Loan-to-value (LTV)

Loan-to-value (LTV) is the ratio of a loan amount to the appraised value of the asset securing it, expressed as a percentage. An LTV of 70% means the lender has advanced 70% of what the collateral is worth and the borrower has contributed the remaining 30%.

LTV answers one question: if this loan defaults and the security has to be sold, how much room is there between what is owed and what the asset will fetch? The lower the ratio, the more room. A loan at 50% LTV can absorb a halving of the collateral's value before the lender is exposed. A loan at 95% LTV cannot absorb much of anything, including the cost of selling the asset.

It is a security measure, not an affordability measure. LTV says nothing about whether the borrower can make the monthly repayment — that is the job of an affordability assessment and debt service ratios. LTV only describes what happens after repayment has already failed. Most lending policies use both, because a loan can be perfectly secured and still unaffordable, or comfortably affordable and badly secured.

The LTV formula

LTV = (Loan amount ÷ Appraised value of collateral) × 100

Three points govern whether the number means anything:

• Loan amount should be the outstanding principal plus any capitalised fees and accrued interest that the security also covers, not just the amount disbursed on day one.
• Appraised value should be the value established by an independent, dated valuation — not the seller's asking price, not the borrower's estimate, not the insured sum.
• The lower of cost or market convention applies where the loan funds a purchase. If a borrower buys an asset for 700,000 that a valuer says is worth 800,000, prudent policy uses 700,000. The bargain may be real, or it may be an inflated valuation.

Rearranging the formula

Lenders more often need the maximum advance, not the ratio:

Maximum loan = Appraised value × Maximum LTV

At a 60% LTV cap against commercial property valued at 1,200,000, the largest loan the policy permits is 720,000.

Worked example

A borrower applies for a loan of 560,000 secured on residential property. An independent valuer assesses the property at 800,000.

LTV = (560,000 ÷ 800,000) × 100 = 70%

The lender is advancing 70% of the property's value. The borrower's own equity in the asset — the cushion — is 30%, or 240,000.

Now test the cushion. Assume default in year two, with 545,000 still outstanding. The property is not sold at market value; it is sold under pressure, and selling costs money:

• Market valuation: 800,000
• Forced-sale realisation (75% of market): 600,000
• Legal, auction and holding costs (8%): (48,000)
• Net recovery: 552,000
• Outstanding balance: (545,000)
• Surplus: 7,000

A loan that looked comfortable at 70% LTV recovers with almost nothing to spare, and that is before any arrears interest. This is the single most useful thing to understand about LTV: the headline ratio is measured against market value, but recovery happens at forced-sale value net of costs. The real cushion is always smaller than the ratio suggests.

LTV and the haircut

The haircut, sometimes called the margin or the discount, is the mirror image of LTV — the portion of the collateral's value the lender refuses to lend against.

Haircut = 100% − LTV

The related term is the advance rate, which is the same figure as LTV but usually applied to a pool of assets rather than a single one: receivables financing at an 80% advance rate against an invoice book means the same arithmetic with different vocabulary.

• 90% max LTV (10% haircut): 450,000 maximum advance against 500,000 collateral
• 70% max LTV (30% haircut): 350,000 maximum advance against 500,000 collateral
• 50% max LTV (50% haircut): 250,000 maximum advance against 500,000 collateral

The haircut exists to absorb four things at once: price volatility between now and disposal, the gap between market and forced-sale value, the cost of enforcement, and interest accruing during a recovery process that may run for months.

Typical LTV ratios by collateral type

Ratios vary by lender, jurisdiction and cycle, but the ranking below is stable almost everywhere, and the logic behind it is more useful than the numbers themselves.

• Cash deposit or fixed deposit held by the lender (90–100% LTV): No valuation risk, no disposal cost, immediate set-off.
• Government securities (80–95% LTV): Liquid, priced daily, low volatility.
• Residential property with clean title (70–90% LTV): Stable value but slow, costly and legally involved to realise.
• Commercial and industrial property (50–70% LTV): Thinner market, value tied to occupancy and use.
• Motor vehicles (50–80% LTV): Depreciates fast, moves easily, condition varies.
• Listed shares (40–70% LTV): Priced daily but volatile; correlated with borrower distress.
• Plant, machinery and equipment (40–60% LTV): Often specialised, worth far less second-hand.
• Business inventory (30–50% LTV): Perishable, mobile, hard to verify.
• Livestock, land without title, household goods (Low or nil): Difficult to value, verify, secure or sell.

Two forces set every one of these figures: how reliably the asset can be valued and how cheaply and quickly it can be converted to cash. Anything that scores badly on either gets a larger haircut. Anything that scores badly on both usually cannot serve as primary security at all, which is why so much lending to informal and micro enterprises relies on guarantors, group joint liability and cash-flow history instead.

Origination LTV versus current LTV

The ratio calculated at approval is only accurate on the day it is calculated. Two forces pull it in opposite directions over the life of the loan.

Amortisation pushes LTV down. Every principal repayment reduces the numerator. An amortising loan improves its own security position month by month, which is why arrears matter twice over: the loan is not being repaid, and the cushion is not being built.

