How a Lender Tests Your Sell-Down Assumption
How a development lender tests the revenue side of your feasibility, from qualifying contracts and comparable evidence to the assumed sell-down period.
Construction Hub
Sell-Down / Valuation / Presales
Your price list is an assumption until a valuer agrees with it. Here is how a development lender tests the revenue side of a feasibility before it funds a build.
Quick Answer
A lender tests your sell-down assumption on evidence, not optimism. Qualifying contracts, settled comparable sales and a written sales strategy carry weight in development finance. Asking prices and expressions of interest do not, and the assumed sell-down period is assessed as part of the risk.
Why Does the Revenue Side Get Tested Harder?
Two halves of the same feasibility receive very different levels of scrutiny, and the revenue side gets the harder half because it is forecast where the cost side is contracted. Most developers expect it the other way round.
They arrive with the cost side buttoned down: a builder engaged, a contract priced, a contingency built in. The sale prices are treated as the part that is already known, because the developer has walked the submarket and watched the listings. Credit reads it in reverse. Costs are verifiable today, revenue is a claim about a market that has not happened yet.
That is why what lenders actually look at first on a feasibility is rarely the headline margin. It is what sits behind the top line: who has committed to buy, at what price, on what contract, and how that price compares with what has genuinely settled nearby. A strong margin built on an untested price list is a weak file. A modest margin built on evidenced pricing is a fundable one.
Your price list is an assumption until a valuer agrees with it. That is not a criticism of your numbers, it is simply how the funding works. The lender is advancing against a future sale it cannot see, so it substitutes independent evidence for your forecast wherever it can find any. Understanding that in advance changes what you put in front of a funder and how early you start collecting it.
What Reads as Evidence and What Reads as an Assumption?
Every line in your revenue plan reads as either evidence or assumption, and the split is more mechanical than most developers expect. The distinction doing the most work is contractual: an unconditional contract counts and an expression of interest does not.
Interest lists, reservation forms and agent enquiry logs are useful signals of demand, but they are not enforceable, so credit treats them as marketing rather than revenue.
| What the file shows | Reads as evidence | Reads as assumption |
|---|---|---|
| Sales commitment | Unconditional contract with deposit paid and held | Expression of interest or reservation form |
| Pricing basis | Recent settled comparable sales | A price list built off current asking prices |
| Sales appointment | Signed agency appointment and written strategy | An agent to be appointed nearer completion |
| Buyer profile | Arms length purchasers unrelated to the borrower | Related party or vendor assisted purchasers |
| Valuation | Panel valuation instructed by the lender | Developer appraisal or agent price guide |
| Sell-down timing | Absorption drawn from comparable projects | All stock assumed to settle at once |
| Product mix | Stock type the submarket already absorbs | An unusual mix priced at the same rate |
The right-hand column is not fatal. It is simply unfunded until it moves left. Where a file arrives with most of its revenue in the assumption column, the useful response is not to argue the numbers, it is to convert what can be converted: sign the agency appointment, get deposits into trust, and document the contracts in a form that survives review.
The same discipline applies on the cost side, which is why the quantity surveyor report carries so much weight on the other half of the feasibility.
What Makes a Presale Actually Qualify?
A presale qualifies when it is an unconditional contract to an arms length purchaser with a deposit paid and held in trust. Everything else is a sales pipeline, and a lender counts contracts rather than pipeline.
Funders read the quality of each contract before they read the count, which is why 6 contracts can support a facility that 10 weaker ones will not. The distinctions below are the ones that decide which side a contract falls on.
| Contract feature | Usually reads as qualifying | Commonly shaded or excluded |
|---|---|---|
| Conditionality | Unconditional, or conditions already satisfied | Subject to finance, or to a sale elsewhere |
| Deposit | Paid and held in the agent or solicitor trust account, typically 10 per cent | Nominal, unpaid, or held by the developer |
| Purchaser relationship | Arms length and unrelated to the borrower | Related party, staff, or vendor assisted |
| Price against the list | At or near the assessed rate | Heavily discounted to secure the contract |
| Sunset date | Realistic against the construction program | Expiring before practical completion is likely |
| Concentration | Spread across the range and across buyers | Several lots to one purchaser or entity |
Convert the benchmark into contracts, because that is the form it reaches you in. On a facility of around $8 million, cover set at 100 per cent of total debt means unconditional qualifying contracts totalling roughly $8 million before the first construction drawdown. At 50 per cent it means roughly $4 million, which on an average lot price of about $800,000 is the difference between 10 qualifying contracts and 5.
