Independent analysis, built for the credit file.
Underwriting a business acquisition means lending against earnings someone else prepared. We work for the institution: an independent look at what the business actually earns, built from bank data, the books, and the filed returns, and written for the credit file rather than the borrower.
What a lender engagement looks like
You send what the borrower provided, or put us in contact with them, and we work from the primary records underneath it. Bank activity reconciled to the books month by month, the add-back schedule tested item by item, and the earnings number rebuilt from evidence rather than accepted from the packet. Where something cannot be substantiated, the report says so, whether or not that helps the deal.
The analysis is commissioned by the institution and prepared for its use, and it turns around in days rather than weeks, because the reconciliation layer is automated. Your credit team spends its time on the findings, not waiting for them.
What the analysis contains
Bank to books reconciliation
Cash receipts and disbursements reconstructed from bank data and reconciled to the income statement month by month, and to the filed return for each period under review. That is the three-way tie the SOP now defines as a Cash Proof, with variances itemized rather than netted away.
Normalized earnings bridge
Reported earnings walked to normalized earnings with each adjustment classified by type and carrying its own support, so the file shows why an adjustment was made and what evidence sits behind it rather than reproducing the seller’s schedule.
Exceptions surfaced, not smoothed
Items the analysis could not substantiate are reported as exceptions with the reason stated. A report that quietly resolves what it cannot evidence is worth less to a credit file than one that says so.
Turnaround that fits a commitment timeline
The analysis layer runs from connected or uploaded data rather than being rebuilt by hand, which is what makes it practical to order on a file that has to reach committee.
Expert review, on request
Where the file needs reviewed work product rather than software output, a senior analyst reviews the workbook line by line, holds a findings call with the deal team, and issues a summary letter written for the credit file.
The reviewers are the bench behind our quality of earnings engagements. The automated layer is what makes the economics work; the review is what puts a person behind the conclusions.
If you write SBA paper
SOP 50 10 8.1 formalizes much of this from October 2026: coverage tested on historical earnings, total debt capped at the supported valuation, and an independent quality of earnings report on larger change of ownership deals, with each adjustment justified as prudent, necessary and supportable. Our full reading of the requirements cites the source text throughout.
Below the mandated threshold, the useful question is usually simpler: does the deal cover at all on last year's figures once the adjustments are tested? That is a smaller piece of work, and it is answerable early, before a file consumes underwriting time it was never going to survive.
On independence
Zenith works with buyers as well as lenders. We do not do both on the same transaction. Where an institution engages us on a file, we are not advising that borrower on that deal, and we would rather say that plainly up front than have it surface later.
Frequently asked questions
Can a report be commissioned by and prepared for the lender?
Yes. That is the engagement model these files require, and it is how we work with lenders: the analysis is commissioned by the institution and prepared for its use, rather than being a seller or borrower work product handed across.
How does this relate to the Cash Proof the SOP defines?
The SOP defines a Cash Proof as reconstructing cash receipts and disbursements by reconciling bank statement data to the income statement and tax return for each period under review. That is what our engine produces: bank activity tied to the accounting records month by month, and both tied to the filed return for each period. Where the books and the return are kept on different bases, the analysis measures the receivable movement that legitimately explains the difference and reports only what is left over.
Do you work below the mandatory threshold?
Most of our volume is there. The adjusted coverage basis requires the lender to justify each adjustment as prudent, necessary and supportable regardless of deal size, so the add-back question does not begin at the mandatory threshold. It just becomes formal there.
Do you also work with the buyer on the same transaction?
Not on the same deal. Where we are engaged by a lender, we are not also advising the borrower on that transaction. Independence is the reason the report is worth anything in the file.
Underwriting an acquisition?
Tell us how your credit file is assembled and what your committee expects to see, and we will be specific about what we produce.