Depreciation or market movement can push LTV up. Vehicles, equipment and inventory lose value on a schedule. Property can fall in a downturn. Where the collateral loses value faster than the loan amortises, the loan gets riskier the longer it runs.

The two forces compared

A vehicle loan of 120,000 against a vehicle valued at 150,000 — 80% at origination:

• Origination: 120,000 balance | 150,000 vehicle value | 80.0% LTV
• End of year 1: 96,000 balance | 118,000 vehicle value | 81.4% LTV
• End of year 2: 70,000 balance | 92,000 vehicle value | 76.1% LTV

Even with steady repayment, the loan spends its first year less secured than on the day it was written. On an interest-only structure, or with two missed payments in that first year, the loan goes underwater — the balance exceeds the value of the security. This is why vehicle and equipment lenders insist on meaningful deposits and short terms rather than relying on the asset alone.

Current LTV (sometimes indexed LTV, where valuations are updated using a market index rather than a fresh inspection) is the figure that should drive portfolio monitoring, provisioning judgements and any decision about restructuring. Origination LTV is a historical record.

Combined LTV (CLTV)

Where more than one loan is secured on the same asset, each loan's individual LTV understates the true exposure. Combined loan-to-value adds all secured balances together:

CLTV = (Sum of all loans secured on the asset ÷ Appraised value) × 100

A property valued at 600,000 carrying a first-charge balance of 300,000 and a second loan of 100,000 has a CLTV of 66.7%, even though the second lender's own loan is only 16.7% of the value.

Ranking matters as much as the ratio. The first-charge holder is paid in full before the second sees anything, so a second-charge lender at 66.7% CLTV is in a materially worse position than a first-charge lender at the same figure. Any lender taking security on an asset should search for prior charges before advancing, and should record the charge position alongside the LTV in the collateral register.

LTV compared with other lending ratios

• Loan-to-value (LTV): Measures loan against collateral value. Answers: How well secured is the loan?
• Debt service ratio / DTI: Measures repayments against income. Answers: Can the borrower afford it?
• Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR): Measures business cash flow against debt service. Answers: Can the business afford it?
• Loan-to-cost (LTC): Measures loan against total project cost. Answers: How much of this project is the lender funding?
• Loan-to-income (LTI): Measures loan against annual income. Answers: Is the borrower over-leveraged overall?

LTV and an affordability ratio are complements, not substitutes. Relying on LTV alone produces asset-based lending, where the lender is effectively planning to be repaid by selling the security — an expensive, slow and reputationally damaging way to run a loan book, and one regulators discourage in consumer lending.

How lenders set and enforce LTV limits

A written cap per collateral class. Every asset type the lender accepts should carry a maximum LTV in the credit policy, with a named approver for exceptions. Exceptions should be recorded as exceptions, not absorbed into normal practice.

Valuation standards. Who may value, how recently, and using which basis (market value, forced-sale value, or both). Panel valuers, rotation between them, and a maximum valuation age at approval are standard controls.

Revaluation triggers. Long-dated loans need their collateral revalued periodically, and immediately on arrears, restructuring or any change in the borrower's circumstances. A ratio nobody has recalculated in four years is not a control.

Concentration limits above a threshold. Many lenders cap the share of the portfolio that may sit above a given LTV — for example, no more than 15% of the book above 80%. This limits how much of the portfolio is exposed to a single downturn in one asset market.

Insurance and charge registration. An LTV calculation assumes the lender can actually realise the asset. That assumption depends on a properly registered charge, current insurance with the lender noted as loss payee, and clean title. Where those are absent, the effective LTV is 100%, whatever the file says.

Where LTV calculations go wrong

Stale valuations. A valuation from three years ago is an assumption, not a fact. In markets that move quickly, or where the collateral depreciates, a stale valuation systematically understates risk across the whole book at the same time.

Valuer capture. Where the borrower selects and pays the valuer, or where the same valuer signs off most of a lender's files, valuations drift upward. Panel rotation and periodic sample re-valuation are the usual defences.

Market value mistaken for recovery value. As the worked example shows, forced-sale proceeds net of legal and disposal costs are the number that matters. Some lenders build this in directly by calculating LTV against forced-sale value rather than market value, which produces a lower, more honest ratio.

Ignoring accrued interest and fees. A loan at 85% LTV that goes six months into arrears with penalty interest accruing is no longer at 85%. The numerator grows precisely when the borrower's ability to reduce it disappears.

Unregistered or defective security. An unregistered charge, a title deed with an unresolved dispute, an asset already pledged elsewhere, or equipment the borrower does not actually own — each turns a well-calculated ratio into fiction.

Treating the ratio as the whole assessment. Low LTV encourages weak underwriting because the loan feels safe. Enforcement is slow, costly, publicly visible and often only partially successful. A well-secured loan that has to be enforced is still a failed loan.

Frequently asked questions

Does LTV affect the interest rate?

Usually. Higher LTV means higher loss given default, so risk-based pricing attaches a premium to it. Many lenders publish tiered pricing where each band of LTV carries a different rate, and some require additional security or a guarantor above a threshold instead of, or as well as, a higher rate.