Islay Robinson explains how private equity executives with complex income, carry and deferred wealth can secure bespoke mortgage solutions.

A private equity executive can sit on a carry portfolio worth tens of millions and still struggle to secure a mortgage.

On paper, that sounds irrational. 

Then comes the lender’s first question: What is your income? 

For many private equity professionals, the honest answer is complicated. There may be some salary. There may be irregular distributions. There may be substantial accrued carry that has not yet crystallised and may not for some time. 

That complexity is where many mortgage conversations fail before they properly begin. 

As a result, many private equity executives — both current and retired — assume traditional mortgage finance is simply unavailable to them. They begin looking elsewhere: selling down liquid assets, restructuring holdings, or drawing on facilities they would prefer to leave untouched. 

In many cases, the simpler solution may be right in front of them.  

A mortgage secured against their property. 

Why the assumption exists 

Traditional mortgage underwriting is built around affordability. 

In simple terms, lenders assess income against expenditure and determine whether the remaining surplus comfortably supports the borrowing being requested. 

For salaried borrowers with predictable income, this works well. 

Private equity executives rarely fit that model. 

Their wealth is often substantial, but it can be deferred, irregular, and spread across multiple asset classes and structures. A mainstream lender reviewing the case may see limited monthly income and conclude affordability is weak. 

That is not a reflection of the borrower’s true financial strength. 

It reflects the lender’s model. 

That distinction matters because specialist lenders often assess the same client very differently. 

How private banks assess private equity borrowers 

Private banks typically take a much broader view of income and wealth. 

Rather than focusing on a single salary line, they assess the full financial picture. 

That often includes: 

• PAYE earnings 

• UK and overseas dividends 

• Interest income 

• Capital gains 

• Directors’ loan account movements 

• Carried interest 

• Liquid investment holdings 

A salaried borrower may have one income stream. 

A private equity executive may have six or seven. 

The right lender knows how to interpret that complexity. 

Monetising the liquid portfolio 

One common solution is portfolio monetisation. 

Here, the lender assumes the borrower could liquidate a percentage of their liquid investment portfolio each year and uses that figure to support affordability. 

Importantly, the borrower does not need to sell anything. 

The portfolio remains fully invested. 

The lender simply recognises that access to liquid assets functions, in practical terms, as a form of income support. 

For borrowers with substantial marketable securities, this often solves the affordability issue immediately. 

Lending against carried interest 

Some private banks go further and assess the carry portfolio directly. 

This is often the point where many private equity professionals assume finance becomes impossible. 

Specialist lenders can be very comfortable here. 

The carry itself may be considered an asset. 

A lender that understands fund structures, vintage cycles, and expected distribution timelines can assess the carry as part of the credit case rather than ignoring it entirely until it pays out. 

That may create lending opportunities unavailable through mainstream channels. 

When affordability is not the right route 

Sometimes, a conventional affordability analysis is not the right approach at all. 

In these situations, the solution may be structural rather than income led. 

A good example is a short-term mortgage that may be aligned to the expected liquidation timeline of a carry portfolio, with the interest prepaid for the full term. 

The mechanics are straightforward. 

The client places the required interest payments into a locked account at the outset. The bank draws monthly interest directly from that account throughout the term. 

Because servicing is effectively pre-funded, the lender’s reliance on traditional income analysis reduces significantly. 

This can work well for borrowers with substantial future liquidity, a clear timeline to that liquidity, and a need for capital today. 

The mortgage simply bridges the timing gap. 

Why demand is increasing 

This has become increasingly relevant in recent years. 

Exit timelines have stretched. 

Liquidity events that many executives expected to happen on a predictable schedule are now taking longer to materialise. 

The wealth remains intact. 

The timing has changed. 

Life, however, does not pause. 

Property acquisitions, refurbishments, international relocations, and capital calls still need funding. 

That is why more private equity professionals are borrowing against property today. 

The need for capital has not changed. 

The route to accessing locked-up wealth has simply become longer. 

The key point 

The most important takeaway is this: 

There are lenders, and there are solutions. 

A declined application from a mainstream lender is rarely a true reflection of what the market can offer. 

The right lender may assess the full balance sheet, monetise liquid assets, underwrite carried interest, or structure a short-term facility around future liquidity events. 

In many cases, the mortgage solution private equity executives assume does not exist is available, it simply sits outside the conventional lending market. 

The answer is often much closer than they think.