Loading...

Raising capital · 7 min read
Most loan proposals lose time not because the business is weak, but because it walks into the bank unprepared. Here is what to put in order first.
Raising debt is often treated as an event — a single meeting where a promoter explains the business and a banker decides. In practice it is a process, and the businesses that move fastest through it are the ones that have already done the preparation before the first meeting happens. This piece sets out what that preparation looks like for an Indian MSME approaching a bank or NBFC for a term loan, working capital facility, or a combination of both.
A credit proposal moves through several hands before it reaches a sanction — a relationship manager, a credit analyst, sometimes a committee. Each of them is looking for the same underlying things: is the business real, is it capable of servicing the debt, and is the request internally consistent. When the promoter cannot answer a basic question about their own numbers, or when the financials submitted do not match what was said in the meeting, the file goes back for clarification. Every round of clarification adds weeks. Preparation is simply front-loading those answers so the file moves forward instead of backward.
Lenders work off documents, not conversations. Before approaching anyone, an MSME should have the following in a state that does not need to be chased down under time pressure:
Reconcile before you submit, not after
Sales in the GST returns, turnover in the financials, and credits in the bank statement should tell the same story. Where they genuinely differ — seasonal billing, exports, retentions — write one line explaining why, rather than leaving the lender to notice the gap and ask.
A promoter should be able to explain, without looking it up, roughly what their turnover, gross margin, and outstanding debt are, and how those have moved over the last two to three years. This is not about memorising ratios — it is about being able to explain a swing in a number when a credit analyst points to it. If turnover dropped by a fifth two years ago, saying so and explaining why (a large customer was lost, a plant was down for expansion) is a stronger position than being surprised by the question in the meeting.
| Stage | What to have ready |
|---|---|
| Before the first conversation | Constitutional documents, Udyam, three years of financials, GST returns |
| Before submitting the proposal | CMA data prepared and internally reviewed, existing loan schedule, purpose and end-use note |
| Before the site visit | Stock and asset records reconciled, statutory dues (PF, ESI, GST) shown as current |
| Before disbursement | Security documents, insurance on charged assets, KYC for all guarantors |
One of the most common preparation gaps is that the business has not decided, internally, what it actually needs. Asking for 'some working capital and maybe a bit for a new machine' invites the lender to shape the structure for you, which usually means a structure that suits the lender's product shelf rather than your cash flow. Before the conversation, work out roughly how much is needed for what purpose — a term loan for a defined capital asset with a clear payback period, or working capital to fund a defined operating cycle — because the two are assessed completely differently and mixing them up in the request slows everything down.
A Coimbatore auto-parts maker preparing to approach its bank
A components manufacturer supplying two-wheeler assemblers wanted to add a machining line and also needed more working capital because a large new order meant carrying more raw material and finished stock than before. Before approaching the bank, the promoter separated the two asks: a term loan sized against the machine's cost and useful life, and a working capital limit sized against the incremental operating cycle the new order created, backed by projected stock and debtor levels for the next twelve months. Presented separately, each request could be assessed on its own logic, rather than the bank having to guess how much of a single lump sum was for what.
Where there is more than one promoter or partner, or where family members hold equity without an operating role, it helps to agree internally — before any bank conversation — on how much additional debt the business is willing to take on, what security or personal guarantees each promoter is comfortable offering, and who will be the primary point of contact for the lender. Disagreement discovered mid-process, when a co-promoter refuses to sign a personal guarantee the lender has already assumed is coming, can unwind weeks of work.
A few patterns repeat across proposals that take longer than they should. Financial statements that do not match GST filings without explanation. Loan requests that change in size or purpose between the first meeting and the formal application. Security offered verbally that turns out, on documentation, to have an existing charge on it. Promoters who have not read their own balance sheet closely enough to explain a large 'loans and advances' or 'sundry creditors' figure. None of these are disqualifying on their own, but each one adds a round of queries, and rounds of queries are what stretch a six-week process into four months.
This is preparation, not a promise of sanction
Being well prepared improves the speed and clarity of the process. It does not determine the outcome — that depends on the lender's own credit assessment, policy and appetite at the time, and no advisor can commit a bank or NBFC to a sanction, rate or timeline.
An advisory firm's role at this stage is largely one of discipline: making sure the CMA data, the projections and the narrative are internally consistent before they reach a lender, flagging gaps a promoter is too close to the business to notice, and helping decide the right mix of term loan, working capital or a combination based on the actual cash flow cycle rather than what is easiest to ask for. It does not replace the lender's own assessment, and it cannot promise sanction, rate or timeline — those decisions sit entirely with the lender.
Questions
For most MSMEs, starting six to eight weeks before the funds are actually needed gives enough time to assemble documents, reconcile numbers and have a considered internal conversation about structure, rather than compressing all of it into a rushed submission.
Not always, but lenders generally place more weight on audited numbers where available. If audit is not mandatory for your turnover, provisional financials prepared on a consistent basis, backed by GST returns and bank statements, are usually acceptable — check what your specific lender expects.
This happens for legitimate reasons — export sales, retention money, different accounting periods. The fix is not to force them to match but to explain the difference clearly in a short note submitted alongside the numbers.
There is no single right answer; it depends on the size of the ask, the urgency, and whether you want a single lender or a consortium/multiple-banking arrangement. An advisor can help you think through the trade-offs for your situation.
No. Preparation removes avoidable delay, but the lender's own credit process, internal approvals and current risk appetite still govern the timeline — none of which any advisor can promise on your behalf.
Questions
Related offerings
Keep reading
Share a few details and our team will follow up.