KNAV - Case Study: Debt Capacity
What is debt capacity?
Theresa Zeidler, Valuations Practice Director, and Krisha Shah, Valuations Manager, at KNAV explain how the firm conducted a debt capacity analysis for a client to determine the Company's ability to assume additional debt.

Our dynamic, collaborative and deeply personal approach is what truly sets Praxity apart. Bringing together 85,000 dedicated professionals from across the globe is no small feat. Collaborative, communicative, and client-centric, our Alliance is founded on shared values that bind us together. That’s why we’re proud to introduce the Praxity Charter, a first-of-its-kind symbol of our commitment to agility, transparency and excellence.
Across the world, our values unite us. Praxity Alliance members are handpicked through a rigorous selection and application process, ensuring that every single Member Firm represents the industry’s highest standards. Together, members collaborate and combine expertise to solve complex challenges with a competitive edge, meeting international needs through a shared vision of success. Unwaveringly, we believe that we go further together.
The Charter itself signifies the culmination of extensive research, conducted by our external partner agency. The process began with a consultation with the Board, swiftly followed by a selection of in-depth telephone interviews; next, we ensured that every single Member had their voice heard at our Global Conference.
Our takeaway was clear; the Alliance provides critical global connections, with Member Firms forming strong relationships between one another, throughout the world. The personal nature of these relationships builds trust, enabling members to refer work with deep-seated confidence. Client satisfaction comes first, and the true strength of the Alliance is the ability to put the needs of the clients above the usual dividing lines of geography, discipline, and firm.
Quickly, it became evident to us that Member Firms treat each other’s clients as if they were their own, providing responsive and effective solutions to unlock new value on an international scale. The practice of open and proactive collaboration was initially adopted intuitively, with Member Firms naturally pooling expertise without needing a prompt. This is something we remain deeply proud of and, in celebration of this, we chose to commemorate this unique form of collaboration through a one-of-a-kind codified document: The Praxity Charter.
The final charter was officially unveiled at the Global Leadership Conference in Rome, where it was signed by each of our Alliance Member Firms. At its core, the Charter speaks to the values that define Praxity: client delivery excellence, unparalleled communication, and international collaboration.
Each of these three values are unpacked in more detail throughout the Charter.
Triggers for debt capacity
Loan approvals:
Banks conduct debt capacity analysis to assess a business's creditworthiness and ability to repay before approving a loan.
Fairness opinions:
A fairness opinion may be sought when a company is considering taking on new debt, refinancing existing debt, or engaging in other significant debt-related transactions. The opinion typically evaluates whether the terms and conditions of the proposed debt are fair from a financial perspective, evaluating factors such as interest rates, fees, covenants, and other terms of the debt agreement.
Transfer pricing:
While making their Corporate tax Self Assessment (CTSA) returns each year, a company is obliged to make its return in accordance with the arm’s length principle, which means making the return as if it was borrowing on a stand-alone basis from a third-party lender, disregarding group guarantees.
Regulatory tax requirements:
To curtail inflated finance cost claims, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) requires a debt capacity analysis as part of CTSA returns, ensuring that finance costs align with the arm's length principle and reflect genuine borrowing capacity.

TheresaZeidler
Practice Director, Valuations at KNAV

Krisha Shah
Manager, Valuations at KNAV


Assessing debt capacity metrics
The balance sheet and cash flow statements are two key financial statement measures to assess a company’s debt capacity. A few key metrics used to assess a company's debt capacity are outlined below:
No. | Debt Capacity Analysis Metrics | Formula | Analysis |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Total debt/EBITDA | (Total debt (Short term debt + Long term debt)) / EBITDA | The higher the EBITDA level, the higher the debt capacity of a company. |
2 | Debt/Equity | (Short term debt + Long term debt + Other fixed payments) / Shareholder’s equity | A higher debt-equity ratio indicates that a company is highly leveraged and may have borrowed more money than it can easily pay back. |
3 | Cash flow-based metric | Free Cashflows (FCF) = EBITDA - Interest - Taxes +/- working capital requirements +/- other operational liabilities - capital expenditure. | The higher the free cash flows, the higher the company’s ability to meet its interest obligations. |
4 | Interest coverage ratio | EBIT / Interest expense | The higher the ratio, the higher the ability of a company to meet interest expenses and other finance costs. |
Case study:
The following case study illustrates how we conducted a debt capacity analysis for a client in the context of the HMRC requirements.

