Executive summary
Fundable projects share a common information base regardless of which financing route is eventually chosen: a technical description sufficient to verify feasibility, a financial model with clearly stated assumptions and sensitivity analysis, evidence of market demand or offtake for the output, a credible implementation plan with realistic timelines, and legal clarity over the project entity, land, permits and contracts. Financiers assess this material to judge both the project's viability and the sponsor's capability to execute it, and gaps in any one area typically delay the process rather than being waived. Preparing this package before approaching any specific financing source, rather than assembling it reactively during a live application, generally shortens the financing timeline and improves the sponsor's negotiating position.
Where this instrument fits
- Financial model exists but assumptions and sensitivities are not clearly documented
- Permits, land rights or environmental approvals are still in progress rather than secured
- Market demand for the project's output is asserted but not evidenced with contracts or independent analysis
- Project entity structure has not yet been finalised
- No independent technical review has been conducted on the project design or cost estimate
- Sponsor has not identified which financing routes are realistically available given project characteristics
How the structure typically works
Technical due diligence pack
Independent or internally verified technical description, cost estimate and design basis.
Financial model with sensitivity analysis
Base case plus documented downside scenarios on volume, price and cost assumptions.
Market and offtake evidence
Contracts, letters of intent, or independent market studies supporting revenue assumptions.
Legal and permitting status summary
Clear statement of land, permit and regulatory approval status against the project timeline.
Implementation and governance plan
Realistic schedule, milestone structure and project governance arrangements.
Financing route shortlist
An assessment of which financing instruments are realistically applicable given project scale, sector and jurisdiction.
Comparison table
| Preparation item | Commercial bank sensitivity | Development/ECA sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
| Independent technical review | Moderate | High |
| Documented offtake/market evidence | High | High |
| Environmental and social assessment | Low to moderate | High |
| Legal entity and permitting clarity | High | High |
Readiness checklist by financing route sensitivity
Risks and governance considerations
- Financiers generally treat incomplete permitting as a hard blocker, not a minor gap, regardless of project quality otherwise
- Financial models without documented assumptions and sensitivities slow review even when the underlying numbers are sound
- Market evidence based on internal assumptions alone is weaker than third-party contracts or independent studies
- Preparation cost and time should be budgeted as part of the project timeline, not treated as incidental
- Different financing routes have different minimum preparation thresholds, so the shortlist of realistic sources should be identified before finalising the preparation plan
What to prepare
- Independent or verified technical description and cost estimate
- Financial model with explicit assumptions and downside sensitivity
- Evidence of market demand or offtake for the project's output
- Confirmed legal entity structure and permitting status
- Realistic implementation schedule with governance arrangements
What to measure
Frequently asked questions
What is the single most common reason projects are declined or delayed?
Incomplete permitting or land rights status is one of the most common hard blockers, alongside financial models lacking clear, defensible assumptions.
Should preparation differ by financing route?
The core information base is similar across routes, but development finance and export credit sources generally apply more extensive environmental, social and content-related scrutiny than commercial lenders.
How early should funding preparation start relative to project approval?
Ideally in parallel with feasibility and business case development, since technical, legal and market information gathered for internal approval is largely the same material financiers require.
Related investment and financing knowledge
Project Financing Knowledge
Assessing Your Project's Loan Readiness
Project Financing Knowledge
The Documentation Every Financing Process Requires
Executive Decision Guide
How to Prepare for Financing
Project Lifecycle Stage
Financing Strategy
Project Lifecycle Stage
Procurement Planning
Project Financing Knowledge
Accessing Public Funding for Industrial Investment
Project Financing Knowledge
Financial Planning for Multi-Year Capital Programmes
Continue on the platform
Educational, supplier-neutral and financing-neutral
Global B2B Group does not sell equipment and does not represent lenders, export credit agencies or development banks. This material is published to help industrial organisations plan, structure and prepare capital projects. It is general information for decision-making, not financial, legal or tax advice.