The Debt Stack: Understanding M&A Financing Beyond Bank Loans
Capital Structure as Strategy
For institutional buyers and experienced acquirers, debt isn't just a means to close. It's a tool for return optimization, risk allocation, and competitive positioning.
The difference between a 2.0x and a 3.0x MOIC often comes down to how the capital stack was structured at entry: leverage ratios, covenant headroom, amortization profiles, and the flexibility to execute post-close value creation plans without tripping financial triggers.
This guide examines the debt instruments most commonly deployed in lower middle market transactions and the strategic considerations that drive capital structure decisions for PE funds, corporate strategics, and independent sponsors.
Capital Stack Hierarchy: Repayment Priority and Risk Allocation
Every capital structure reflects a negotiated hierarchy of claims. Understanding where each tranche sits in that hierarchy shapes not only pricing but also control rights, intercreditor dynamics, and recovery expectations in downside scenarios.
Senior secured debt sits at the top: first lien, first claim, lowest cost. Below it, subordinated tranches accept incrementally more risk in exchange for higher yields and, often, equity participation. At the bottom, equity absorbs residual risk and captures the upside.
For acquirers, the question isn't simply "how much debt can we get?" It's "what capital structure best supports our investment thesis, return targets, and post-close operating plan?"
1. Senior Secured Debt
Structure: Term loans secured by a first-priority lien on all assets, typically provided by banks, credit unions, or SBA lenders.
Strategic considerations:
Senior secured remains the lowest-cost capital in the stack, but covenant packages vary significantly across lenders. Sponsors and strategics should evaluate not just pricing but also covenant cushion, reporting burdens, and amendment flexibility.
For platform acquisitions, consider whether the senior facility can accommodate future add-on financing or whether it requires full refinancing for each bolt-on.
SBA 7(a) financing offers favorable terms for owner-operator transitions but imposes restrictions on management fees, distributions, and equity rollovers that may conflict with sponsor economics.
Typical terms:
Interest: SOFR + 250–450bps (roughly 7–10% all-in in current rate environment)
Amortization: 5–7 years
Leverage: 2.5–3.5x EBITDA for traditional bank lenders; higher for SBA-backed facilities
Covenants: Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (1.1–1.25x minimum), Total Leverage, and often a minimum liquidity or cash sweep requirement
Key trade-off: Senior debt maximizes cost efficiency but imposes the tightest operating constraints. For businesses with meaningful seasonality or expected EBITDA volatility during integration, negotiate covenant cushion upfront rather than relying on post-close amendments.
2. Mezzanine Debt
Structure: Subordinated debt, typically unsecured, with higher yields and often accompanied by equity warrants or co-invest rights.
Strategic considerations:
Mezzanine financing allows sponsors to stretch leverage beyond bank limits without diluting equity ownership to the same degree as raising additional LP capital.
For independent sponsors, mezz can bridge the gap between committed equity and purchase price when LP capital is being raised deal-by-deal.
Institutional mezz providers increasingly require board observer rights and approval over material operating decisions. Ensure the intercreditor agreement preserves flexibility for value creation initiatives.
Typical terms:
Interest: 12–18%+ (often split between cash pay and PIK)
Equity kickers: Warrants for 2–5% of fully diluted equity are standard; negotiate hard on strike price, anti-dilution, and exercise timing
Subordination: Junior to senior lenders via intercreditor agreement with standstill provisions
Key trade-off: Mezz is expensive and often comes with governance strings. But for deals where the thesis depends on operational transformation, the additional leverage can meaningfully enhance equity returns if the plan executes.
3. Uni-tranche Debt
Structure: A blended facility combining senior and subordinated debt into a single tranche, typically provided by direct lenders or credit funds.
Strategic considerations:
Unitranche has become the dominant financing structure in competitive sponsor-backed processes. Speed, certainty, and documentation simplicity often outweigh the higher blended cost.
For corporate strategics, unitranche can accelerate timeline versus a syndicated bank process while providing a single counterparty relationship post-close.
