IS NEW DEBT REALLY THE RIGHT SOLUTION?
A funding requirement does not automatically call for more debt. First distinguish productive investment, temporary timing gaps and structural weakness, then assess internal cash, working-capital improvement, asset monetisation, equity, private capital and industrial partnerships. Supported finance or combined structures may be relevant when realistic and coherent. A Debt Readiness assessment can legitimately conclude that additional borrowing is inappropriate. Independence includes recognising when the business needs a different operating decision, ownership arrangement or pace of development.
An independent assessment must be able to conclude that new debt is not needed.
A funding need is a signal to interpret.
Financial pressure can arise from growth, seasonality, investment or deteriorating performance. These causes call for different responses. New debt may support a coherent project, but it can also delay the point at which a company confronts structural weakness. The first decision is therefore why resources are missing and whether the requirement has an identifiable duration or is likely to reproduce itself. The amount alone cannot answer that question.
For an entrepreneur, urgency and diagnosis must remain distinct. An approaching deadline may demand immediate attention without establishing that additional obligations are sustainable. Management should reconstruct flows and commitments transparently, separating resources needed for continuity from those intended for development. Capital does not automatically repair weak operating economics, and a rapid response should not be mistaken for a complete strategic answer.
Examine what the business can generate internally.
Margins, pricing, commercial mix, costs and organisation influence cash generation. Performance improvement may reduce the external requirement, but the benefits need credible foundations and timing. Savings not yet delivered or sales merely hoped for cannot support certain commitments. Each action should connect to an accountable owner, an operating effect and a point at which it can generate usable liquidity. Implementation costs and management capacity must also be recognised.
Performance Improvement addresses these industrial conditions while remaining distinct from the choice of capital. Internal cash may not always be sufficient or timely. Ignoring it, however, can lead the company to finance avoidable inefficiency. The assessment should distinguish achievable improvements from cuts that temporarily improve the cash balance by sacrificing competitiveness, service quality or the ability to keep operating reliably.
Working capital can conceal an avoidable requirement.
Overdue receivables, inventory misaligned with demand and slow billing can tie up resources without supporting development. Understanding the operating cycle helps distinguish necessary capital from cash trapped by weak processes. Improvement requires coordination between sales, operations and finance. Giving the CFO a reduction target is not enough if commercial terms, production decisions and accountability remain unchanged. The operational route to release must be visible.
Working capital associated with growth can nevertheless increase in a well-run business. Recovering all of it may be neither possible nor desirable. Cutting critical stocks or imposing unrealistic terms on customers and suppliers can damage the business. Management should estimate feasible improvements and their timing separately from the structurally necessary requirement. Only then does working-capital improvement become a genuine alternative to borrowing rather than a comforting assumption.
Judge assets and partnerships by their industrial consequences.
Asset monetisation may release resources where ownership is not essential to the strategy. Timing, costs, counterparty availability and consequences for future operations still need examination. A disposal may reduce flexibility or create recurring obligations. An estimated value is not equivalent to cash already available, particularly where completion depends on conditions the company cannot control. The remaining business must be assessed after the proposed change, not only before it.
An industrial partner may share investment, capacity or market access. This is not just a funding decision: it changes dependencies, rights and possible competitive paths. Before treating partnership as an alternative to debt, shareholders and management should specify which resources can be shared and which forms of autonomy matter. The aim is to support the industrial project, not obtain liquidity regardless of its future operating cost.
Risk capital may better match uncertainty.
Where benefits take time and cash flows remain variable, equity or other private-capital configurations may be relevant. That does not make them universally preferable or readily available. Risk sharing, economic rights, governance and investor expectations must fit the company's objectives. Owners should compare the compromise with the obligations that debt would create, rather than considering dilution in isolation from the resilience of the business.
The discussion of debt versus equity can also lead to combined structures. Supported finance, where relevant, requires assessment of eligibility, timing and conditions and should not be presented as assured funding. No alternative removes the need for a sustainable plan. If the business lacks a credible trajectory, changing the label attached to the source does not resolve the weakness that created the requirement in the first place.
Recognise when new debt remains appropriate.
Challenging debt does not mean excluding it. Borrowing can be coherent with an identified requirement, sustainable cash flows and maturities aligned with the project. The assessment should include existing debt, net financial position, capex, working capital and debt service, including when performance weakens. The amount available should not automatically become the amount used, nor should it serve as the measure of a successful decision.
The comparison should show the consequences of debt, alternatives, combinations and a slower investment programme. If only the most optimistic case supports the obligations, the plan needs reconsideration. If the company retains room for continuity and development under plausible conditions, debt may form part of the answer. No universally valid leverage multiple replaces that judgement, because the same headline earnings can support very different cash profiles and operating risks.
Independence includes the ability to say no.
A Debt Readiness assessment may conclude that additional borrowing is premature or inappropriate. That is a useful result when it prevents overextension or identifies more urgent decisions on performance, governance and capital. Shareholders should understand the conditions under which the conclusion could be revisited, while management owns the actions and timetable. A decision can be provisional without being evasive, provided the evidence required for a change is explicit.
Mizzau & Partners' Capital Readiness starts with strategy and need, remaining neutral between sources. Its role is decision support and preparation, not credit mediation, fundraising execution or financing procurement. The process does not require a transaction as its outcome. It can legitimately lead to stronger internal cash generation, a shared industrial project, slower investment or no new commitments until sustainable conditions exist.
Challenge the case for new debt
What causes the requirement?
Distinguish growth, operating timing and structural losses.
Which alternatives are executable?
Assess cash, working capital, assets and capital without assuming availability.
When should borrowing be rejected?
Define the conditions that make more debt inappropriate or premature.
SEMANTIC OWNERS
The best decisions begin with the right questions.
Mizzau & Partners selectively works with entrepreneurs, boards and management teams on decisions that can change the trajectory of a business.
START A DIALOGUE