Every private equity professional has experienced the call. The LOI is signed. Exclusivity is ticking. The management team is cooperative. The data room is reasonably populated. And then the lender comes back with questions — not about the business, but about the report. Adjustments that don't tie. A working capital analysis with unexplained seasonality. An EBITDA bridge that raises more questions than it answers.
The deal doesn't fall apart. It just slows down. And in a competitive mid-market process, slowing down is falling apart.
The uncomfortable truth is that most financial due diligence reports are written for the buy-side team that commissioned them. They answer the investor's questions. They highlight the risks the deal team flagged in screening. That's necessary — but it's not sufficient. Because the FDD report has a second audience, one that often matters more to timeline: the credit committee at the lender providing acquisition finance.
And what lenders need from an FDD report is materially different from what a deal team needs.
The lender's lens: debt capacity, not equity upside
A private equity investor reads an FDD report looking for risk-adjusted returns. They want to understand whether the business is worth the price, whether earnings are sustainable, and where the upside sits. They're buying equity — their downside is limited to what they invest, and their upside is theoretically uncapped.
A lender reads the same report looking for something fundamentally different: repayment certainty. Their upside is capped at the coupon. Their entire model is built on avoiding losses. This means lenders focus disproportionately on earnings quality, cash conversion, working capital stability, and downside scenarios — areas where many FDD reports are thinnest.
The lender asks: "Can this business service the debt — even in a bad year?"
That difference in framing changes what an FDD report needs to contain, how findings should be presented, and how much rigor is required in the supporting analysis.
The five areas where FDD reports fall short
In our experience, lender pushback on FDD reports clusters around five recurring areas. None of them are obscure. All of them are preventable.
EBITDA adjustments without a clear audit trail
The problem isn't the adjustments themselves — it's that many reports present them as summary line items without tracing each one back to a source document, GL entry, or management confirmation. When the trail ends at "per management discussion," lender confidence drops. A €200K addback traced to a specific invoice is materially more credible than "non-recurring professional fees" without support.
Quality of earnings that stops at the income statement
QoE should assess whether earnings are durable, not just normalize reported profit. Many reports deliver an adjusted EBITDA number but never stress-test it. Lenders want to see what happens if the largest customer churns, if input costs revert to five-year averages, or if a regulatory change affects pricing. No scenario analysis signals shallow work.
Working capital analysis that ignores seasonality and peg mechanics
The NWC peg directly affects cash available for debt service from day one — get it wrong and the lender's collateral is thinner than modeled. The most common failure: averaging twelve months without accounting for seasonal patterns or distinguishing operating from non-operating working capital. If the business is seasonal — and in the mid-market, many are — a simple average is actively misleading.
Cash conversion left as an implication, not a calculation
Lenders lend against cash flow, not profit. A report that doesn't bridge from adjusted EBITDA to free cash flow leaves the lender doing their own work. The bridge should be explicit: adjusted EBITDA, less maintenance capex, less cash taxes, less NWC movements. Capex must distinguish maintenance from growth — lenders underwrite against the former, and most reports conflate the two.
Contingent liabilities and off-balance-sheet items buried or absent
Pending litigation, warranty obligations, earn-outs, unfunded pensions, lease acceleration clauses — these belong prominently in the report, not in an appendix footnote. The buy-side may consider them "priced in," but the credit committee hasn't been in the deal team's Monday meetings. They need contingent liabilities quantified, or clearly described and assessed for impact on debt service.
The cost of getting it wrong
When lenders push back on an FDD report, the cost isn't a rejection letter. It's time. Supplementary diligence questions. Additional calls with management. Revised analyses that require going back into the data room. Each iteration adds days to a process where exclusivity is finite and competing bidders are waiting.
For mid-market firms running lean deal teams, this delay is disproportionately expensive. It ties up partners and associates on a deal that should already be in documentation. It creates uncertainty for the management team. And in the worst case, it gives the seller grounds to question buyer credibility.
What a lender-ready FDD report looks like
The difference between a report that passes credit committee and one that generates follow-up questions isn't length. It isn't the number of pages in the appendix. It's the degree to which the report anticipates and answers the questions a lender will ask — before they ask them.
A lender-ready report starts with a clear executive summary that states adjusted EBITDA, the basis for each material adjustment, the working capital peg recommendation, and the key risks — in that order. It provides a full EBITDA-to-free-cash-flow bridge. It includes scenario analysis around the three or four variables that matter most to debt serviceability. It quantifies contingent liabilities. And it traces every significant adjustment back to a verifiable source.
None of this is revolutionary. It's the standard that the best advisory firms have always held themselves to. The problem is that in the mid-market, where FDD providers are often time-constrained and working from incomplete data rooms, these elements are the first to be deprioritized.
A better approach to financial due diligence
Signum combines experienced PE practitioners with purpose-built AI to deliver lender-ready FDD reports in days — not by cutting corners, but by automating data extraction, normalization, and source-tracing so our analysts focus entirely on the judgment-intensive work that lenders scrutinize.
Every finding traced to its source. Every adjustment with a complete audit trail. Same rigor, fundamentally faster.
Need a lender-ready FDD report on your timeline?
We work with mid-market PE firms to deliver financial due diligence that meets credit committee standards — in days, not weeks.
Book a call