Most credit decisions begin with a projection. The borrower presents a model. The model shows coverage. The transaction moves forward. The problem is that projections are not cash flow. They're assumptions. And assumptions don't make payments. Cash flow does.
One distinction continues to separate stronger credits from weaker ones: the difference between cash flow visibility and cash flow projections. A projection tells you what management believes will happen. Cash flow visibility tells you what is already happening. There's a difference.
Projections are built on assumptions about revenue growth, customer retention, margins, market conditions, and execution. Some assumptions will prove correct. Others won't. The more assumptions a deal requires, the less certain I become.
Cash flow visibility is different. It's grounded in things that can be observed and verified: contracted revenue, recurring payment streams, seasoned receivables, and operating history. Those things tell me far more than a five-year projection. The question isn't whether the model works — the question is whether the cash flow works, and how much visibility we have into that cash flow independent of the model.
That distinction often gets blurred because projections are presented alongside historical performance. In strong markets, the future can feel like a natural extension of the past. That's usually when investors become the most comfortable — and it's also when assumptions receive the least scrutiny. The market has a habit of exposing that. When liquidity tightens and volatility increases, projections stop being interesting and actual performance starts to matter. What looked like a strong credit can quickly become a weak one when assumptions fail to materialize.
That's why visibility matters. Not because it eliminates risk — nothing does. But it changes the conversation from ‘we believe this will happen’ to ‘we can see this happening.’
For me, a few questions tend to matter: Is revenue contracted or discretionary? Is there enough operating history to understand how the business performs through different environments? Are repayment mechanics tied to activity that can be independently verified? How much visibility do we actually have into the collateral and underlying cash generation of the business? None of those questions eliminate uncertainty — credit investing will always involve uncertainty. What they do provide is a stronger foundation for evaluating it.
A mistake I see frequently is confusing a good projection with a good credit. They're not the same thing. Every deal looks attractive in Excel — that's the easy part. The harder question is whether the underlying cash flows are visible enough to lend against with confidence across a range of outcomes that don't require the model to be exactly right. That's where underwriting begins, and in my experience, that's also where many problems are avoided. Return projections are easy to build. Cash flow visibility is much harder to establish. That's precisely why it deserves more attention.
Back to Research & Insights