Financing Integrated into Operations: The Evolution of In-House Credit Lines
- Construction companies are beginning to structure their own financial solutions to make corporate projects viable in a more restrictive credit environment.
“Follow the money and you’ll find the success.”
Regardless of speeches, positioning, or brand building, what ultimately governs market logic at the end of the day is still money. In this sense, few fronts are as strategic as financing solutions—traditionally offered by banks and financial institutions—that help companies manage capital, sustain growth, and enable acquisitions, whether of equipment, real estate, or entire projects.
In a scenario of higher interest rates and selective credit, many companies avoid immobilizing cash in the purchase of land, the construction of headquarters, or the acquisition of machinery. Added to this is the post-pandemic shift, which brought greater flexibility in occupancy and more strategic real estate decisions. If the previous logic was “buy land and build,” the question today has changed: “Does this need to be on my balance sheet?”
This reasoning drives transactions such as sale-leasebacks, built-to-suit projects, and long-term contracts with greater financial flexibility.
Internalization of Financial Structure
In this context, financial solutions begin to play a role as strategic as the physical project itself. If the competitive advantage once lay in construction cost or land location, today it also lies in the capital structure that makes the asset viable.
This is not merely about more expensive credit. Rising borrowing costs and banking selectivity are accelerating a reorganization of real estate funding. Part of these operations is migrating to the capital markets through instruments such as CRIs and real estate funds, while another portion is undergoing a quieter phenomenon: financial disintermediation.
Construction companies and developers are beginning to internalize functions traditionally associated with banks, structuring their own installment models, financing arrangements, or integrated contracts that combine engineering and capital into a single instrument. The logic is straightforward: those who master the technical risk of construction may, in theory, be better positioned to price the financial risk of the transaction.
BTR3: An Integrated Business Model
Within this movement emerges BTR3, a model developed by CH3 Construtora. The proposal combines turnkey execution and installment payments for the construction within a single contract, structured under either CAPEX or OPEX logic.
According to the company, the client receives the completed project and begins operating the asset while paying for it in a structured manner, with an initial rate starting at CDI + 1% and terms that can extend up to 60 months. The entire transaction is carried out directly with the construction company, without banking intermediation.
“The client does not need to seek a bank to structure financing. Engineering and capital are in the same contract,” says one of CH3’s partners. “It’s not just a credit line; it’s an integrated business model.”
According to the company, BTR3 was created from the perception that many clients had strong operational capacity but faced temporary cash constraints or banking limits.
“We realized that by assuming part of the financial structure, we could unlock projects that had been stalled,” explains the executive. “Our role is no longer just to build—it is to make the investment possible.”
The company highlights that the contracts include guarantees and careful credit analysis.
“This is not about indiscriminately relaxing risk. Each transaction undergoes individual modeling, with detailed legal and financial evaluation,” the company notes.
BTR3 can also be applied to structures such as sale-leasebacks.
“We reduce interfaces. The client negotiates construction, timeline, and financial flow at a single table. This brings predictability and simplification,” says CH3. “By centralizing responsibilities, we reduce friction and accelerate decision-making.”
The Critical Analysis
The proposal, however, raises relevant structural questions.
By internalizing financing, the construction company assumes credit risk, default risk, and capital concentration. Unlike a bank—whose core activity is pricing and distributing financial risk—a construction company traditionally prices technical risk. The overlap of these functions requires robust governance, available capital, and sophisticated legal control.
There is also the accounting issue. Even with payments spread over time, depending on the contractual structure, the obligation may still be recognized as a liability on the client’s balance sheet. Therefore, the financial “lightness” varies according to the adopted structure.
Another point is scalability. Integrated models work well for specific ticket sizes and clients with strong profiles, but replicating them at scale depends on proprietary funding or structured access to third-party capital.
CH3 itself acknowledges the challenge.
“Credit discipline is just as important as construction discipline,” says the partner. “There’s no point in executing well if the portfolio isn’t healthy. Growth needs to be sustainable.”
Structural Trend or Cyclical Response?
Models like BTR3 do not emerge in a vacuum. They are a symptom of a market undergoing increasing financialization. Real estate projects are no longer purely technical—they are, above all, strategic decisions about capital allocation.
If bank credit remains selective and the cost of money stays elevated, hybrid structures are likely to gain ground. If the monetary cycle becomes expansionary again and traditional financing becomes abundant, some of these solutions may lose momentum.