That is the whole reason the qualifying test matters more than the count. Those figures are illustrative only and move with the facility size, the lot mix and each funder's own policy, and a proposal in consultation is not yet a rule.
Requirements vary by lender and by project type, and the qualifying threshold is currently the subject of active prudential debate, which we cover from the underwriting side in the builder your lender has to approve too.
One caution worth stating plainly: whether a particular contract is unconditional, what a sunset clause actually permits, and what happens if a purchaser fails to settle are legal questions for your solicitor. A broker can tell you how a contract is likely to be counted. Only a lawyer can tell you what it obliges you to do.
How Does a Valuer Test Your Price List?
A valuer tests your price list line by line against what has actually settled, not against what is currently advertised. Rates are assessed against recent comparable sales, indicative and varies by valuer, with adjustments for size, aspect, level, finish and car parking.
The practitioner standards behind that work sit with the Australian Property Institute, which states that it sets and maintains the standards of professional practice, ethical behaviour and professional conduct its members work to. The practical consequence for a developer is simple: comparable evidence beats optimism, in both directions.
Two points get missed. First, the lender instructs the valuer, not you. A developer's own appraisal or an agent's price guide is useful for planning and carries no weight in the credit decision. Second, where your product mix has no clean comparable, the valuer adjusts, and adjustments almost always move downward, because an unproven product type is priced with a discount for uncertainty rather than a premium for novelty.
The most useful thing a developer can do is arrive with the comparable evidence already assembled: 3 to 5 genuinely comparable settled sales, with dates, addresses and the reasons each one is comparable. It does not bind the valuer. It does shorten the conversation considerably, and it signals that your pricing was built the same way theirs will be.
What if the Valuation Lands Under Your Feasibility?
If the valuation lands under your feasibility, the funding position moves with the valuation rather than with your numbers, and the gap comes out of your equity. That is the mechanical answer, and it is worth internalising before the report is instructed rather than after.
The total of the assessed rates becomes the gross realisation value the facility is measured against. Where the assessed figure is lower than the feasibility assumed, the shortfall does not reduce the lender's required buffer. It reduces the amount they will advance, which usually means the advance rate holds and the dollar figure falls.
From there the question is whether the borrower can fund the difference. That is what a credit team looks at when a valuation returns light: not whether the project still works on paper, but whether the equity is there to close the gap and whether it is available now.
The options are the familiar ones. Inject more equity, reduce the scope, restructure the capital stack with mezzanine finance or equity gap funding, or go back to the market. Each of them costs something, and the cheapest version of all of them is not needing them, which is what the evidence-gathering is for.
How Long Is Your Sell-Down Assumed to Take?
Your sell-down is assumed to take as long as comparable projects in the same submarket have taken, not as long as your marketing plan says. The assumed period is a credit input in its own right, because the facility has to survive all of it.
It is not a single date, it is an absorption assumption. Every additional month inside it carries interest, rates, insurance and selling cost, which is why a plan that assumes simultaneous settlement across the whole project reads as optimistic before anyone has looked at the pricing. Settlements cluster, they do not coincide.
The assumption feeds the funding position directly. A slower assumed absorption typically pulls the advance back, lengthens the facility term, or both, and where it lands is usually on the equity contribution rather than on approval itself. Because the interest reserve is sized to the facility term, a longer assumed sell-down also quietly shrinks construction headroom, a mechanism set out in what capitalised interest does to your development loan.
Put a number on the gap. A feasibility that assumes a 12 month sell-down and is assessed on 18 is carrying 6 additional months of interest, rates, insurance, body corporate and selling cost on a facility that was sized for 12, and none of those 6 months appear anywhere on the cost side of the page. The interest component of that stretch is worked through in what capitalised interest does to your development loan.
Model the conservative case yourself before a credit team models it for you. The version you bring is the version that gets discussed, and a developer who has already stress-tested a slower sell-down is having a different conversation from one who is hearing the idea for the first time across the table.
What Does a Lender Want From Your Selling Agent?
