Pricing for Risk in Australia’s Construction Finance Market

Pricing for Risk in Australia’s Construction Finance Market

Banks vs Private Funding Options with Risk-Based Pricing

Bank credit parameters for the construction sector have tightened; however, private markets can plug the gap by pricing for risk.

Australian Banks’ Changing View on Construction Finance

The Australian Banks’ reduced appetite for construction finance has been well publicised. The are several contributing factors for this, including:

  1. A fundamental decline in presale sales rates.
  2. Heightened settlement risk and concern pertaining to the banks’ existing exposures created by, amongst other things, the banks’ own retail banking divisions slowing the rate and volume of lending to property investors and owner occupiers, declining valuations at settlement and a lack of funding for Foreign Investment Reviews Board (FIRB) purchasers.
  3. From a perspective of return on equity, development finance is not as attractive/profitable when compared to other financing opportunities such as lending to businesses which have sound, maintainable earnings with high transaction volumes.
  4. The short-to-medium term fundamentals have declined in the markets, whereas construction finance approvals have been historically high in recent years.

Impact on the Australian Construction Sector and Financing

The impact of this change in view has included the following:

  1. More stringent credit risk assessment especially with respect to new bank clients
  2. Reduction of loan to value ratios reduced from 80% TDC to 65%-70% for construction finance.
  3. Landbank facility approvals are exceedingly difficult to obtain any LVR.
  4. Increased presale levels from 50% to as high as 120% debt cover
  5. Increased complexity with respect to credit assessment and approvals
  6. Slower timeframes for approval and settlement
  7. Increased financing costs due to increases in loan establishment fees, margin and line fees.
  8. Facility limit approvals greater than $20m are becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain
  9. Not recognising foreign investors as a qualifying presale
  10. Pulling back and/or not lending to foreign investors and developers

Pricing for Risk in Construction Finance


The combination of the above from all the major and secondary banks has had a significant impact on the ability to finance projects and get them off the ground.  Developers that once needed an equity of 20% of the project cost are looking at equity requirements of 30% minimum.  The presale hurdle also means that funding is delayed while presales are achieved in a softening market.

Declining site values and increased construction and sales costs have resulted in further increasing levels of equity required and have put downward pressure on the viability of many projects.

Policy shifts only serve to increase the likelihood of a property correction.  Australian banks offer relatively low interest rates and DO NOT price for risk. They could easily raise their interest rates which would enable them to consider quality projects at slightly higher loan-to-value-ratios (LVR) and/or lower presale hurdles.  Conversely, when the market has been through a correction, banks generally compete with each other for market share and help create an environment for the next property surge.


The Private Funding market provides a buffer by pricing for risk.  Over the past twelve months, there has been new private fund managers entering the Australian market to take advantage of the gap created by the Banks. The price differential is offset by the lower presale hurdles, the higher loan ratios, the speed to approval and the speed to settlement.

DFP recently sourced private funding for a quality project in Chermside, Brisbane. The funding included a mix of Bank debt with a layer of Mezzanine funding. The combined LVR was 90% of total project cost.

The Private funding market serves to plug this gap as evidenced by DFP recently securing funding for a site in Melbourne at 65% LVR (loan amount $12.2M). The site zoning was code assessable; however, DA was yet to issue due to historical use had contamination issues.  This was another example of PRICING FOR RISK.

Discover the benefits of private funding and learn how DF Partners offers risk-based pricing.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For expert advice:

Sydney Office

Level 3, 31 Alfred St
Sydney NSW 2000
P / 02 8916 6246

Melbourne Office

Level 30/35 Collins Street,
Melbourne VIC 3000
P/ 03 8692 0082

Brisbane Office

Level 18, 175 Eagle Street
Brisbane QLD 4001
P / 07 3041 4136

See all contact details >

Insight Categories /

Topics /

洞察类别 /


Share on Facebook
Share on LinkedIn
Tweet about this on Twitter