Client accounts
Evidence from the credit desk
Client experiences of independent financial audit and equipment finance application risk reviews.
What clients noticed
“Our application had strong turnover but erratic collections. System Resolver Base rebuilt the debt-service view month by month and identified that the proposed first instalment landed before the machine’s commissioning revenue. We changed the commencement date and documented the assumption properly.”
— Senior credit analyst, equipment lender, Johannesburg
“The report was more cautious than our broker team hoped, particularly on the balloon. That reservation was useful: it separated the customer’s optimistic resale estimate from evidence we could defend at committee.”
— Asset finance broker, Durban
“A supplier quotation had been revised three times. The review tracked the model, attachments and bank details across each version, then gave operations a short list of delivery evidence to collect before payment.”
— Credit operations lead, Western Cape
A seasonal contractor application
A civil works contractor sought finance for a replacement excavator shortly before its busiest tender period. Annual accounts showed adequate earnings, but the file did not explain how existing instalments and delayed municipal receipts affected the low season.
We reconciled management accounts to observed cash movement, mapped existing debt and tested a delayed-contract case. The review did not reject the productive need for the excavator. It recommended a revised instalment commencement, evidence of the awarded work and a lower balloon not dependent on an unsupported resale assumption.
The lender retained the decision and used the findings in its committee paper. The broker also received a precise list of outstanding evidence, reducing repeated requests to the applicant.
A specialised packaging line
For imported packaging equipment, the financial case was acceptable but the transaction carried supplier and commissioning risk. The application blended equipment cost, freight, installation and early consumables into one amount.
Our review separated those components, highlighted which amounts had weak recoverable value and proposed staged payment evidence tied to shipment, installation and acceptance. A specialist technical inspection remained outside our scope and was commissioned separately.