Transaction Financing Structure Modeler is a finance claude skill built by CaseMark AI, Inc. Best for: Investment bankers, corporate development teams, and PE sponsors model deal financing, size debt capacity, and stress-test leverage scenarios for acquisition pitches and lender presentations..
- What it does
- Constructs acquisition financing models with debt capacity analysis, leverage ratios, covenant compliance testing, and capital structure optimization.
- Category
- finance
- Created by
- CaseMark AI, Inc
- Last updated
Transaction Financing Structure Modeler
Constructs acquisition financing models with debt capacity analysis, leverage ratios, covenant compliance testing, and capital structure optimization.
Skill instructions
name: modeling-transaction-financing-structures description: Constructs acquisition financing models with debt capacity, leverage analysis, coverage ratios, and capital structure optimization. Use when modeling deal financing, analyzing leverage capacity, or structuring acquisition debt. tags:
- modeling
- mergers-and-acquisitions
metadata:
author: casemark
practice_areas:
- M&A Advisory
- Corporate Development
- Investment Banking document_types:
- Financial Model skill_modes:
- Modeling
- Forecasting
Modeling Transaction Financing Structures
When To Use
- Structuring the debt/equity mix for a proposed acquisition
- Sizing debt capacity against a target's cash flow profile
- Evaluating leverage scenarios (e.g., senior secured vs. mezzanine vs. seller note)
- Stress-testing covenant headroom under downside operating cases
- Comparing financing alternatives for a management presentation or lender pitch
Inputs To Gather
- Target financials: 3–5 years of historical revenue, EBITDA, capex, working capital, and existing debt schedules
- Transaction terms: Enterprise value or equity value, assumed purchase price multiples, transaction fees and expenses
- Debt term sheets or indicative terms: Pricing (spread, OID), tenor, amortization schedule, commitment fees, call protection
- Tranche structure: Revolver size, term loan A/B splits, high-yield or mezzanine layers, any seller financing or earnouts
- Covenant package: Maximum leverage ratio, minimum interest/fixed-charge coverage, restricted payments basket, excess cash flow sweep percentages
- Equity contribution: Sponsor equity check, rollover equity from management or seller, any co-invest or preferred equity
- Operating projections: Management case and at least one downside case for the projection period (typically 5–7 years)
Workflow
-
Build the sources & uses table
- Purchase price (equity value + net debt adjustment + transaction expenses)
- Sources: each debt tranche at par, equity contribution, any rollover or seller paper
- Confirm sources = uses to the penny; flag any funding gap immediately
-
Construct the debt schedule
- For each tranche: opening balance, mandatory amortization, optional prepayments (from excess cash flow sweeps), and closing balance
- Model revolver draws/repayments based on minimum cash balance assumptions
- Calculate cash interest, PIK interest, and commitment fees separately
- Track call premiums or prepayment penalties if applicable
-
Calculate credit metrics on a quarterly and annual basis
- Total Debt / EBITDA (gross and net of cash)
- Senior Secured Debt / EBITDA
- Interest Coverage Ratio (EBITDA / Cash Interest Expense)
- Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (EBITDA − Capex − Taxes − Distributions) / (Cash Interest + Mandatory Amortization)
- Debt / Total Capitalization
- [VERIFY] Confirm the exact EBITDA definition per the credit agreement — addbacks for run-rate synergies, one-time costs, and stock-based compensation vary by deal
-
Run covenant compliance tests
- Map each projected period against maintenance covenant thresholds
- Flag any period where headroom falls below 10–15% of the covenant level
- In the downside case, identify the first period of potential covenant breach and quantify the EBITDA shortfall required to trip
-
Optimize the capital structure
- Compare blended cost of capital (WACC) across 2–3 alternative structures (e.g., higher leverage/lower equity vs. conservative structure)
- Sensitize sponsor IRR to leverage level, holding entry multiple constant
- Evaluate trade-offs: lower leverage = wider covenant cushion but lower equity returns; higher leverage = tighter cushion but higher returns
- Consider refinancing scenarios at Year 2–3 if rate environment or credit profile improves
-
Sensitize key outputs
- Leverage and coverage ratios vs. EBITDA growth assumptions (±5%, ±10%)
- Sponsor IRR vs. exit multiple (±0.5x turns) and leverage level
- Debt paydown timeline vs. excess cash flow sweep percentage (50%, 75%, 100%)
- Covenant headroom vs. working capital swings or capex overruns
Output
- Sources & Uses summary — single-page table with all funding components
- Debt schedule — annual (and optionally quarterly) balances, interest, amortization, and fees by tranche
- Credit metrics dashboard — leverage, coverage, and capitalization ratios across the projection period for base and downside cases
- Covenant compliance matrix — pass/fail by period with headroom percentages
- Capital structure comparison — side-by-side of 2–3 structures showing WACC, IRR, covenant cushion, and paydown speed
- Sensitivity tables — IRR vs. exit multiple/leverage; leverage ratio vs. EBITDA growth; coverage vs. capex variance
Quality Checks
- Sources exactly equal uses — no rounding gaps
- Debt balances tie to the balance sheet; interest expense ties to the income statement and cash flow statement
- Revolver balance never exceeds committed facility size and never goes negative
- Leverage ratios at close match the term sheet (e.g., 4.0x senior, 5.5x total)
- [VERIFY] EBITDA adjustments match the credit agreement definition, not the management presentation definition
- Excess cash flow sweep calculation uses the contractual formula (not a simplified approximation)
- Downside case reflects a realistic stress (e.g., revenue decline of 10–15%, margin compression of 200–300 bps) rather than an arbitrary haircut
- All interest rate assumptions are internally consistent (SOFR base + spread, with floor if applicable)
- [VERIFY] Confirm any intercreditor subordination terms that affect payment waterfall priority
- Model is auditable: every hardcoded assumption is labeled, color-coded, and sourced
Use this skill
Most skills are portable instruction packages. Claude Code supports SKILL.md directly. Other agents can use adapted files like AGENTS.md, .cursorrules, and GEMINI.md.
Claude Code
Save SKILL.md into your Claude Skills folder, then restart Claude Code.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills/transaction-financing-structure-modeler && curl -L "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/CaseMark/skills/d916021bb11b26a4cf7d0634578cd9d879ccc279/skills/capital/modeling-transaction-financing-structures/SKILL.md" -o ~/.claude/skills/transaction-financing-structure-modeler/SKILL.mdInstalls to ~/.claude/skills/transaction-financing-structure-modeler/SKILL.md.
Use cases
Investment bankers, corporate development teams, and PE sponsors model deal financing, size debt capacity, and stress-test leverage scenarios for acquisition pitches and lender presentations.
Reviews
No reviews yet. Be the first to review this skill.
No signup required
Stats
Creator
CCaseMark AI, Inc
@CaseMark