Assessing Risk Independent of the Capital Source

Few things focus the mind of a prospective borrower more than that of the unconditional personal guaranty.  And while there is no denying the gravity of committing oneself (and ones family) to such an obligation, it is important to remain clinical when assessing the riskiness of deploying capital.

Since business owner’s wealth is typically tied substantially to his or her equity in their company, in most cases and from a financial point of view, it should not matter if an investment is made using equity or debt.  Let us explain.  In all cases the return on capital deployed for a project is the same whether or not the capital is debt capital or equity capital.  And this holds true even in the downside scenario where a partial or even total loss is realized.  If there is a gain on the investment, wealth is created and if there is a loss, wealth is destroyed.

This fundamental (pardon the pun) truth is an important back drop for properly assessing investment risks.  Because while it is true that access to debt generally expands capital availability and it is also true that debt pay back takes priority over equity returns, in a rational world an investor should not make or forgo investment decisions based on the type of capital used – the weighted average cost of that capital yes – but never the individual type of capital.

The theory says a firm should pursue all projects that offer a risk adjusted return greater than the firms cost of capital.  And theory meets practice in this realm all of the time – even if informally nearly every business owner instinctively understands the potential return profile of a new opportunity – and also the risks.  The new opportunity can be as simple as taking on an additional customer or expanding exposure to a customer materially, all the way through installing a new piece of machinery or equipment.

But in all cases the risks and return potential associated with those opportunities exist whether or not they are pursued and are the exact same if pursued regardless if financed with debt or equity.

We can guess that this assessment may not be sitting well instinctively with all readers at this point.  So we offer a distinction that will hopefully resonate as follows – while it is the case the risk adjusted return profile is always the same for any given project regardless of capital source – the returns to equity (the chief concern of a business owner) – be they positive or negative do in fact change based on capital type. 

Simply stated the use of leverage amplifies the returns to equity – either in the positive direction if the investment is a good one – or in the negative direction if the investment does not work out as anticipated.  As we heard Donald Trump say once in an interview (paraphrased) “Using debt in good times or for good investments is terrific – you make a ton of money.  But if times turn bad or if the investment is a bad, you get crushed.”

While we can’t say we agree with all Donald Trump has to say, on this one we could not be more supportive.

Which leads us to our advice – which we follow in spades in our own company – which is to simply focus all of our energy trying to figure if the investment will be a good one and how to mitigate its risks.  Assuming we like the project, we make the investment – regardless of the source of capital to do so.  If we don’t like it – we just won’t invest.

The costs and availability of debt and/or equity do matter very much in determining the weighted average cost of capital.  While it is obvious that less is better when it comes to costs, we’ll take a closer look in a future article at some of the trade offs related to new projects when the costs of incremental capital is higher.

 About the Author

 Tim Haddock is the Co-Founder and CEO of Fundamental Financial.  Prior to Co-Founding Fundamental Financial, Mr. Haddock was a Partner & Managing Director with the global merchant banking firm Greenhill & Co. (NYSE: GHL).  During his career he has advised on over $75 billion of capital raising, financing and merger transactions.

The good news first – the answer is “Yes”!

The bad news is that incumbent lenders (i.e. banks) typically won’t agree to the conditions necessary to enable it to become a reality.

Let’s start first with what an A/R lender or factor typically needs to offer financing – which is at least a first lien position on the assets against which it is lending (i.e. the A/R).  Sounds reasonable enough right?

In fact, many A/R lenders (us included) do not even require a blanket first priority lien against all of the A/R of a company – in favor of a first priority lien on the A/R only against which we are lending.  In practice this generally works by having the A/R lender provide financing against receivables from only selected customers of the borrower.

So how does one “carve out” certain receivables to permit an A/R lender to finance them?  We know that many of our competitors make this process complicated, but we don’t!  We simply require the incumbent lien holder to sign a simple one-page waiver permitting the borrower to sell certain A/R to us from time to time and releasing any and all collateral claims the bank might have against those A/R.

So will a bank typically sign a waiver releasing some or all of their A/R collateral?  As mentioned above, the answer is frequently and unfortunately “No”.  And the reason is pretty simple from the banks point of view – which is – that they are relying on all of the collateral to support the loan that they have made to the company – and that releasing some of that collateral makes them worse off.  Indeed, we agree that the banks position on this is entirely rationale.

So does all this mean the topic is not worth pursuing at all?  Not at all.  We think it is worth pursuing because there are enough potential circumstances available that may give rise to a bank making an exception – so it is worth presenting to them.  Here are some of the exceptions we see as working most often:

  1. If the incumbent loan is a SBA loan, the process of releasing the A/R and related collateral can be done in a way that does not impair the SBA guaranty – so the bank will look to the SBA guaranty foremost – and often will not find it a material risk to release on the A/R.
  2. If there is significant other collateral pledged to the loan (i.e. property, etc.) and the credit profile of the borrower has improved since the bank loan was originated.  In this circumstance it is more likely, however, that the bank will offer more availability.
  3. If the bank loan is under collateralized due to eroded conditions and the company finds itself stabilized but cash strapped – and the bank is unwilling to extend additional credit.  In this situation the banks best hope for a good outcome may be stabilized cash flow to repay their loan – and the bank may not be willing to risk new money to provide working capital – A/R financing companies will often be willing to offer risk capital in these situations.

Some thoughts on incremental liquidity options.  Hope this helps.

About the Author

 

Tim Haddock is the Co-Founder and CEO of Fundamental Financial.  Prior to Co-Founding Fundamental Financial, Mr. Haddock was a Partner & Managing Director with the global merchant banking firm Greenhill & Co. (NYSE: GHL).  During his career he has advised on over $75 billion of capital raising, financing and merger transactions.

Leveraging existing working capital for new investments is a special circumstance indeed – but also one that can prove extremely valuable if conditions permit.  So what does leveraging working capital mean anyway?  It simply means borrowing against A/R and inventory balances – which although they are individually generally short lived assets – are constantly replenished [...]

Ask a business owner when a sale is a sale and the answer you will most commonly hear in response is:  Once the product has been delivered – or – Once the work is done. And indeed that is the most common response because it is also the most practical. So the process normally proceeds [...]

A simple question indeed – yet one without an equally simple answer. This said, there are generally a few basic questions that can help answer this question. A little set up to begin. Since most commercial contracts are for goods or services in return for a specified price, the payment owed typically does not become [...]

We recently were introduced to a prospective client that was seeking incremental liquidity to fund their increasing growth – a common encounter in our travels. This prospective client had promising opportunities to grow value on two fronts: 1. Grow sales faster – provided they had the liquidity to fund additional revenue opportunities, and, 2. Improve [...]