Resource · Working demonstration
Three entities. Two directors. Six findings.
The Kestrel file is the simpler companion to the Hartley demonstration: a reasonably healthy group where the issues are fewer and subtler. The tool is not only a problem finder.
Every entity, person and figure on this page is invented. The Kestrel group is a synthetic file built to demonstrate the tool. No real client is represented.
The scenario
A small group in good order, mostly.
Kestrel Plumbing Services is a commercial plumbing contractor in southern Adelaide. Daniel and Amy Kestrel are married. Daniel is a licensed plumber and runs the field work; Amy runs the office two days a week. The business converted from a sole trader to a company in July 2023, and the group is applying for $450,000: $300,000 of vehicle and equipment finance and a $150,000 overdraft.
This is what a healthy file looks like through the same review. Fewer findings, and one of them is the rare kind where the correction that improves the submission also fixes a compliance problem.
The file at a glance: three entities and two directors, $408,000 of existing group debt, $74,000 not on any balance sheet, and 6 findings: two critical, two significant, two watch.
Want the difficult file instead? Open the Hartley group, six entities and eighteen findings.
The map
The structure, mapped.
Select an entity to trace its exposure: its finances, its security position, its guarantees and its related party cash flows. Five kinds of relationship, even in a small group.
All five relationship types are switched off, so there is nothing to draw.
Select an entity to trace its exposure. Press Escape to clear the selection.
The findings
Six findings, and two would cost real money.
A healthy file is not an empty file. Two findings would stop or reprice the deal if left unaddressed, two need explaining, and two belong in the submission as context.
Significant
Requires explanation or restructure before lodgement.
Watch
Address in the submission as context.
The serviceability question
This time, both readings agree.
Kestrel Plumbing reported net profit before tax of $186,000. In the Hartley file, the presented add-backs did not survive a credit assessor's reading. Here they do, and the difference between the two files is the point.
Position one
As presented
| Net profit before tax | 186,000 |
|---|---|
| Excess rent to the super fund | +34,000 |
| Interest | +14,000 |
| Depreciation | +38,000 |
| Adjusted earnings | $272,000 |
Claims the excess rent paid to the superannuation fund as a discretionary related party charge.
Position two
As a credit assessor is likely to read it
| Net profit before tax | 186,000 |
|---|---|
| Excess rent, add-back survives | +34,000 |
| Interest | +14,000 |
| Depreciation | +38,000 |
| Adjusted earnings | $272,000 |
The same figure. Market rent of $62,000 comfortably covers the fund's borrowing costs of $19,000, so the excess is genuinely discretionary.
In the Hartley file the rent add-back did not survive, because the related entity needed the money to service a mortgage. Here it does. Better still, removing the excess rent fixes a compliance problem at the same time: this is the rare case where the correction that improves the submission is also the correction the fund needs.
The review distinguishes between cases. It does not apply a rule.
A healthy file still has six things worth knowing.
Want to see the same review under load? The Hartley group is a six entity civil contracting file with eighteen findings, including a security registration that would stop settlement.
Or read the broker briefing that precedes both demonstrations.