A cautionary case on note participations without a lien

This is a case worth studying because it is the beginner mistake in its purest form. Take an investor buying a participation in a loan someone else made to an operator purchasing a 140 lot park. The loan was $900k at 11 percent interest only, 18 months, said to be secured by the park at a 65 percent loan to value. Participations were sold at $25k minimum. The paperwork was a one page participation agreement plus a copy of the promissory note. Interest showed up monthly for seven months, $229 a month, then stopped. What the case reveals afterward. The mortgage was recorded in the name of the lender's own entity, which is normal for a participation, and the participation agreement gave the buyer a share of what the lender collected. It did not give a lien, a right to enforce, or a right to direct anything. When the borrower stopped paying, the decision to foreclose or work it out belonged entirely to the lender, who chose to work it out, twice, over almost two years. It also turned out the 65 percent LTV came from an appraisal that assumed the operator's rent increase plan was already done. Actual value on in-place income was closer to $1.1M, so the loan was more like 82 percent. There was also a seller carryback of $180k behind the participation that had not been disclosed, which mattered less than feared but should have been disclosed regardless. The park eventually changed hands. The participant recovered $9,400 across two years plus $1,603 of interest already received, roughly $14k out of $25k. The lesson for anyone offered a participation: ask to see the recorded mortgage and the title policy, not just the note. Ask in writing who decides what happens on default and whether the participant has any say. And ask what income the appraisal used, because in-place versus pro forma is often the whole difference between a 65 and an 82.

raj_mehta14 PF4BPRO 10

Answer

sonia_alvarez CB4APRO 17

Everything named here is right, and the piece worth putting at the top is the servicing and enforcement question, because it decides all the others. In a participation, the buyer holds a contractual share of somebody else's loan. The lead lender holds the note and the recorded lien, services the loan, and makes the decisions. A well-drafted participation agreement spells out what the lead can do alone and what needs the participant's consent, usually listing things like extending maturity, reducing the interest rate, releasing collateral, or accepting a discounted payoff. A one page agreement almost always means the lead can act unilaterally. That document is usually what costs the money, more than the loan to value ever does. The alternatives, for reference. A buyer can be a direct co-lender named on the mortgage as a fractional interest holder, which gets recorded and gives standing, though recording practice for fractional interests varies by state. Or a buyer can put capital into a fund that makes loans, accepting that they are an equity holder in the lender and pricing it accordingly. What nobody wants is a shape that reads like a lien position and behaves like an unsecured claim on one person's collection efforts. On the appraisal, get the report itself rather than the summary number. On park loans specifically, ask whether the income approach used trailing twelve actuals or the borrower's pro forma lot rent, and ask what expense ratio the appraiser used, because 35 percent versus 45 on a 140-lot park moves value by a lot. Whether a one page participation agreement gave any remedy that went unpursued is a question for a lawyer looking at the actual paper, and it is usually worth the hour.

sonia_alvarez CB4APRO 17

3 replies

Rena Expert

Two mechanisms in @raj_mehta14's story are worth separating, because they fail differently.

The first is the participation structure. A participant's rights come from the participation agreement and nothing else. The lien sits with the lead lender, and if the agreement grants no consent rights, the lead can extend, modify, or settle without asking. That is the standard structure, and it is workable when the agreement lists the decisions requiring participant approval and when the lead has real capital behind it. Whether a given agreement also creates a securities offering depends on how it is structured and marketed, which is a question for a securities attorney, and it comes up more often than people expect.

The second is the collateral valuation. Manufactured housing communities are valued by capitalizing net operating income, and the sector's low operating expense ratios, roughly 35 to 45 percent against 50 to 65 for apartments, mean a small change in the assumed ratio moves value noticeably. An appraisal built on post-improvement lot rent and a thin expense ratio produces a loan to value number that describes a park that does not exist yet. The lender's protection at closing is the in-place figure. Ask for the trailing twelve on which the income approach rests and check what expense ratio the appraiser used.

The original deal rested on the expectation that an 18 month loan would be repaid by a refinance that itself depended on the borrower completing a rent increase program. When the program slipped, there was no takeout, and the loan became a workout. Short bridge paper on a value-add plan carries that risk regardless of how the participation is papered.

Rena Expert

stephen_ok9ActivePRO

@raj_mehta14 the number that would have told you most, cheaply, is the borrower's debt service coverage at closing on in-place income.

140 lots, and if lot rent was somewhere around $300 with a 40 percent expense ratio, that's roughly $300k of NOI. A $900k loan at 11 percent interest only is $99k a year, so coverage looks fine on paper, which is probably how it got sold. But there was a $180k carryback behind you with its own payment, and if the operator was also buying homes to fill vacant lots, the actual cash out the door was much higher than $99k.

So ask for the borrower's full sources and uses and their full debt schedule, not just the loan you're participating in. A borrower who is current on your note and drowning on everything else is going to be late on yours eventually. Getting $14k back on $25k over two years is a bad outcome that could have been much worse, and you learned the enforcement lesson at a fraction of what most people pay for it.

stephen_ok9ActivePRO

Reply Anonymous