COLOSSAL FINANCE ─── CAPABILITIES / COMMERCIAL LENDING
─── COMMERCIAL LENDING · TYPICALLY BLUE
Commercial lending isn't a product.It's the architecture of how a business funds itself.
Most businesses end up with whatever lending structure their bank manager suggested three years ago. We start with the question of how the business should actually be capitalised, then design the facilities to fit.
─── WHEN THIS MATTERS
You might be here because…
Your existing facilities have outgrown your business.
Term loans structured for the business you were three years ago aren't structured for the business you are now. The right restructure can release working capital, reduce servicing, and create headroom for the next move.
You're approaching covenant ratios that constrain growth.
Lender covenants are negotiable — but only at the right moment, with the right counter-proposal. We've renegotiated covenants for businesses that thought they had no options.
You want a banking relationship that operates at your pace.
Major bank business banking varies enormously by individual relationship manager. We know which lenders, in which sectors, currently demonstrate the engagement and decisioning speed sophisticated operators need.
─── HOW WE STRUCTURE IT
Commercial lending is a stack. We design the whole stack.
Term loans, overdrafts, asset facilities, working capital lines, equipment finance — most businesses have these from different lenders, structured at different times, with no overall logic. The result is more cost, more complexity, and less flexibility. We design for the whole.
Term debt structuring
Term loans should match the productive life of what they fund. Property facilities: longer tenor. Equipment: matched to asset life. Working capital: revolving, not term. The mismatches are where unnecessary servicing cost accumulates.
Covenant negotiation
DSCR, LVR, ICR — covenants protect lenders but constrain operators. We negotiate covenants that protect lender risk while preserving operator flexibility. Often this is about how covenants are measured and tested, not just the headline ratio.
Multi-facility coordination
When facilities are coordinated across one lender, you trade pricing for relationship leverage. When facilities are split across multiple lenders, you trade simplicity for competitive tension. Neither is universally right. We model both.
─── THE LENDER LANDSCAPE
Four bank lenders dominate. The interesting work happens at the edges.
Australia's commercial lending market is dominated by the major banks but increasingly served by second-tier banks, non-bank lenders, and private credit. The right structure often involves multiple lender categories — each for what they do best.
Major Banks
CBA, NAB, ANZ, Westpac. Best for larger established businesses wanting integrated banking. Best pricing on strong credit, but slower decisioning.
Second-Tier and Challenger Banks
Best for mid-market operators wanting sector-specific appetite and faster turnaround. Competitive pricing with more flexibility.
Non-Bank Commercial Lenders
Best for speed, structure flexibility, and businesses that don't fit major bank credit criteria. Higher cost of capital, broader appetite.
Private Credit
Best for larger transactions, growth capital, and special situations. Bespoke terms, longer commitment cycles, partner-like engagement.
─── CASE STUDY
Total facility
$8.4M
Structure
Multi-facility restructure
Client
Hospitality group · Victoria
Timeline
Structured in 6 weeks
Engagement
Gold
Hospitality group balance sheet restructure.
A Melbourne hospitality group with five trading venues had accumulated facilities across three different lenders over six years. Total exposure was approximately $8.4M, structured inefficiently with significant servicing cost and cross-collateralisation that constrained the group's ability to acquire additional venues.
We restructured the entire commercial lending stack with a single lender, replacing term loans, overdrafts, and equipment facilities with a coordinated facility structure. The restructure released approximately $1.2M in working capital, reduced annualised servicing by approximately $180K, and created acquisition headroom of approximately $4M.
Within 18 months the group had acquired two additional venues using the released capacity.
─── WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE WITH US
What it looks like with us.
Existing structure analysis
Mapping current facilities, terms, covenants, and inefficiencies.
Target structure design
Modelling the optimal future-state structure and identifying lender categories most likely to engage.
Lender engagement and negotiation
Curated lender approach with prepared credit narrative. Negotiated terms, covenants, and pricing.
Settlement and transition
Coordinated facility transition with minimum operational disruption.
Discuss your commercial lending structure.
Start with a conversation about how your business is capitalised today and where the structure is holding you back.