KASNEB CA24 study materials
KASNEB CA24 study resources

Scoring the Unscorable SME

KASNEB CA24 · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Scoring the Unscorable SME

A microfinance bank is assessing a KES 4,000,000 working capital loan to Mwangaza Hardware, a family-owned retailer. The owner provides: 3 years of management accounts showing turnover of KES 18m, 21m and 24m and net margins of 4%, 5% and 6%; a CRB report showing two late payments of 45 and 60 days in the last 12 months on an existing KES 1,500,000 facility; no audited accounts; no formal stock records, only a notebook; and a personal guarantee from the owner whose only asset is the family home valued at KES 6,000,000 with an existing mortgage of KES 2,500,000. The branch credit officer recommends approval on the basis of the personal guarantee. The loan would be 22% of the bank's single-obligor limit of KES 18,000,000.

1. Evaluate the credit risk of Mwangaza Hardware and determine whether the personal guarantee is adequate mitigation.

Read the worked answer

The application carries several material weaknesses:

  1. Information quality. Management accounts are unaudited and stock records are a notebook, so turnover and margin figures are unverified. The improving margin trend (4% to 6%) should be tested against supplier statements, bank statements and VAT returns before reliance.
  2. Repayment history. Two delinquencies of 45 and 60 days in 12 months indicate past payment stress. Under a typical behavioural scorecard this is a significant negative; the cause (seasonality, customer concentration, or cash-flow mismanagement) must be established.
  3. Cash flow. At a 6% net margin on KES 24m, profit is about KES 1.44m. A KES 4m loan at, say, 18% over 24 months requires roughly KES 200,000 per month in debt service - about KES 2.4m a year - well above net profit. Debt service cover is inadequate unless the loan is short-dated and self-liquidating from working capital cycles, which must be demonstrated.
  4. Collateral. The guarantee is weak mitigation: the home is worth KES 6m with a KES 2.5m mortgage, leaving KES 3.5m equity before costs, forced-sale discount and prior charge. Realisable value may be KES 2.5m–3m, and enforcement against a family home is slow and reputationally costly. A guarantee is a secondary repayment source, not a substitute for cash flow.
  5. Concentration. At 22% of the single-obligor limit the exposure is within limit but material.

Conclusion: the guarantee is not adequate mitigation. The credit officer's recommendation substitutes collateral for cash flow analysis, which is the core error.

2. Recommend the conditions, structure and monitoring the credit committee should impose if the loan is to proceed, and state when it should be declined.

Read the worked answer

If the committee chooses to proceed, conditions should address each weakness:

Structure:

  1. Reduce tenor and size - e.g. KES 2.5m over 12 months, self-liquidating against the working capital cycle, with a review at 6 months.
  2. Require a first legal charge over the home only if the existing mortgagee consents; otherwise take a second charge and a registered guarantee, and verify the owner's net worth.
  3. Require assignment of receivables or a supplier-backed stock finance arrangement to secure the lending against verified assets.

Conditions precedent:

  1. Three months of bank statements and supplier statements reconciling to the management accounts.
  2. Introduction of a simple stock and sales register (or accounting software) with monthly reporting.
  3. Clear explanation of the two delinquencies and evidence they are cured.
  4. Personal guarantee plus, if possible, a co-guarantor or life cover.

Monitoring:

  1. Monthly stock and sales returns, quarterly management accounts, and covenant on stock turn and debtor days.
  2. Early-warning triggers: any payment 15 days late, stock cover falling below an agreed level, or turnover falling 15% below budget.
  3. Annual review with refreshed CRB and site visit.

Decline if: the delinquencies are unresolved, the cash flow cannot service the debt even on a reduced amount, the borrower refuses to formalise records, or the second charge cannot be perfected. The committee should record the rationale either way.