Daxin COO Yue Hong Meets with Daxin Saudi Chairman Abdullah Fahad Al sahli. Credit: Daxin Global
Background: ABC Ltd is based in Nottingham, United Kingdom. It currently holds external debt financing through bank loan facilities and loan notes totalling £1,250,000. The Company intends to secure additional debt finance by issuing 10% loan and Payment in Kind ("PIK") notes amounting to £750,000 to the investors. The total capital employed by the company is £1,975,000.
Challenge: The Company already has existing debt and plans to obtain additional debt financing. It wants to determine whether any disallowance would arise in claiming borrowing costs for debt exceeding the appropriate debt level ("debt capacity") due to the UK’s thin capitalisation rules.
Solution: We conducted a debt capacity analysis to determine the Company's ability to assume additional debt.
The following methods were used to ascertain debt capacity of ABC Ltd:
Method 1: Comparative industry ratio analysis
Comparative industry ratio analysis uses ratios developed from comparable companies as a benchmark in assessing the relative performance of a company for their conformity with the specific industry norms. The comparable companies are selected based on the credit rating of the subject company, computed using Prof. Edward Altman’s Z-score model.
(All amounts in £)
Description | Amount |
---|---|
Median debt to capital ratio of comparable companies with similar credit ratings (A) | 60.00% |
Total capital of the subject company as of December 31, 2024 (B) | 1,975,000 |
Estimated debt capacity (A*B) | 1,185,000 |
Method 2: Capitalised discretionary cash flow method
This approach is generally more appropriate for non-investment grade companies with a strong tangible asset base. Standard advance rates (e.g., 60% for net current assets and 40% for fixed assets excluding goodwill) against balance of assets, as of the valuation date, can be used to determine the debt capacity of a company.
The debt capacity of ABC Ltd. using the asset based lending method is as follows:
Description | Amount |
---|---|
EBITDA for the year ended FY 2024 | £500,000 |
Depreciation for the year | £20,000 |
Marginal corporate tax rate applicable | 19.00% |
Projected sustainable capital expenditure provided by the company | £21,000 |
Working capital requirements provided by the company | £20,000 |
Long term sustainable growth rate | 2.00% |
Discount rate | 6.00% |
Using the capitalised discretionary cashflow method, the company’s debt capacity can be assessed as exhibited –
(All amounts in £)
Description | Amount |
---|---|
EBITDA - 2024 | 500,000 |
Minus: Depreciation and amortization | (20,000) |
EBIT | 480,000 |
Minus: Tax @ 19.00% | (91,200) |
EBIT (net of tax) | 388,800 |
Plus: Depreciation and amortization | 20,000 |
Minus: Capital expenditure | (21,000) |
Plus/Minus: Release/ (Investment) in working capital | (20,000) |
Free cashflow to the firm (FCFF) (F0) | 367,800 |
FCFF (F1) | 375,156 |
End of year discount factors are based on the discount rate (R) | 6.00% |
Long term growth rate (G) | 2.00% |
Capitalisation rate (R-G) | 4.00% |
Enterprise value - Capitalised value (A) | 9,378,900 |
Industry debt to capital ratio - Market value basis (B) | 30.00% |
Estimated debt capacity (A)*(B) | 2,813,670 |
Method 3: Debt capacity based on covenants
This approach considers various debt covenants computed based on the analysis of a company’s operating cash flows to arrive at the desired level of debt capacity.
The inputs used are –
Description | Amount |
---|---|
Interest rate (% of total debt) | 10.00% |
Current cash | £600,000 |
EBITDA | £500,000 |
EBIT | £480,000 |
Appropriate benchmarking ratios are based on ratios of comparable companies. The cost of debt has been based on the median cost of debt of comparable companies.
(All amounts in £)
Covenants | Benchmark ratios | Weights | Debt capacity |
---|---|---|---|
Total Debt/EBITDA | 4.3x | 0.33 | 716,667 |
Net Debt/EBITDA | 4.0x | 0.33 | 866,667 |
Interest Coverage (EBIT / Interest) - Note A | 1.9x | 0.33 | 842,105 |
Min | Min | Min | |
Estimated debt capacity | 2,425,439 |
Note A: Interest Coverage
Description
Description | Amount |
---|---|
Normalized EBIT (A) | 480,000 |
Interest Coverage ratio - Industry (B) | 1.9x |
Interest allowed on loan (C = A/B) | 252,632 |
Estimated debt capacity (C/10.00%) | 2,526,316 |
Method 4: Asset based lending
This approach is generally more appropriate for non-investment grade companies with a strong tangible asset base. Standard advance rates (e.g., 60% for net current assets and 40% for fixed assets excluding goodwill) against balance of assets, as of the valuation date can be used to determine the debt capacity of a company.
Debt capacity of ABC Ltd. using asset based lending method is as follows:
The inputs used are –
Description | Amount |
---|---|
Cash | £600,000 |
Net current assets excluding cash | £875,000 |
Fixed assets excluding goodwill | £75,000 |
The weightage given to the inputs used depend on the valuer’s judgement, based on the facts and circumstances of the business.
(All amounts in £)
Description | Weights | Amounts | Debt capacity |
---|---|---|---|
Cash | 1.00 | 600,000 | 600,000 |
Net current assets excluding cash | 0.60 | 875,000 | 525,000 |
Fixed assets | 0.40 | 500,000 | 200,000 |
Estimated debt capacity | 1,325,000 |
The weightage given to the inputs used depend on the valuer’s judgement, based on the facts and circumstances of the business.
Results
The debt capacity ascertained from each of the above methods is assigned appropriate weights based on the industry in which ABC Ltd operates.
(All amounts in £)
Description | Debt capacity | Weights | Weighted debt capacity |
---|---|---|---|
Method 1: Comparative industry ratio analysis | 1,185,000 | 0.25 | 296,250 |
Method 2: Capitalised discretionary cashflow | 2,813,670 | 0.25 | 703,418 |
Method 3: Debt capacity based on covenants | 2,425,439 | 0.25 | 606,360 |
Method 4: Asset based lending | 1,325,000 | 0.25 | 331,250 |
Weighted debt capacity | 1,937,278 |
Conclusion
The total debt (existing plus proposed) compared with the computed debt capacity, helped ABC Ltd to gain clarity on the amount of borrowing costs eligible for deduction under thin capitalisation rules. Our analysis also helped ABC Ltd to consider optimising its debt structure or exploring alternative financing options that align with regulatory requirements.