Section 1The Five Pillars
Every deal PAIUL scores is evaluated across five pillars. These map directly to the Five C's you learned in Module 1 — but they're defined, weighted, and computed rather than judged. Together they roll up into the master PAIUL Funding Score™ (PFS), on a 0–100 scale.
25%
Sponsor
Who is borrowing — experience, track record, credit, liquidity, net worth. (Character + Capacity.)
25%
Asset
The property itself — occupancy, condition, NOI quality, stabilization. (Collateral.)
20%
Market
The location's strength — population, employment, rent growth, vacancy. (Conditions.)
20%
Structure
The deal's shape — leverage (LTV/LTC), DSCR, debt yield, capital stack.
10%
Context
Everything around it — deal-type risk, exit readiness, documentation completeness, data confidence.
The Weights Are Configuration, Not Code
Those five weights — 25 / 25 / 20 / 20 / 10 — are the default. They live in the database, not hard-coded in the engine, so they can be tuned per lender without redevelopment. A conservative bank and an aggressive bridge lender can score the same deal through the same pillars with different emphasis. This is why the framework is defensible to institutions: one consistent structure, adjustable overlays.
Section 2The Five Stages
A deal doesn't just get a score dropped on it. It flows through five stages, in order — the PAIUL method, from raw submission to a package a lender can act on.
1
Parse
Extract the deal from documents and inputs into structured fields — loan amount, property value, NOI, occupancy, sponsor data. Turn the PDF into data.
2
Score
Run the five pillars. Each produces a sub-score; weighted together they form the PFS. This is where consistency lives.
3
Model
Assess risk beyond the point score — stabilization risk, exit readiness, stress scenarios. What could go wrong, and how badly?
4
Structure
Recommend. Match the deal to lenders whose credit box it fits, and identify what changes would make it fit more of them.
5
Package
Present it — a clean intelligence profile a capital partner can evaluate in minutes instead of weeks.
Mnemonic
P-S-M-S-P — Parse, Score, Model, Structure, Package. Or remember it as the arc: understand the deal → measure it → pressure-test it → position it → present it.
Section 3A Deal, End to End
Here is a simplified pass so you can see the pillars combine. Imagine a stabilized multifamily acquisition with a solid sponsor. Each pillar returns a 0–100 sub-score; the weights turn them into one PFS.
PAIUL Funding Score™ · Worked Example
Sponsor × 25%88 → 22.0
Asset × 25%84 → 21.0
Market × 20%79 → 15.8
Structure × 20%82 → 16.4
Context × 10%80 → 8.0
PAIUL Funding Score™83 · Grade AA
An 83 lands in the "highly fundable" band and carries an AA grade. But the framework doesn't stop at the number — the Model and Structure stages then ask: which lenders fund an AA deal at this leverage, and what single change would lift the weakest pillar (here, Market at 79) to widen the match set? That's the subject of Module 4.
Why This Beats a Single Number
Because the score is decomposed, you always know which pillar is holding a deal back. A traditional "declined" tells you nothing. A PFS of 83 with Market at 79 tells you exactly where to work. Transparency by construction is what makes the framework trustworthy to borrowers and lenders alike.
Knowledge Check
Four questions. Pick an answer to see whether it's right and why.
1. Which two pillars carry the highest weight (25% each)?
Market and Context
Sponsor and Asset
Structure and Market
Context and Structure
Sponsor and Asset, 25% each. Who's borrowing and what secures the loan carry the most weight; Market and Structure are 20% each, Context 10%.
2. What are the five stages, in order?
Score, Parse, Package, Model, Structure
Parse, Model, Score, Package, Structure
Parse, Score, Model, Structure, Package
Structure, Score, Parse, Model, Package
Parse → Score → Model → Structure → Package. Understand the deal, measure it, pressure-test it, position it, present it.
3. Why are the pillar weights stored as configuration rather than hard-coded?
So they can be tuned per lender without redevelopment
To make the code shorter
Because regulators require it
They aren't — they're hard-coded
Tunable per lender. A conservative bank and an aggressive bridge lender can weight the same pillars differently — one consistent structure with adjustable overlays. That's what makes it defensible.
4. What's the advantage of a decomposed score over a single number?
It looks more impressive
It's faster to compute
It uses less data
You always know which pillar is holding the deal back
You see the weak pillar. A PFS of 83 with Market at 79 points you straight to where to work — impossible with a bare "declined."
Key Takeaways
- Five pillars: Sponsor 25, Asset 25, Market 20, Structure 20, Context 10 → the PAIUL Funding Score™ (0–100).
- Five stages: Parse → Score → Model → Structure → Package.
- Weights are configuration, so lenders can tune emphasis without changing the engine.
- The score is decomposed, so you always see which pillar limits a deal.
- The framework's job isn't just a number — it's a matchable, improvable, presentable profile.
Up Next · Module 4
Reading the Intelligence — Scores & Deal Improvement