A $725K Purchase Rescued in Two Days

The Borrower

Client — “Fred”

High-income Victorian property investor

Portfolio

Multi-property, held across several trusts

Position

Contract signed, finance not yet obtained

The Objective

Finance a ~$725,000 Victorian investment purchase ($576,000 loan) already under a signed contract.

The Challenge

A major bank’s treatment loaded in the liabilities of the client’s other trusts. With everything included, the deal didn’t service.

What They’d Tried

A buyer’s agent had referred the client to another broker, who took the deal to CBA and couldn’t obtain finance. The client came back roughly two days before the finance deadline.

What We Identified

Lender selection was the whole problem. With the portfolio and trust structures already understood, the right lender could exclude self-sufficient trust liabilities rather than loading them all in.

The Solution

• Placed the deal with Resimac, whose policy could exclude non-trading trust liabilities.
• Provided an accountant’s letter confirming the relevant trusts were non-trading and self-sufficient.
• Arranged a finance extension and restructured the application.

The Result

The lending was approved and the property settled over the Christmas period — a deal the first broker couldn’t place.

Portfolio Structure

Investments are held through separate trusts, with lenders chosen so self-sufficient trust liabilities can be excluded rather than loaded into each new application. Policy in this area has tightened, so lender selection has to evolve as the portfolio grows. Reducing owner-occupied debt also helps, since that debt keeps counting in future applications.

What Happens Next

The portfolio strategy continues on the same basis — matching each new purchase to a lender whose trust treatment supports it.

Why It Matters

With trust-held portfolios, how a lender treats other-entity liabilities decides the deal — more than the rate or the property itself.