Watch for "first out / last out" structures embedded within unitranche facilities: these effectively create senior and junior tranches with different economics and intercreditor dynamics despite appearing as a single loan.
Typical terms:
Interest: 9–13% (blended rate higher than standalone senior)
Leverage: 4–5.5x EBITDA in current market; higher for recurring revenue or asset-light models
Documentation: Often based on direct lender forms with fewer financial covenants than traditional bank deals
Key trade-off: You're paying a premium for execution certainty and relationship simplicity. In auction processes where timing drives outcomes, that premium is often worth paying.
4. Convertible Notes
Structure: Debt instruments that convert into equity at the holder's option, typically at a discount to subsequent financing rounds or a capped valuation.
Strategic considerations:
Convertible notes are less common in traditional buyouts but appear frequently in growth equity, partial recapitalizations, and situations where valuation is contested.
For strategics evaluating minority investments with a path to control, convertibles can provide downside protection while preserving upside participation.
Watch for "automatic conversion" triggers: these can result in unexpected dilution if subsequent financing rounds price above the cap.
Typical terms:
Interest: 6–12%
Conversion discount: 10–25% below subsequent round pricing
Valuation cap: Ceiling on conversion price
Maturity: 18–36 months
Key trade-off: Convertibles offer structural flexibility when parties disagree on valuation. But the conversion mechanics can produce unexpected dilution and misaligned incentives if not carefully structured.
5. PIK Notes (Payment-in-Kind)
Structure: Debt where interest accrues to principal rather than being paid in cash, deferring cash outflows to maturity.
Strategic considerations:
PIK structures preserve cash for investment in growth initiatives, integration costs, or working capital during the post-close transition period.
For PE funds with aggressive value creation timelines, PIK can align debt service with expected EBITDA ramp rather than forcing cash pay from day one.
Compounding effects are material: a $5M PIK note at 12% grows to $7M in 3 years. Model the payoff carefully against exit timing assumptions.
Typical terms:
Interest: 10–15% (all or partially PIK)
Toggle feature: Option to pay cash or PIK in specified periods
Maturity: Often bullet payment at term with no scheduled amortization
Key trade-off: PIK trades near-term cash relief for a larger future obligation. If exit timing slips or EBITDA growth underperforms, the accrued principal can meaningfully compress equity returns.
6. Seller Notes (Promissory Notes / VTB)
Structure: Deferred purchase price financing provided by the seller, typically subordinated to all institutional debt.
Strategic considerations:
Seller notes are a standard tool for bridging bid-ask gaps, particularly when buyer leverage capacity falls short of seller price expectations.
For acquirers, seller financing creates alignment: the seller retains economic exposure to post-close performance, which can facilitate transition cooperation and reduce information asymmetry.
Negotiate carefully on subordination, payment triggers, and any performance-based adjustments. Poorly structured VTBs can create unexpected cash drains or disputes during earn-out periods.
Typical terms:
Interest: 4–8% (often below market rates as a deal facilitation mechanism)
Amortization: 2–5 years, quarterly or annual payments
Security: Typically unsecured and subordinated to all senior and mezz lenders
Acceleration triggers: Change of control, material breach, payment default
Key trade-off: Seller notes can be an inexpensive source of financing, but the ongoing relationship with a former owner as a creditor requires careful management. Define payment waterfall and subordination terms precisely.
Capital Structure by Acquirer Type
Different acquirer profiles optimize for different objectives:
Capital Structure Pitfalls for Sophisticated Buyers
Even experienced acquirers make structuring mistakes. Here are a few things to watch out for:
Over-leveraging into integration risk. The model may support 5x leverage on pro forma synergies, but if integration takes 18 months instead of 6, covenant headroom evaporates quickly.
Mismatched amortization and value creation timelines. Aggressive amortization schedules can starve growth initiatives of capital. Match debt service to realistic cash flow projections, not best-case scenarios.
Intercreditor complexity in layered structures. When senior, mezz, and seller notes all sit in the capital stack, intercreditor agreements govern everything from payment waterfalls to enforcement rights. Ambiguity creates friction at precisely the wrong moments.
