If your real estate business feels heavier as it grows, there’s usually a reason. In this conversation, I sit down with Matt Medrano to unpack what’s really happening behind the scenes as deals scale and complexity increases. We talk about why so many entrepreneurs feel stuck even when they’re doing more deals, how capital structure impacts your ability to grow, and what shifts when you remove friction from the process. This is a grounded conversation about building a business that can actually support growth instead of constantly straining under it.
For a complete guide on optimizing and scaling your real estate investments, download my Time + Freedom Starter Pack! This essential tool walks you through ten key steps for organizing a profitable property portfolio. Click here to get your copy today!
Hello guys and welcome to another episode. I’m Adrienne Green and today I have with me Matt Medrano. We’re going to talk about how real estate entrepreneurs can escape the grind and create the life of freedom that they got into real estate for in the first place.
So Matt, thank you so much for joining me.
Thanks for having me on.
To ground us, can you start with a quick snapshot of what you focus on today at Dynamo Capital?
Well, that changes kind of by the minute.
What I focus on specifically here is this. My partner and I founded this in 2023. Our roles have dramatically changed from running the entire deal from start to finish and learning how to be a lender.
We were brokers prior to this, and we can get into the backstory, but we learned how to be a lender all at once. We didn’t have a full grip of what all that meant.
We signed for lines of credit. That was a really big moment in Dynamo. We just established another line of credit for our lending facilities, which is a very big deal for us as we continue to grow.
Funny enough, none of the things that we’re doing today at Dynamo even existed to us mentally when we started.
Private lending at scale involves a lot of Wall Street-type techniques, relationships, and partnerships. Here in Kansas, we had none of that. No access, no context.
The first real exposure we had to the broader private lending industry was about six months in when we went to our first conference in Newport. It was my first time in California and our first time in an industry-level setting. It was jarring, but also the first time we realized we had something meaningful.
None of the techniques we use today, whether it’s flow trading, forward commitments, or lines of credit, did we even know existed or understand why they mattered.
We were used to brokering loans. We didn’t know how the sausage was made or that we could be our own sausage makers. So we decided to become butchers and figure it out.
We did things the long, backwards way to get to where we are today.
Traditionally, in private lending, you start with flow commitments that require minimal capital and then graduate into balance sheet lending. We did the opposite.
We started with a balance sheet, raised a fund, and only later discovered forward flow commitments and partnerships that increase liquidity.
We did it the hard way first, and now we’re easing into a more sustainable model. I’m glad we took this route because it’s unique to us.
My day-to-day is a little bit of everything. The part I’m most interested in is the sales side, although it doesn’t feel like sales.
What we really do is act as a capital partner for our clients.
We’re active, silent partners. We show up with the money so our borrowers don’t have to fill their capital stacks. We help them underwrite deals, ensure they’re viable, fund the project, and then they execute.
We don’t take equity. We operate purely on the debt side.
Since starting, we’ve done around $150 million in loans and carry about $100 million today. These are numbers we never expected.
And you’ve done that while really niching. Can you talk about the specific clients and market you serve?
We’re in Wichita, Kansas. Most people haven’t heard of it unless you follow college basketball or aviation.
The private lending market in the Midwest is dramatically underserved. It’s dominated by local banks and small operators, and larger lenders tend to focus on the coasts.
We were essentially first to market at scale here.
Our loan product, 100% loan-to-cost lending, is very attractive. People want their projects fully funded.
We also operate with a local, relationship-driven approach while using larger-scale capital strategies. That combination sets us apart.
We want to feel local but have the capital capacity to scale. The worst thing as a lender is having to turn away good deals.
Now we’ve become more efficient with capital, which allows us to reach more borrowers and scale responsibly.
And I’d love to talk more about that, especially around 100% loan-to-cost. That’s rare. How do you mitigate the risk?
We’re very contrarian in how we approach things.
When we were brokering, no matter how high leverage we got for clients, they always wanted more. They wanted 100%.
Very few lenders offered that, and when they did, it came at a higher cost. But clients didn’t mind because certainty in their capital stack mattered more.
So we leaned into that.
Instead of competing in the crowded 85–90% space, we moved into 100% loan-to-cost.
From a risk perspective, our book has performed better than industry standards. We’ve only foreclosed on two properties, both from the same borrower.
That’s largely due to strong underwriting. We act as an extension of our borrowers’ underwriting team.
In Kansas, asking for 5–10% down often doesn’t materially change the deal. It’s a small number relative to the overall project.
So instead of requiring upfront capital, we structure deals where borrowers pay slightly higher fees but preserve their liquidity.
Our delinquency rates are low, and it’s largely because we’re not draining our borrowers upfront.
We’re selling liquidity, scalability, and speed.
And I think that’s such an important point. There’s often this perception that everything is planned out perfectly, but in reality, there’s a lot of trial and error.
Exactly.
People celebrate pivots or persistence depending on the outcome, but at the time, you don’t know which is right.
We started this because we were frustrated. Larger lenders weren’t prioritizing our deals.
So we decided to do it ourselves.
It worked out, but it easily could have gone the other way.
Let’s talk about raising capital, because that’s relevant to a lot of people.
We didn’t know how lending worked when we started. We knew how to broker loans, but not how to create or service them.
To lend, you need capital. So we had to raise a fund.
We started raising money based on a pro forma. That’s all we had.
Our initial goal was a $5 million fund.
In the first week, our lending partner backed out, and we had $1 million in deals to close.
We had $100,000. We needed the other $900,000 immediately.
So we started calling everyone we knew.
“Here’s what we’re doing. We need capital. This week.”
It was chaotic, but we didn’t miss any closings.
That experience shaped how we built the fund.
One of the best decisions we made was structuring the fund so revenue is split 50/50 between us and investors.
At the time, it was just to make the deal more attractive.
Now, it aligns incentives perfectly.
We also started by offering fixed returns to investors to build trust before transitioning them into equity positions.
Over time, we’ve grown to over $100 million in the fund.
And what about leverage?
It’s similar to real estate leverage.
If I can fund a $100,000 loan with $25,000, I can do four times the volume.
That increases returns significantly.
We started with 100% equity, which taught us discipline. Now we use leverage, but we’re not dependent on it.
That flexibility gives us an advantage.
And I think that’s where your background as operators really shows.
Exactly.
We focus on common sense over rigid criteria.
For example, credit scores. There’s no meaningful difference between a 620 and a 623, but traditional lending treats them differently.
We look at context.
Same with loan sizes. The difference between $95,000 and $100,000 is arbitrary in many cases, but systems force lenders into rigid boxes.
We operate outside those constraints.
That’s such an important perspective, especially for people actually doing deals.
Exactly.
One of my favorite borrowers is a general contractor who has built hundreds of homes but never personally owned one.
Traditional lenders treat them as inexperienced.
We see them as highly capable operators and lend accordingly.
If people want to connect with you, where should they go?
Dynamocapital.com. You can submit a loan or investment inquiry there.
We primarily focus on the Midwest, but we’re open to opportunities nationally.
We’re looking to partner with strong operators.
Thank you so much for joining me.
Thanks for having me.