The Regional Rollout That Stalled
A mid-sized logistics firm approved a five-year strategy to open four regional depots, funded by a ₤12m loan with a covenant requiring debt service cover above 1.5x from year three. Eighteen months in, only one depot is operational. The board paper attributes delay to 'market softness', but the operations director privately reports that the finance team never costed the recruitment pipeline, and each depot needs 40 drivers who take four months to train. The original plan assumed a 6% volume growth that has not materialised; actual growth is 2%. The CFO wants to halt depots three and four and renegotiate the covenant. The CEO fears reputational damage with the lender and wants to press on. One non-executive director has asked for a written options appraisal before the next board meeting in three weeks.
1. As the strategy lead, set out how you would structure the options appraisal for the board. What options would you present, and on what criteria would you evaluate them?
Read the worked answer
Structure the appraisal around the gap between plan assumptions and observed reality, not around blame. First, restate the strategic objective (regional coverage serving the existing customer base) and test whether it still holds at 2% growth. Second, present at least three genuine options: (a) continue all four depots on the original timetable; (b) pause depots three and four, consolidate the operational depot, and revisit in twelve months; (c) exit the regional programme and redirect capital to the core network. A fourth hybrid - accelerate depot two only if a named anchor customer contract is signed - is worth including because it converts a timing decision into a demand-contingent one.
Evaluate each option against explicit criteria: covenant headroom and cash impact over five years; delivery capability, especially the four-month driver training lead time and recruitment cost that was omitted from the plan; strategic fit with actual demand; reversibility; and stakeholder and reputational consequences with the lender. Score qualitatively but show the cash and covenant numbers for each option so the board sees the constraint that actually binds.
Finally, recommend a decision rule rather than a single answer: for example, proceed with depot two only on evidence of a signed contract covering a stated share of its capacity, and open covenant discussions early rather than at breach. The reasoning matters more than the choice - the board needs to see that the original plan's assumptions were untested and that the appraisal reconnects capital commitment to demand evidence.
2. The CEO argues that halting expansion will damage the firm's credibility with the lender. How would you advise the board to weigh reputational risk against financial covenant risk?
Read the worked answer
Separate the two risks and compare them on likelihood, timing, and severity. Covenant breach is a contractual, dated event with defined consequences - accelerated repayment, higher margin, possible default - and it becomes more likely the longer the firm spends capital on depots that are not generating revenue. Reputational damage with a lender is real but is usually a function of how a problem is handled, not of whether a problem exists. Lenders generally respond better to an early, evidenced conversation than to a surprise breach.
Advise the board that continuing to spend in order to appear credible is a form of escalation of commitment: it protects the appearance of the original decision at the cost of the balance sheet. The stronger credibility signal is a board that can show it tested its assumptions, identified the driver-training and demand gaps, and took a deliberate decision with a revised plan.
Practical steps: approach the lender before the covenant test with a short paper showing the revised forecast, the covenant trajectory under each option, and the management actions already taken. Ask for a covenant reset or a waiver period in exchange for transparent reporting. Frame the pause as capital discipline, which lenders value. The board's duty is to the solvency of the company, not to the appearance of consistency with an earlier plan.