SDC Capital's underwriting workflow uses Lendarex to bring property, credit, valuation, and other mortgage evidence into one review view. The authorized snapshot below counts surfaced findings across seven source categories; each finding is a prompt for an underwriter, not an automated outcome.
Reported deal example
Vendor take-back mortgage in the purchase agreement
In SDC Capital's reported example, Lendarex caught a vendor take-back mortgage (VTB) in the purchase agreement, identifying a deal with no cash down payment. It brought the no-cash-down-payment structure to the lender's attention, helping prevent an apparent down payment from being accepted without scrutiny.
The distinction is important: seller financing is debt, not borrower cash equity. A proposed lender mortgage can leave a gap below the purchase price without that gap being funded by borrower cash. A VTB does not always mean zero cash down; the full financing structure must be checked.
The underwriter and lawyer should verify the cash deposit and its source, all debt, closing adjustments, and the VTB's terms and priority. This reported example does not establish a final lending outcome or money saved.
This example is separate from the September 15 aggregate snapshot below, which excluded purchase-agreement flags generated at display time. It should not be added to those counts.
Simplified illustration, not figures from the reported deal
- Purchase price: $1,000,000.
- Proposed lender mortgage: $800,000 = 80% purchase-price loan-to-value (LTV).
- Seller VTB: $200,000 of additional debt.
- Borrower cash toward the price: $0.
- Combined financing: $1,000,000 = 100% of the purchase price.
Excludes closing costs and reserves. The 80% purchase-price LTV describes only the proposed lender mortgage, not all financing or a verified valuation.
Illustrative review scenarios
Six questions worth connecting across the file
These are illustrative review scenarios, not additional documented SDC outcomes or claims of actual catches. Each shows how a source can raise a question that requires human verification.
-
Mortgage or tax arrears
- Source & issue
- Broker notes mention missed mortgage payments or unpaid property taxes.
- Why it matters
- Arrears can change the payout needed at closing and the assessment of repayment risk.
- Next human action
- Verify current arrears with lender and tax statements; reconcile payout amounts and how they will be cleared.
-
Property condition and repairs
- Source & issue
- An appraisal describes deferred maintenance or a value dependent on completed repairs.
- Why it matters
- Current condition may differ from the condition assumed in the valuation.
- Next human action
- Confirm repair costs, current condition, and value assumptions with the appraiser and supporting inspection evidence.
-
Recent transfer versus proposed value
- Source & issue
- Transfer history shows a recent purchase at a price different from the proposed value.
- Why it matters
- The difference needs context before relying on the value for security coverage.
- Next human action
- Reconcile dates, prices, and documented improvements; seek independent valuation support.
-
Title and other charges
- Source & issue
- Title or legal documents identify charges beyond the proposed mortgage.
- Why it matters
- Other secured debt may affect total exposure, available proceeds, and priority.
- Next human action
- Reconcile total debt and payouts; have the solicitor confirm discharge requirements and the lender's intended priority.
-
Valuation comparables
- Source & issue
- An appraisal or agent comparative market analysis uses sales with differing locations, dates, or features.
- Why it matters
- Weak comparability or unsupported adjustments can undermine the proposed value.
- Next human action
- Review relevance, sale dates, and adjustments with the valuation professional; request better support where needed.
-
Environmental concerns
- Source & issue
- An environmental report identifies potential contamination or recommends further investigation.
- Why it matters
- Unresolved concerns can affect use, marketability, and remediation obligations.
- Next human action
- Obtain specialist review and clarify investigation or remediation requirements before relying on the security.
Connect the evidence. Keep the decision human.
Cross-document review means reading a finding alongside the rest of the file. Purchase terms, broker notes, valuation assumptions, and title evidence can describe different parts of the same risk. Lendarex helps bring those connections into view; the source documents and professional verification remain essential.
- Intake: Bring available documents and deal information into the review. Identify missing or outdated evidence.
- Surfaced findings: Use review prompts to locate potential inconsistencies and connect related evidence across documents.
- Verification: Check the original sources, request clarification, and involve the underwriter, lawyer, appraiser, or specialist as appropriate.
- Human decision: The lender assesses verified facts against its policy and records its decision. A finding does not approve or decline a deal.
What the snapshot covers
The snapshot covers SDC Capital-owned deal records retained during 2026-03-25 to 2026-09-15. It is aggregate only: no borrower or property details are published, and this page does not query the production database. The counts describe review activity in scope, not lending decisions.
How to read the findings
These are stored review prompts, not underwriting outcomes. Records are not unique loans or borrowers; source-level record counts overlap and must not be added; one included broker-note finding was dismissed; and a finding is not proof of a defect, fraud, loss prevented, accuracy, time savings, or lending performance.