An ownership percentage does not establish signing authority or the scope of a guaranty. Use separate relationship rows to trace each fact to the document that supports it.
Build the ownership map as a set of documented relationships. Then add management and guaranty relationships without merging them into the ownership arrows. This makes it possible to see who holds the economic interest, who may act for an entity and who has promised support under a particular instrument.
The OCC handbook discusses borrower and guarantor obligations and supporting file documentation. It does not make the percentages in this fictional map a universal guarantor requirement. Actual authority, liability and enforceability require review of the applicable documents and law.
Start with the legal borrower
Use the exact legal names from the entity and title records. A project nickname is useful for navigation but cannot replace the obligor’s name. Give each relationship a stable identifier so a reviewer can ask about R004 without guessing which version of a diagram is being discussed.
An edge points from the party providing the stated relationship to its recipient. For ownership, that is owner to owned entity. For management, it is manager to managed entity. For guaranty, the recipient is the obligee identified in the instrument. Explain any different convention before sharing a map.
Blank relationship file
relationship_id,from_party,to_party,relationship_type,ownership_percent,scope_or_authority,document_ref,verification_status
R001,,,ownership,,,,unverified
R002,,,management,,,,unverified
R003,,,guaranty,,,,unverifiedField instructions and common errors
| Field | Record | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| from_party / to_party | Exact legal names and relationship direction | A brand name used for several legal entities |
| relationship_type | Ownership, management or a specifically identified support obligation | Treating a manager as an owner automatically |
| ownership_percent | Direct economic interest on that one edge | Applying the number to all liabilities |
| scope_or_authority | What the document establishes and what remains unresolved | “Authorized” without naming the act authorized |
| document_ref / status | Current instrument, section and execution status | A proposed guaranty shown as already effective |
Add voting or consent rights as separate rows when they differ from economic interests. Do not force unequal voting rights into an ownership percentage. Trace trusts, funds and intermediate entities as far as required for the actual review; do not assert that a simplified chart is a complete beneficial-ownership determination.
Completed hypothetical map
relationship_id,from_party,to_party,relationship_type,ownership_percent,scope_or_authority,document_ref,verification_status
R001,Example Sponsor A,Example Holdco LLC,ownership,60,Economic interest; voting rights separately reviewed,OA-H1,documented
R002,Example Investor B,Example Holdco LLC,ownership,40,Economic interest; no guaranty inferred,OA-H1,documented
R003,Example Holdco LLC,Example Property LLC,ownership,100,Direct owner of borrower,OA-P1,documented
R004,Example Manager LLC,Example Property LLC,management,,Proposed manager; borrowing authority unresolved,RESOLUTION-P1,open
R005,Example Sponsor A,Example Lender,guaranty,,Proposed completion support; scope unexecuted,DRAFT-G1,proposedThe ownership relationships can be read as:
Sponsor A (60%) ─┐
├─ Example Holdco LLC (100%) ─ Example Property LLC
Investor B (40%) ┘
Manager LLC ─ proposed management / authority unresolved ─ Property LLC
Sponsor A ─ proposed completion support ─ Example LenderThe two direct Holdco interests total 100%. Under the example’s simple pro rata economic assumption, Sponsor A has a 60% indirect economic interest in Property LLC: 60% × 100%. That multiplication does not establish a 60% limit on completion support. The support draft must be read separately.
R004 is the critical open item. A complete ownership chart can coexist with missing authority to borrow or sign. Obtaining a management agreement does not automatically resolve the necessary entity consent, resolution or execution requirements.
Reconcile ownership and support before submission
Compare names across the organizational documents, property title, proposed borrower, guaranty drafts and signature blocks. Explain an apparent mismatch rather than silently replacing one name with another. A parent company’s financial statement is not automatically the borrower’s statement or evidence of an enforceable parent obligation.
Record changes in ownership and authority with effective dates. Keep prior maps so diligence teams can identify whether a change affects an existing consent, credit analysis or document. Preserve unresolved rights in a notes schedule when a single relationship row cannot describe them accurately.
Use the map to direct the next question
The example produces three separate follow-ups: verify the ownership evidence, resolve the manager’s borrowing authority and negotiate or confirm the support instrument. Each has a different responsible reviewer and completion criterion.
A clean map is useful when another reviewer can trace every material arrow to evidence and see its limits. It is incomplete when attractive boxes conceal an unverified signer, an omitted intermediate entity or a support obligation whose scope has not been established.
Sources and evidence
- OCC — Commercial Real Estate LendingPrinted pages 29–30: borrower and guarantor analysis; page 51: file documentation · Checked 2026-10-21 · Handbook version 2.0 published March 2022. Supervisory context; the template and all example values are original optional working aids, not required lender forms.
Source dates and applicability matter. Report an error or a changed source.