Wie überprüft man die Prognosen eines Unternehmens bei der Restrukturierung?

The other underlying problem is the cost of financial advisors to confirm the assumptions. The rapid check is compare the assumptions to past performance to make sure the projections are realistic and not MAI (made as instructed) to meet management or lender requirements.

All these steps are relatively obvious and quite possible given sufficient time, interest and resources. The problem is that getting to the bottom of these things is exhausting demanding access, experience and vast amounts of time. That gets mustered to some extent for headline cases where it pays, a poor charade for everything else.

In large part that is why financial advisors are hired. Expertise and capability to cut through the chaff (fairly) quickly. Not necessarily cheap, but a good F/A firm will make a huge difference.

Remember that the issues are the same for smaller businesses not in the public limelight. Access to information is a must and there must be an eye to anomalies.

While these are all important parts of the groundwork for evaluating projections, one also should consider changes- a loss (or gain) of a material customer, changes in suppliers, changes in production methodology, changes in strategic direction, etc.- all of which could cause reasonable projections to deviate materially from past trends. And assumptions should be evaluated based not only on company statements but verified to the extent possible by data from independent sources. Also, know that projections always include some mix of reasonable certainty and aspirational goals, and the two need to be evaluated in different ways.

Projections can never be verified except well after the fact, so the best one can do is to check for reasonableness and potential range of variation around key variables. Also, financial stress and restructuring place severe stresses on businesses that can create additional uncertainties. Management's attention can get diverted, key employees can leave, suppliers can change terms, facilities can be closed. Also, the priorities of new owners and their strategic vision for the business must be considered.

Depending on who orchestrated these projections. In most instances, projections are far from reality. Frontier Communications was the last company that posted meaningful projections

Going from goal to strategy to tactics also allows us to know the story: revenue to earnings to cash flow. Particularly when reviewing 13-week (i.e. quarterly) statements, there is a logical way to verify that everything fits. Because it usually follows a forecast for the period, this is an excellent way to dot the i's and cross the t's. Does the performance make sense given the forecast? Did the forecast sync well with the story? Do the ratios agree with everything? When this is done, the questions are answered.

A restructuring will normally involve a trading business generating some form of revenues. This should allow time to test the projections in real time. Watch the cash flow like a hawk and do not commit (if you are being asked to do so) unless and until you are satisfied that the actual cash experience matches the projections. If you are being asked to commit without having the opportunity to evaluate the projections against trading results, even over a short period, then serious questions should be asked about the acceptability of the risk of any proposed investment unless fully asset backed by easily realisable collateral. Remember, cash is king.

I would check for margin for error, particularly in the forecast cash flows. The company can be off in timing, unforecasted one time costs, loss of customers, and there must be enough credit lines to make it through the first 2-3 years