TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED] Thus, the complete loss of financing, rather than partial financing on a reduced LTVR, would be a possible lender response.
LTVR, interest rate, amortization period) than loans on otherwise comparable but uncontaminated property.
16) For lenders who would finance an environmentally impaired property, the most frequent adjustment was to the LTVR (25% to 32%, depending on the circumstances), followed by changes in loan term (14% to 23%) and lastly, by interest rate increases (14% to 20%).
For those indicating the possibility of a loan on a pre-remediated property with an approved cleanup plan, the most likely change to the underwriting standards would be an adjustment in the LTVR.
Scenario 2 represents an intermediate risk level, with a 7% equity yield premium and a reduced LTVR of 50%.
banks could make loans of up to a 50% LTVR, with no specifications on
twenty-five years at a 90% LTVR if insured by the FHA (77) and a 66.
could make a limited number of noninsured loans at an 80% LTVR, but only
80% LTVR loans (80)--still below the 90% LTVR allowed for FHA-insured
The figure shows the decline in PVD as the LTVR approaches the assumed market level, applicable to a similar but uncontaminated property, of 70%.
Figure 4 shows that the loss of financing, with an LTVR of 0%, corresponds to a PVD of nearly 25%.
Accordingly, figure 5 shows the PVD effects of varying the LTVR from 70% to 0%, while at the same time varying the equity risk premium from 0 to 1,000 basis points, equating to a [Y.