A six month bridge with paid extensions versus twelve months with minimum interest, same 65k piece
Consider a 65k bridge piece behind a 480k senior on a 7 unit, where three units are offline, the plan is to finish them, season the rents about four months, and refinance around month eight at a 1.25 DSCR. Rate is 12% interest only, 2 points, in either structure. The term structure is what actually matters, since the two versions behave very differently when the plan slips. Six months with two 60 day extensions at a point each gives a scheduled, priced decision point twice. If lease up stalls, that structure either pays to wait or supports pushing for a sale while value remains. The tension is that a maturity nobody intends to enforce is a bluff, and enforcing it as a junior lienholder means contending with 480k of senior debt sitting in front, plus whatever standstill period sits in the loan documents. Twelve months flat with a six month minimum interest locks in the interest regardless, so an early payoff at month eight doesn't cost yield. No extension negotiation, no theater. What's given up is any scheduled moment to revisit the file, and if the senior also matures at twelve months, both loans arrive at the wall together. Whether a minimum interest provision actually holds up depends on state law and the drafting, which is a question for a lawyer in the property's state before relying on it. A third option worth considering is setting the maturity inside the senior's, say 60 days short, so there's a built-in reason to be first at the table. That helps in some scenarios and simply makes the junior lender the first to have a problem in others.
Which term structure would you write on a small subordinate bridge piece?
20 votes