Decision matrix

Analyzing MIC's

A decision-stage framework for comparing Mortgage Investment Corporations on LTV, mortgage priority, geography, fees, liquidity, defaults, and concentration, not yield alone.

Yield is a headline. Structure is the story.

Most public MIC comparison charts organize offerings around target yield, minimum investment, geography, and a few portfolio labels. Those fields are useful starting points. They are incomplete decision tools.

Two MICs can publish similar target distributions and still differ materially in lien priority, LTV discipline, construction exposure, redemption gates, fee drag, related-party conflicts, and how management behaves when arrears rise. Chasing the highest advertised target is how investors skip the work that actually protects them.

This page is Diversifi's decision-stage matrix in educational form. Pair it with the due diligence process and the checklist on Peter's Due Diligence Framework. Strategic-alliance overviews for AP Capital MIC and Terrapin MIC stay on this site with equal educational weight so comparison happens here, not on an issuer landing page.

The comparison matrix

Score each MIC on substance, not slogans. Use offering documents, dealer disclosure, and current portfolio reporting. Treat every cell as a question to answer, not a marketing checkbox.

Decision factors for comparing Canadian MICs
FactorWhat to examineWhy it matters
Weighted loan-to-valueAverage LTV, maximum LTV policy, how second mortgages are countedLTV is margin-of-safety language, not a guarantee against loss
First vs second mortgagesTarget mix, actual mix, exception policyPriority changes recovery order in a credit event
Asset mixResidential, commercial, construction, land, bridge shareDifferent collateral behaves differently in a downturn
Geography and borrowersRegion concentration, top borrowers, property-type clusteringConcentration can outweigh headline diversification
LeverageBank lines, covenants, purpose of leverageLeverage can amplify both income and stress
Credit historyArrears, defaults, foreclosures, recoveries, provisioningDistribution history alone can hide credit drift
Fees and compensationManagement fees, origination fees, dealer compensation, waiversFee design shapes incentives and net investor outcomes
Minimums and accountsMinimum subscription, registered-plan eligibility claimsEligibility and account fit are suitability inputs
LiquidityNotice periods, gates, caps, historical suspensionsPrivate liquidity is a policy, not a market ticker
Target vs actual distributionsStated targets, actual history, cash drag, fee dragTargets are not promises; history is not destiny

Loan-to-value and mortgage priority

Loan-to-value compares mortgage debt to property value, typically using an independent appraisal in private lending. Lower LTVs generally imply larger borrower equity cushions, which can improve resilience in some default scenarios. LTV policy is a key diligence item, not a shield.

Ask for average LTV and maximum LTV policy. Ask how second mortgages are treated in the LTV math. Ask whether construction or land loans use as-is or as-complete values, and how that changes risk. Then place that answer beside first versus subordinate exposure. A portfolio heavy in seconds can look attractive on yield and still carry a different recovery profile.

Concentration, leverage, and overlooked risks

Investors frequently overlook the risks that do not fit in a yield column:

  • Top-10 loan concentration doing most of the economic work
  • Single-city or single-asset-class dependence
  • Related-party origination or servicing conflicts
  • Redemption machines that work in calm markets and seize in stress
  • Distribution continuity funded by unusual liquidity gymnastics
  • Manager key-person risk without documented process depth

Diversification is not the number of account statements you receive. It is the number of distinct ways you can be hurt. Read more on concentration and risk labels in Risk, Liquidity and Labels.

Target yields need risk language

If a MIC publishes a target distribution, treat it as a planning assumption under review, not a contracted bank rate. Pair every target with credit history, liquidity terms, fees, and suitability. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Distributions and capital preservation are not guaranteed.

Five questions to examine next

  1. What job must this capital do in my plan, and what would make me walk away immediately?
  2. What is the MIC's mandate in one sentence, and what is explicitly out of mandate?
  3. How do LTV, lien mix, and arrears history look together, not as separate marketing bullets?
  4. If many investors redeem at once, where does the cash actually come from?
  5. Who benefits if I subscribe, and can the dealer explain conflicts without defensiveness?

Write your answers before you ask for a recommendation. Then have Harris review those answers with you by phone at 604-761-5405, or request a callback on Request a call.

How to use relationship pages without turning this into product shopping

Use Diversifi to understand the dealer / licensing-house role. Use AP Capital MIC and Terrapin MIC as equal educational overviews of lending posture and diligence questions, not as competing ads. Neither page is an offer to sell securities. Suitability review is required before any investment discussion.

Next step after the matrix

Return to the Learn hub if definitions are still fuzzy. If the matrix clarified your questions, move to a Fit and Risk Call. Education first. Suitability before recommendation.

FAQ

Why not just rank MICs by target yield?
Because yield is incomplete. Lien priority, LTV, concentration, liquidity gates, fees, and credit history can change risk more than a half-point difference in a published target. Comparing structure beats chasing headlines.
Can I use this matrix on MICs not listed on this site?
Yes. The framework is educational and product-agnostic. Apply the same questions to any Mortgage Investment Corporation you are researching, then bring your notes into a suitability conversation if needed.
Does a lower LTV make a MIC safe?
No. Lower LTV can improve the equity cushion in some scenarios, but appraisal quality, lien priority, property marketability, borrower behaviour, and liquidity policy still matter. LTV is one input, not a guarantee.
Where do I go after filling out the five questions?
Call 604-761-5405 or use Request a call. Keep the first conversation educational. Detailed KYC belongs in the private regulated process later.

Ready to talk about fit and risk?

Call MIC Investing for a short educational conversation. Suitability comes before any recommendation. No product pitch on minute one.

Informational purposes only. Diversifi Alternative Investments Ltd. is a registered Exempt Market Dealer in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. Target yields, distributions, liquidity and capital preservation are not guaranteed.