. Sending this deal to 15 lenders at random would have produced noise: some declines, some requests for information, some slow responders. Sending it to four lenders whose program criteria and closing capabilities matched the specific requirements of this specific deal produced three competitive LOIs in less than 48 hours. Quality of targeting beats quantity of distribution every time in private lending.

The deal memo that added narrative context around the borrower and the market was what separated a complete file from a compelling pitch. Lenders receive many complete files. They receive fewer pitches that give them real confidence in the borrower, the market, and the exit strategy through context and detail that the raw numbers alone cannot provide. That context is what the agent contributed, and it is the difference between a submission and a deal.

The Repeatable Framework

The framework that produced an 11-day close on this $2.1 million ground-up deal is not unique to this deal or this borrower. It is repeatable on any deal where the underlying economics are sound. Complete the file before you submit. Address gaps proactively rather than waiting for lenders to discover them. Select lenders whose program criteria match your deal rather than broadcasting to everyone. Pitch with context and narrative, not just numbers. Have your entity documents and insurance ready to move the moment an LOI is selected.

None of these steps require exceptional skill or access. They require preparation, attention to detail, and the discipline to do the work before the clock is running rather than after. The investors who use this framework consistently are the ones whose deals produce competitive LOIs within 24 to 48 hours, fund within 10 to 14 days, and build the lender relationships that make every subsequent deal faster and better priced. That is the compound return on professional deal preparation, and it begins with understanding that the quality of your submission determines the quality of your outcome far more than the quality of any individual deal.