A lender wants a signed appointment and a written strategy from your selling agent, not a verbal understanding that someone will handle sales closer to completion. The appointment is evidence that the revenue plan has an owner.
What follows is the shape of a sales position that reads well against one that creates questions. Neither column is a prediction about any particular project.
Reads as a resolved revenue plan
- Agency appointment signed before the facility is drawn
- Written pricing and release strategy by stage
- Deposits held in a trust account, not by the developer
- Contracts spread across the range, not clustered on the best stock
- Settled comparables assembled by the developer
- Absorption modelled from comparable projects nearby
Creates questions
- Agent to be appointed once the build is underway
- Pricing set off current asking prices in the area
- Deposits nominal, unpaid, or held outside trust
- Best lots sold first at a discount to build momentum
- No comparable evidence beyond an agent appraisal
- Whole project assumed to settle in a single month
The left column is not a shortcut to approval and the right column is not a decline. What the right column means is that the revenue side needs work before the file is presented, because those are the questions that will be asked anyway and it is cheaper to answer them in your own time.
What Should You Bring to the First Conversation?
Bring the documents that convert your revenue plan from a forecast into a record. Almost all of them exist already or can be produced in a fortnight, and assembling them is the single cheapest thing a developer can do to speed up an assessment.
| Document | What it evidences | When to get it |
|---|---|---|
| Signed agency appointment | The revenue plan has an accountable owner | Before the facility is presented |
| Written pricing and release strategy | Prices were set deliberately, by stage | Alongside the appointment |
| Executed contracts of sale | Enforceable commitments, not interest | As each one goes unconditional |
| Trust account deposit confirmations | Purchasers have money at risk | With each contract |
| Settled comparable sales schedule | Your rates match the submarket | Before valuation is instructed |
| Absorption note for the submarket | The sell-down period is grounded | With the feasibility |
| Feasibility with a downside case | You have already tested a slower market | With the feasibility |
The document order that gets you there is set out in the construction loan pack, and how the pieces of a build facility fit together sits in the construction hub. None of this is about proving certainty, which nobody can do. It is about showing a funder that your revenue assumption was built the same way theirs will be.
One related point: if you signed a guarantee behind the facility, that exposure surfaces again when you next borrow in your own name, which is covered in how a business guarantee reads on a One Doc home loan.
A development lender funds against a sale that has not happened yet, so it replaces your forecast with independent evidence wherever it can. Unconditional contracts, settled comparables, a signed sales strategy and a realistic absorption assumption move revenue from the assumption column into the evidence column. Everything left in the assumption column is unfunded until it moves, which is a structural feature of development finance rather than a judgement about your project.
Key takeaway: Gather the settled comparables and convert the contracts before the feasibility goes to a lender, because the revenue side is where it will be tested.Frequently Asked Questions
A sell-down period is the time a lender assumes it will take to sell and settle the completed stock once the build finishes. It is not a single date, it is an absorption assumption, and it is typically drawn from how comparable projects in the same submarket have sold rather than from the developer's own target. A longer assumed period means more holding cost inside the feasibility, which changes what the facility can support and how the advance rate is struck.
The lender orders the valuation, instructing a valuer from its own panel, and that report is the one credit relies on. A developer's own appraisal or an agent's price guide is useful for planning but carries no weight in the decision. If the panel valuation lands below your price list, the funding position moves with the valuation rather than with the feasibility, and the gap falls to your equity or to equity gap funding.
In most cases yes, or close to it. A contract still subject to finance or to the sale of another property is not a committed sale, so it is commonly shaded or excluded from the qualifying count. Deposits held in trust, arms length purchasers and realistic sunset dates all matter as much as the number of contracts. How the qualifying threshold interacts with lender appetite is covered in the builder your lender has to approve too.
It often does, because the facility has to survive the whole period and every extra month carries interest, rates, insurance and selling cost inside the feasibility. Funders typically set the facility term against the assumed sell-down with some margin, and the holding cost lands inside total development cost, which is the mechanism explained in what capitalised interest does to your development loan.
You can use it to plan, price and negotiate, and it is worth having. You cannot use it to set the funding position, because a lender relies on a panel valuation it has instructed itself and can hold the valuer accountable for. Where an owner-commissioned report is genuinely useful is in surfacing a pricing problem early, before the panel report reaches credit and before the exit strategy has been built around a number that will not hold.
FBAA Accredited
