Development Exit Finance Risks and Pitfalls
Understanding development exit finance risks is essential for developers using exit facilities to manage post-completion funding. While exit finance can reduce costs and unlock flexibility, it also introduces specific risks if assumptions are overly optimistic or preparation is incomplete. Most development exit finance risks are avoidable, but only where developers approach exit funding with realistic expectations and disciplined planning.
Overestimating Valuations
One of the most common development exit finance risks is overestimating valuation. Lenders base borrowing on open market value supported by evidence, not developer expectations. If a valuation comes in lower than anticipated, the resulting loan may be insufficient to repay the existing facility, forcing additional capital injection or extensions. Conservative assumptions and early valuation discussions significantly reduce this risk.
Hidden and Overlooked Costs
Headline rates rarely reflect the true cost of exit finance. Arrangement fees, exit fees, monitoring surveyor costs, and legal expenses can materially affect overall funding costs. Developers who fail to model these costs upfront may find that the perceived savings of exit finance are eroded over time. Transparency at the outset is essential.
Timing and Execution Risk
Timing issues frequently cause friction. Delays with legal documentation, warranties, or sales progression can leave developers exposed to extension fees on their existing funding.
Exit finance is most effective when arranged proactively rather than reactively, allowing sufficient time for due diligence. For an example of how timing risk manifests in practice, see our Birmingham mixed-use exit finance case study. A further illustration of how valuation assumptions and market timing can influence exit outcomes is shown in our London development exit finance case study.
Overleveraging and Reduced Flexibility
Stretching to the maximum available loan-to-value may appear attractive, but overleveraging reduces flexibility if market conditions weaken or sales take longer than expected. Developers who retain a buffer are better positioned to adapt without compromising pricing or strategy.
Where Exit Finance Deals Most Commonly Stall
Exit finance transactions most commonly stall around valuation disagreements, incomplete documentation, or misaligned expectations between lenders and borrowers. Issues such as missing warranties, unresolved planning conditions, or unclear sales strategies can delay completion and increase costs.
These points of friction are rarely unexpected; they typically arise where exit assumptions were formed late or without sufficient evidence. Understanding where deals commonly stall allows developers to structure exits defensively rather than reactively.
Why Exit Finance Risks Are Often Underestimated
A frequent but less discussed risk is optimism bias following project completion. Once construction is finished, developers often assume the most difficult phase is behind them and that exit funding will follow smoothly.
In practice, lenders view post-completion schemes through a different risk lens. Completion does not automatically equate to stabilisation, and factors such as sales velocity, buyer quality, tenancy strength, and legal readiness all influence lender confidence.
Developers may also underestimate how sensitive exit funding terms are to small changes in valuation or timing. Even modest delays in sales or leasing can materially affect leverage or pricing if the funding structure has no buffer.
Experienced developers recognise this gap between physical completion and funding readiness and deliberately build in margin, contingency, and time.
By planning for slower-than-expected exits rather than best-case scenarios, they reduce the likelihood of being forced into extensions, renegotiations, or repeated short-term funding.
How Experienced Developers Structure Exits Defensively
Experienced developers mitigate development exit finance risks through conservative planning, early engagement with advisers, and realistic sequencing of funding stages. Exit finance is structured with clear contingencies, allowing for slower sales or extended stabilisation without triggering immediate pressure. This approach prioritises optionality over maximum leverage and reduces the likelihood of repeated short-term funding. For a broader overview of how exit facilities are structured, see our main guide to Development Exit Finance.
Linking Exit Finance to the Next Step
Exit finance should never be viewed in isolation. Developers who plan the subsequent refinance or disposal pathway alongside exit funding are better equipped to manage risk and preserve flexibility. Aligning exit finance with the intended long-term outcome reduces execution risk and supports smoother transitions. For guidance on moving from exit finance into longer-term funding, see our guide to post-development exit refinance strategies.
For wider market context, see our Development Exit Finance Market Outlook 2025–2026.
Speak to our Exit Finance Expert