hard · Private Credit & Debt documentation-covenants-terms
A direct lender negotiates a financial-covenant package on a borrower whose business is highly seasonal, with leverage naturally peaking at fiscal Q1. The sponsor accepts a 4.5x net leverage covenant but insists it be tested 'on the last day of each fiscal quarter' rather than at any time. A more protective alternative the lender considers is testing on a trailing-four-quarter average of the quarter-end ratios.
Which subtle drawback makes the average-of-quarter-ends approach potentially WORSE for the lender than tightening the single-date covenant?
- Averaging four quarter-end snapshots can mask a sharp, sustained deterioration in the most recent quarter by blending it with three stronger prior quarters, delaying breach until the damage is already advanced
- Averaging converts the maintenance covenant into an incurrence covenant, so it is tested only when the borrower takes a new action rather than continuously
- A four-quarter average inherently double-counts the seasonal Q1 peak, systematically overstating leverage and triggering false breaches
- Averaging quarter-end ratios is mathematically identical to a trailing-twelve-month EBITDA test, so it adds compliance cost without changing the protective outcome
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More Private Credit & Debt documentation-covenants-terms practice
- If the current SOFR rate drops to 0.25%, what is the all-in interest rate the borrower mus
- A borrower's credit agreement includes a 'Negative Pledge'.… — Is this allowed?
- A loan is priced at SOFR + 600 bps with a 1.0% floor. If the current SOFR rate is 0.5%, wh
- If Term SOFR is currently 0.75% and the loan was issued with a 2.0% Original Issue Discoun
- What is the company's 'covenant headroom' in EBITDA terms?
- Is the company in default?
- A loan agreement specifies that the borrower's Total Leverag… — How should this covenant b
- What is the immediate consequence for the CLO Equity holders?