LBO Debt Model

Hello all,

I am working on an LBO case and I wanted to get your thoughts on a point I am struggling with regarding the assumptions:

  • Total Sources: 40% Debt / 30% Sponsor 1 / 30% Sponsor 2
  • Debt: 0.5× Revenue 2024

If I size debt at 0.5× Revenue 2024, it seems that total Sources would effectively become fixed at the level needed to maintain the 40% debt share. This would mean that the equity contributions from both sponsors would also remain constant, regardless of the entry multiple.

I am not sure I am expressing this clearly, but I would really appreciate your thoughts to see if I am missing something.

Thanks a lot!

2 Comments
 

Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's what you need to know:

Your observation is correct—if you fix the debt at 0.5× Revenue 2024 and maintain a 40% debt share in the total sources, the equity contributions from both sponsors (30% each) will also remain constant as a percentage of the total sources. However, this approach can create a disconnect between the entry multiple and the capital structure, which might not align with typical LBO modeling practices.

Here are a few key points to consider:

  1. Debt Sizing and Entry Multiple:
    In most LBO models, debt is typically sized based on leverage ratios (e.g., 4.5×–6.5× EBITDA) rather than a fixed percentage of revenue. This ensures that the debt level is aligned with the company's cash flow generation capacity, which is critical for servicing the debt. By tying debt to revenue, you might inadvertently create a structure that doesn't reflect the company's ability to handle leverage.

  2. Flexibility in Equity Contributions:
    If you fix the debt at 40% of total sources, the equity contributions from the sponsors will indeed remain constant as a percentage. However, in practice, the equity contributions should be flexible and adjust based on the entry multiple and the total purchase price. This ensures that the capital structure remains reasonable and reflects market norms.

  3. Alternative Approach:
    Instead of fixing the debt at 0.5× Revenue 2024, consider using a leverage ratio based on EBITDA (e.g., 4.5× EBITDA). Then, calculate the total purchase price using the entry multiple and adjust the equity contributions to fill the gap between the debt and the total purchase price. This approach allows for a more dynamic and realistic capital structure.

  4. Market Norms:
    As highlighted in WSO threads, most LBOs in a pre-COVID market are structured with 35–40% equity and 60–65% debt. Leverage typically ranges from 4.5×–6.5× EBITDA, depending on the industry and the company's risk profile. If you're working with a revenue-based debt assumption, ensure that it translates into a reasonable leverage ratio.

Practical Steps:

  • Reassess the debt sizing methodology to ensure it aligns with EBITDA-based leverage norms.
  • Calculate the total purchase price using the entry multiple and adjust the equity contributions dynamically.
  • Validate your assumptions by comparing them to public comparable companies or recent LBO transactions in the same industry.

By adopting a more flexible and market-aligned approach, you'll create a model that better reflects real-world LBO dynamics. Let me know if you'd like further clarification or help with specific calculations!

Sources: Private Credit Resources and Prep, Creating own LBO assumptions, How Private Equity Owned Companies Fund Add-Ons, Sources and Uses statement - private LBO model, LBO Returns - Increasing Leverage Doesn't Increase Returns?

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.
 

Quis quia et est excepturi. Consequatur neque eum aliquam et accusantium eius aut. Dolor tempora culpa nihil ullam eum soluta vero. Est aperiam dolores unde qui sunt. Magnam quia omnis iusto cumque et eos natus.

Sed doloribus aut iusto et. Sit corrupti ducimus accusamus et vel. Voluptate necessitatibus qui omnis ex qui. Inventore corporis cupiditate tempore qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.6%
  • Blackstone Group 99.3%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.9%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.5%
  • Vista Equity Partners 98.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Private Equity

  • Blackstone Group 99.6%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 99.2%
  • The Riverside Company 98.9%
  • Ardian 98.5%
  • Starwood Capital Group 98.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Private Equity

  • Bain Capital 99.6%
  • The Riverside Company 99.3%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 98.5%
  • Vista Equity Partners 98.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (24) $547
  • Vice President (99) $363
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (104) $281
  • 2nd Year Associate (235) $272
  • 1st Year Associate (411) $229
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (33) $157
  • 2nd Year Analyst (97) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (272) $124
  • Intern/Summer Associate (38) $81
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (356) $61
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Linda Abraham's picture
Linda Abraham
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”