Ignoring refinancing risk. If your hold period assumption is 5 years but your debt matures in 3, you're betting on refinancing availability. In credit-tightening environments, that bet can prove costly.
Underestimating working capital needs. Many deals fail post-close because acquirers modeled EBITDA correctly but missed the working capital investment required to support growth or integration.
Quality of Earnings: The Foundation of Sound Structuring
Before committing to any capital structure, sophisticated acquirers validate the numbers that drive leverage capacity.
Quality of Earnings analysis identifies:
Sustainability and recurrence of revenue streams
One-time or non-operating adjustments that inflate EBITDA
Working capital normalization and seasonality patterns
Customer concentration and churn risk
Revenue recognition practices and deferred revenue dynamics
Lenders underwrite to QoE-adjusted EBITDA. Acquirers who skip this step often discover, mid-process, that financing commitments are based on numbers that won't survive diligence.
Navigate Your Acquisition with Confidence 🚀
Introducing the Acquisition Navigator
For PE funds, corporate strategics, and independent sponsors evaluating lower middle market opportunities, our Acquisition Navigator provides buy-side Quality of Earnings analysis and capital structure advisory to help you underwrite with confidence and close with certainty.
The program includes:
QoE analysis identifying EBITDA adjustments, working capital normalization, and revenue quality issues before lender diligence
Capital structure modeling across senior, mezz, and unitranche scenarios with covenant sensitivity analysis
Integration risk assessment flagging operational issues that affect financing capacity and post-close performance
Lender process support including CIM review, management presentation prep, and diligence coordination
Make your next acquisition a calculated move, not a leap of faith.
FAQs
How does QoE analysis differ for buy-side versus sell-side?
Sell-side QoE positions adjustments favorably to support valuation. Buy-side QoE pressure-tests those adjustments, identifies risks the seller didn't disclose, and establishes a defensible EBITDA figure for lender underwriting. The same data, examined with opposite incentives.
What leverage multiples are achievable in the current market?
Traditional bank lenders typically cap at 3–3.5x EBITDA. Direct lenders and unitranche providers will stretch to 4–5.5x for quality assets with recurring revenue or asset-light models. SBA-backed facilities can exceed 4x for qualifying transactions.
Should we use seller financing even if we don't need it?
Often yes. Seller notes create alignment, signal seller confidence, and provide negotiating leverage on other deal terms. The interest rate is typically below market, making it an efficient source of capital even when other financing is available.
How do we evaluate unitranche versus senior plus mezz?
Model both scenarios. Unitranche typically costs 100–200bps more on a blended basis but eliminates intercreditor complexity and accelerates closing. In competitive processes, execution certainty often justifies the premium.
What's the biggest structuring mistake you see sophisticated buyers make?
Underestimating the cash required for working capital and integration. Buyers model EBITDA growth but fail to fund the receivables, inventory, and operational investments that growth requires. This creates covenant pressure and forces difficult conversations with lenders within the first year.
Key Takeaways
Capital structure is a strategic lever: The right debt mix optimizes returns, preserves flexibility, and supports post-close value creation
Match structure to thesis: Aggressive leverage only works if covenant headroom accommodates execution risk
Unitranche dominates competitive processes: Speed and certainty often outweigh cost optimization in auction dynamics
PIK defers but doesn't eliminate cash requirements: Model compounding carefully against realistic exit timing
Seller notes create alignment: Even when not needed for financing, VTBs can be a valuable structuring tool
QoE underpins everything: Lenders underwrite to adjusted EBITDA. Acquirers who skip buy-side diligence inherit the seller's problems
Integration risk is financing risk: Over-leveraging into operational complexity is the most common structuring mistake
📥 Thinking about Buying a Business?
Get access to better deal flow by joining our free buyer distribution list here
Join an upcoming webinar!
Whether you’re looking to buy or sell an IT services company, join one of our upcoming events:
Come visit us!