The Capital Stack
Most 4% LIHTC + Bonds deals layer several sources rather than a single loan:
- Construction loan (often the same lender as bond issuer on single-close structures)
- Tax-exempt private activity bond issuance (bond-financed deal qualifies for 4% credit)
- 4% LIHTC investor equity (~30% of TDC)
- State soft debt: MHP, AHSC, NPLH where applicable
- Local soft debt: city trust funds, linkage fees, HOME
- Sponsor equity and deferred developer fee
Why size drives the 4% versus 9% decision
The math is straightforward: 4% credit equity covers roughly 30% of total development cost, so the remaining 70% has to come from permanent debt, soft financing, and sponsor equity. On a $10M deal that gap is manageable. On a $40M deal it usually isn't, unless the sponsor can absorb non-competitive certainty over deeper equity. That's why 4% and bonds becomes the default once a deal clears roughly $20M, and why we run the 4% versus 9% comparison on every affordable deal before picking a structure.
The bond issuer relationship matters as much as the lender
Because the 4% credit is coupled to bond financing, the real gating relationship on these deals is often the bond issuer, not the construction lender. Issuers allocate private activity bond cap annually and have their own underwriting calendar independent of the construction loan closing. We coordinate the issuer, the bond counsel, the LIHTC investor, and the construction lender to one closing date rather than letting any one party's calendar become the critical path.
For the full program mechanics, see our deeper guide: Program Deep Dive →