Case Study: How One Borrower Got 5 Term Sheets in 48 Hours

Most CRE borrowers spend weeks, sometimes months, chasing lenders for a single term sheet. Cold calls. Broker introductions. Email follow-ups that go unanswered. By the time an offer finally arrives, the borrower is so relieved they accept terms they should have negotiated.

This week, we're telling a different story. A real borrower (name and property details changed for privacy) submitted a deal on LenderAve on a Monday morning and had five competing term sheets by Wednesday afternoon.

This isn't a sales pitch dressed up as a case study. It's a look at exactly what happened, what made the process work, and what any borrower can learn from it about structuring their financing process for speed and better outcomes.

The Deal

Property: 128-unit Class B multifamily, Columbus, Ohio suburb
Purchase price: $18.4 million
Equity: $5.5 million (sponsor + LP capital)
Loan request: $13 million (70% LTV)
Business plan: Acquire, execute a light value-add renovation over 18-24 months, stabilize at higher rents, refinance into permanent debt
Timing: Purchase contract signed with a 60-day due diligence period; closing in 45 days

The sponsor had done three similar deals over the prior five years. Strong track record, solid balance sheet, clean credit. The property was 91% occupied with rents about 8% below market. It wasn't a distressed asset, but it wasn't yet stabilized at market rents either.

A textbook value-add multifamily play.

What the Borrower Did Differently

Most borrowers in this situation would approach 3-5 lenders they already knew, send over a submission package, and hope something came back. This sponsor took a different approach.

Step 1: Built the Package Before Reaching Out

Before submitting to any lender, the sponsor assembled a complete, professional package:

Trailing 12-month operating statement and 3 years of historicals
Current rent roll with lease expiration schedule
Property photos (professional, not phone shots)
Detailed renovation budget with contractor quotes
Post-renovation rent projections supported by submarket comps
Sponsor financials, track record, and entity documents
A one-page executive summary that led with the deal's strengths

This took about 4 days. The sponsor didn't rush to submit with a half-finished package. Lenders reward preparation, and this was the foundation.

Step 2: Submitted Once on a Platform

Instead of manually contacting lenders one by one, the sponsor submitted the complete package to LenderAve on Monday morning.

The platform's matching algorithm instantly identified lenders whose criteria aligned with the deal:

Property type: multifamily
Loan size: $10M-$15M
Geography: Ohio / Midwest
Stage: light value-add / bridge-to-perm
Sponsor profile: experienced mid-market sponsor

Twelve lenders received the deal within minutes. All of them were actively looking for exactly this type of loan.

Step 3: Let Competition Do the Work

By the end of Monday, four lenders had reviewed the package and reached out for additional details. By Tuesday morning, three had indicated they were preparing term sheets. By Wednesday afternoon, five term sheets had been issued.

No cold calls. No chasing. No "I'm just following up."

The Five Term Sheets

Here's what the competition produced. All five offers were for the same $13M loan request, but the variation in terms was significant.

Term Sheet #1: National Bridge Lender

Rate: SOFR + 350 bps (all-in ~7.15%)
Term: 3 years with two 1-year extensions
LTV: 72% of as-stabilized value
Recourse: Partial recourse, burning down to carve-outs at stabilization
Rate cap: Required, 2-year cap at 5.00% strike (borrower cost)
Prepayment: Open after 12 months
Origination fee: 1.00%

Term Sheet #2: Regional Bank

Rate: 6.25% fixed
Term: 5 years with 25-year amortization
LTV: 65%
Recourse: Full recourse
Prepayment: 3-2-1 step-down
Origination fee: 0.75%
Reserves: Tax, insurance, and CapEx escrows required

Term Sheet #3: Debt Fund

Rate: SOFR + 325 bps (all-in ~6.90%)
Term: 3 years with one 1-year extension
LTV: 75% of as-stabilized value
Recourse: Non-recourse with standard carve-outs
Rate cap: Required, 2-year cap at 4.50% strike
Prepayment: Open after 18 months
Origination fee: 1.25%

Term Sheet #4: Life Insurance Company (for post-stabilization)

Rate: 5.75% fixed
Term: 10 years with 30-year amortization
LTV: 65% at stabilization
Recourse: Non-recourse with carve-outs
Prepayment: Yield maintenance, with last 6 months open
Note: Forward commitment. Life co wanted to provide the takeout loan in 24 months

Term Sheet #5: Agency (Fannie Mae Small Balance)

Rate: 5.85% fixed
Term: 7 years with 30-year amortization
LTV: 70% of current value (lower loan amount: ~$12.9M)
Recourse: Non-recourse with carve-outs
Prepayment: Yield maintenance with defeasance option
Note: Required the property to stabilize first, which would take 12-18 months

What the Borrower Learned by Comparing

This is where having multiple term sheets pays off. The sponsor wasn't just choosing a rate. They were choosing a complete financing strategy.

Comparison 1: Rate Isn't Everything

The lowest rate was the life insurance company at 5.75%, but it was a forward commitment for stabilized financing in 24 months. It didn't solve the current acquisition financing need.

The next lowest was Agency at 5.85%, but it required the property to already be stabilized, which wouldn't happen for 12-18 months.

