If you assumed property developers fail on schemes that were bad from the start, the data says otherwise. The failures cluster near the finish line. A developer is far more likely to run into serious trouble at ninety-something percent complete, with a building that is nearly finished and largely sold-able, than at the point where the first slab is poured. The reason is not the building. It is the finance calendar, and the way the cost of carrying a scheme keeps running while the finish takes longer than the loan was dated for. This is the exit gap, and it is one of the more counterintuitive patterns in UK development.
If you want the actual numbers behind the pattern, they live in one place: the Property Developer Insolvency Index, which is the money site's own research asset for where and when developer failures concentrate. This piece describes the shape of the pattern and the arithmetic that drives it, and it invents no figures of its own; the Index is the source for the data.
A disclosure before the argument, because it matters. Development Exit Property Finance is a trading name of Lenzie Consulting Ltd, a broker and introducer, not a lender, and not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); development exit lending sits outside the FCA's regulated mortgage regime; where a case needs an FCA authorised firm it is referred to one; every figure is an indicative published band, not an offer. We arrange and place exit facilities across specialist development exit lenders, bridging lenders and challenger banks. Nothing here is a quote.
Why the failures bunch up near the end
Think of a development loan as a stopwatch that starts on the day of drawdown. It was priced for the build and dated with a fixed number of months, plus a short margin beyond practical completion for the developer to sell into repayment. That margin is the weak point. Construction eats into it, because builds run long far more often than they run short, and selling a full scheme of units takes longer than the tidy assumption written into the original facility. So the developer reaches the end of the works with the stopwatch nearly out, a finished or almost finished building, and a row of units that have not yet exchanged.
At that exact moment the incentives that held the deal together come apart. Through the build, the developer and the lender wanted the same thing: get the building up. At the end, they want different things. The developer needs weeks or months to sell at real prices. The facility needs its money back on a fixed date. When those two timelines do not meet, the developer is caught between a deadline that will not move and a market that sells at its own pace. That mismatch, not any flaw in the scheme, is what the failure data is really recording. The building was fine. The finance ran out of runway.
The cost-of-carry arithmetic
Here is the mechanism in plain terms. A construction-rate facility charges interest on the whole outstanding balance every month, and it keeps charging whether or not a single unit has sold. Call that the carry. Set against the carry is the pace of sales, the rate at which completed units turn into cash that pays the balance down. Solvency at the end of a build is simply the question of whether the sales are arriving fast enough to stay ahead of the carry before the term expires.
When they are not, the gap widens every month, and it widens in a nasty way, because each extra month is charged at the higher construction rate against a deadline that is now closer than it was. A scheme that would have been comfortably profitable if it had another four months to sell can be tipped into a loss by the cost of those same four months on the wrong facility. And the endgame is worse than slow: once a lender's term expires, it can force a sale, and a sale run to hit a redemption date routinely gives up far more value than the finance ever cost. The profit that was sitting in the unsold units evaporates into a discount taken to beat a clock.
What changes the arithmetic
The instrument that closes the exit gap does one job: it swaps the expensive, deadline-bound money for cheaper money dated around the sales that are actually happening. On the indicative bands published at developmentexitpropertyfinance.co.uk in mid 2026, an exit bridge on a finished scheme runs at 0.65 to 0.95 percent a month, is sized at 70 to 75 percent of gross development value, and terms over 6 to 18 months. Three things move at once when a scheme steps onto it.
- The monthly rate drops from a construction-era figure to that lower band, so the scheme bleeds less cash every month it sells.
- The interest is usually retained or rolled up, so it comes out of sales proceeds as units complete rather than out of a cash position that is already thin.
- The term is re-dated to the real sales runway, so the deadline that was forcing a discount is pushed out to where the sales can reach it.
None of that rescues a scheme that cannot sell at any sensible price, and it is not meant to. What it does is stop a viable, nearly finished scheme from being pushed over by a financing structure that simply ran out of time. Against a Bank of England base rate held at 3.75 percent since December 2025 (Bank of England), that cheaper band has been stable enough this year that a developer can plan the swap with some confidence.
The signal to watch
The useful thing about the exit gap is that it announces itself early. The clearest signal is a redemption date coming into view while a meaningful number of units are still unsold. A developer who can see, three or four months out, that the sales will not clear the facility by the deadline is watching the gap open in real time, and that is the moment to act. Waiting until the term has nearly expired throws away the one thing an orderly exit needs, which is choice: a rushed placement leaves less lender appetite to work with and less room on rate and term.
The quieter signals matter too. A sales rate running below the appraisal month after month. A monthly carry eating the margin faster than units convert. An existing lender who will only extend the term at a higher price. A finished scheme worth comfortably more than the debt against it, where the developer is still under pressure, is the textbook exit-gap case, because the difference between value and debt is exactly the equity a bridge can lend against.
The pattern is consistent enough that its lesson is short: developers rarely go bust because the building was wrong. They go bust because the money ran out of term before the sales ran their course, and the money is the one thing that can be re-dated in time. For the numbers behind the pattern, read the Property Developer Insolvency Index; for a straight look at a scheme approaching the gap, start at developmentexitpropertyfinance.co.uk.
All figures here are indicative published bands for UK development exit finance in 2026, not an offer, a quote or a financial promotion, and any facility is subject to lender terms, valuation and full due diligence. Written by Matt Lenzie.
Top comments (0)