The realistic options for acquisition financing were the bridge lenders and the bank. Among those, the debt fund's 6.90% all-in rate was the lowest.

Comparison 2: Recourse Was a Major Differentiator

The bank required full recourse. The debt fund offered non-recourse with standard carve-outs. The bridge lender offered partial recourse burning down to carve-outs at stabilization.

For this sponsor, who was building a portfolio and didn't want to stack personal guarantees, the non-recourse debt fund option was significantly more attractive than the bank. That single term was worth more than a small rate difference.

Comparison 3: Leverage and Structure

The bank capped at 65% LTV, which meant the sponsor would need to come in with additional equity. The debt fund went to 75% of as-stabilized value, which sized the loan at the full $13M request based on the pro forma value.

That's a meaningful difference. A higher LTV loan meant less equity required from the sponsor's LP investors, improving their returns.

Comparison 4: Prepayment and Exit Flexibility

The bank's 3-2-1 step-down prepayment was reasonable. The debt fund's "open after 18 months" was even better, perfectly aligned with the sponsor's 18-24 month stabilization timeline. When it was time to refinance into permanent debt, there would be no prepayment penalty.

Comparison 5: Rate Cap Costs

Both floating-rate lenders required rate caps. The bridge lender required a 5.00% strike cap. The debt fund required a 4.50% strike cap (more expensive upfront but better protection). Factoring in cap costs ($85K for the bridge lender's required cap, $130K for the debt fund's) changed the true cost of capital comparison.

The Final Decision

After reviewing all five term sheets, the sponsor selected the debt fund. Here's why:

Lowest realistic all-in rate for acquisition-stage financing
Non-recourse structure protected the sponsor's personal balance sheet
75% LTV on as-stabilized value reduced equity requirements
Prepayment flexibility aligned perfectly with the business plan exit
Fast closing could accommodate the 45-day deadline

But here's what's critical: before signing, the sponsor went back to the debt fund with three specific negotiation asks:

Reduce the origination fee from 1.25% to 1.00%
Allow a higher strike rate cap (4.75% instead of 4.50%) to reduce cap costs
Narrow two overly broad carve-out provisions

The debt fund agreed to all three. Why? Because they knew they were competing with four other term sheets. The sponsor's leverage was real, not theoretical.

Total savings from competitive negotiation: approximately $52,000 in upfront costs plus a lower-cost rate cap.

What Every Borrower Can Learn

This wasn't magic. It was a structured process that any prepared borrower can replicate. Five principles made it work:

1. Prepare Before You Submit

The sponsor spent 4 days assembling a complete package. That investment paid off with faster lender response times and higher-quality offers. Lenders can tell the difference between a serious submission and a half-finished one.

2. Submit to Multiple Qualified Lenders Simultaneously

The old model of picking one or two lenders and hoping for the best is broken. Submitting to multiple lenders at once creates competition, speeds up response times, and produces better terms.

3. Use Technology to Scale Outreach

Manually contacting 12 lenders and explaining the deal to each one would take weeks. A platform that matches deals to qualified lenders automatically compresses that to hours. LenderAve was built specifically for this purpose.

4. Compare the Full Term Sheet, Not Just the Rate

The sponsor didn't choose the lowest rate. They chose the best overall structure for their specific business plan. Recourse, LTV, prepayment, rate caps, and closing timeline all mattered more than a 25 basis point rate difference.

5. Negotiate with Competing Offers in Hand

When you have real leverage, lenders will move. The sponsor saved $52K on fees and improved two structural terms simply by going back to their chosen lender with specific, reasonable asks, backed by the fact that four other lenders were willing to do the deal.

What This Didn't Require

It's worth noting what the sponsor did NOT need to do:

No broker. They kept the 1% broker fee as additional returns for their investors.
No cold calls. Lenders reached out to them.
No weeks of waiting. Total time from submission to signed term sheet: 5 business days.
No accepting the first offer. Competition gave them leverage to negotiate.

For a $13M loan, the process difference between the traditional approach and this approach represented somewhere between $75,000 and $150,000 in direct savings, plus weeks of faster execution that allowed the sponsor to hit their 45-day closing deadline with room to spare.

The Bottom Line

Getting five term sheets in 48 hours isn't a fantasy. It's the result of a well-prepared borrower using modern tools to create competition and leverage among lenders.

The playbook:

Build a complete package before submitting to anyone
Submit to multiple qualified lenders simultaneously through a platform that matches deals intelligently
Let competition drive faster response times and better offers
Compare the full term sheet, not just the rate
Negotiate with leverage by showing lenders they're competing

The financing is out there. The lenders are out there. The question is whether you're structuring your process to find them quickly and get them competing for your deal.

Ready to run a better financing process? Submit your deal on LenderAve and receive competing term sheets from lenders who are actively looking for your property type.

About Debt Fridays

Debt Fridays is LenderAve's weekly blog series delivering practical insights on commercial real estate financing. Published every Friday, we cover everything from lending basics to advanced deal strategies. Subscribe to never miss an issue.

Have a topic you'd like us to cover? Email us at info@lenderave.com

Tags: Debt Fridays, Commercial Real Estate, CRE Financing, Case Studies, Multifamily Financing, Term Sheet Comparison, Multiple Term Sheets, CRE Deal Strategy