Monitor portfolio · PCT-072 · Sourced card
Re-run the borrowing base certificate
An asset-based lender receives a monthly borrowing base certificate on an equipment-lease warehouse and wants it rebuilt from the receivables tape before funding the next draw.
Worked example: The certificate shows $6.2m of availability. Re-run from the tape it is about $1.2m: 37 restructured leases were left in, and the 35% trucking concentration excess wasn’t deducted. See the walk-through ↓
Today vs automated
- Read the BBCAnalyst · manual
- Filter the tape by handAnalyst · manual
- Recompute availabilityPM · manual
- Email / meeting hand-offAnalyst → PM
- The monthly borrowing base certificate arrivesTrigger: starts on its own
- Extract eligibility rulesAutomated · Document store
- Test every receivableAutomated · LLM
- Flag availability gapsAI draft, human review · Monitoring model
- Whether to fund the draw, ask the borrower to restate, or send a field examApprove / override · PM
AutomatedAI draft, human reviewHuman onlyTools: Inbox / portal, Document store, LLM, Monitoring model, Loan system
Estimated valuesourced + estimate
210–1,800 analyst hours a year
$32k–$450k of time, vs an assumed $20k–$100k tool cost
Net: −$68k to $430k a year net of tool cost; at the low end of the assumptions it does not cover the tool cost.
Assumptions
- 5–8 analyst hours per certificate today; 0.5–1.5 hours with an agent, including review
- 60–240 certificates a year for one team
- $150–250 per hour loaded cost
- Tool or build cost $20,000–100,000 a year (both)
Sourced figures
Estimate, based on the assumptions shown; your numbers will differ. How we estimate
What else it can do for the team
- Track certified vs recomputed availability over time
- Draft the borrower query on each difference
- Schedule a targeted field exam
- Flag concentration drift before it breaches
- Prepare the lender-side funding approval
Worked walk-throughKey catch: The certificate shows $6.2m of availability. Re-run from the tape it is about $1.2m: 37 restructured leases were left in, and the 35% trucking concentration excess wasn’t deducted.
1. The input
SAMPLE: fictional company, illustrative figures. Not a real borrower, deal or lender group.
A monthly borrowing base certificate on an equipment-lease warehouse, the facility’s eligibility definition and the receivables tape. See the SAMPLE pack →
“Eligible Receivable means a Receivable that (a) is not more than 60 days past due, (b) is not a Defaulted Receivable or a Restructured Receivable (any Receivable whose scheduled term has been extended by more than six months)… Excess Concentration Amount: the amount by which Eligible Receivables of any single Obligor exceed 2.0%, or of Obligors in the trucking and transportation industry exceed 35.0%, of all Eligible Receivables. Advance Rate: 85%.”
Warehouse facility agreement, §1.01 (SAMPLE).
| Borrowing base certificate, 30 Sep 2026 (SAMPLE) | $m |
|---|---|
| Aggregate receivables balance | 182.40 |
| Less 60+ days past due | (4.10) |
| Less defaulted | (1.30) |
| Less obligor concentration excess | (1.55) |
| Less missing title documents | (3.45) |
| Eligible receivables | 172.00 |
| Borrowing base at 85% | 146.20 |
| Advances outstanding | 140.00 |
| Availability | 6.20 |
2. What the AI produces
| Recomputation | $m | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Eligible receivables per certificate | 172.00 | |
| Less Restructured Receivables (term extended over 6 months) | (2.20) | 37 tape rows; §1.01(b) |
| Less trucking concentration excess (35% cap) | (3.67) | Trucking 63.10 vs cap 59.43; omitted on the certificate |
| Recomputed eligible receivables | 166.13 | |
| Borrowing base at 85% | 141.21 | Certificate: 146.20 |
| Availability | 1.21 | Certificate: 6.20 |
3. What a person still checks
- Pull the 37 restructured rows and confirm the extensions really exceed six months on the servicing system.
- Confirm the industry codes: a misclassified obligor moves the trucking excess.
- Decide whether to fund the requested draw against about 1.2 of availability, ask for a restated certificate, or bring forward a field exam.
4. Where it breaks
- Tape fields don’t always carry what the definition needs (for example the original term), so some criteria can’t be tested from the tape.
- Concentration limits are calculated in a set order; applying them in a different order changes the excess.
- A clean recomputation doesn’t prove the receivables exist: double-pledging needs lien searches and verification, not a spreadsheet.
How you get thereFour steps from prompting to an agentic workflow; most teams start at step 2.
Needs: an approved AI tool, a confidentiality policy.
Risk: unchecked answers, data pasted outside policy.
Needs: field definitions, a template, document parsing.
Risk: breaks silently when formats change.
Typical starting point
Needs: inbox/doc-store access, system write-back, logging.
Risk: acting on a misread; needs review gates.
The automated lane above
Needs: shared data model, permissions, audit trail, exception queue.
Risk: errors compound across steps; needs monitoring.
Solution optionsBuy (6 vendors listed), build or hybrid, with the trade-offs of each.
Cardo AI, Lumonic, dv01, Intain, Oxane Partners, Setpoint
Fastest start; you adapt to the product's data model and pricing.
An LLM API, a document parser, a vector or document store, your data warehouse, and a review queue.
Fits your definitions exactly; you own maintenance and controls.
Vendor extraction feeding your own checks, templates and systems.
Common middle path; two things to integrate and govern.
Listing is not endorsement.
What changes for the team5–8 h → 0.5–1.5 h per certificate (estimate); coverage goes from a sample of borrowers, quarterly to every borrower, every delivery.
How it works
Full title: Borrowing base certificate, re-run from the tape: eligibility, concentration excess and true availability
“The certificate shows $6.2m of availability. The tape shows about $1.2m.”
Scenario
An asset-based lender receives a monthly borrowing base certificate on an equipment-lease warehouse and wants it rebuilt from the receivables tape before funding the next draw.
What the human still decides
Whether to fund the draw, ask the borrower to restate, or send a field exam. The agent never approves an advance.
Why it matters
Several vendors now sell borrowing base certificate automation, and one has published a case study at a large credit manager.
What the record shows
Checked 2026-10-18.
Cardo AI sells borrowing base automation with eligibility and concentration testing and third-party reconciliation, and published a March 2026 case study on its use at Blackstone Credit and Insurance for drawdown workflows; Lama AI markets certificate automation to banks and Botminds markets certificate rebuilds to asset-based lenders.
Try it: prompt and data
Using the facility agreement excerpt (eligibility, concentration limits, advance rate) and the attached receivables tape, rebuild the borrowing base as of the certificate date. Show gross balance, each ineligible category, concentration excess, eligible balance, borrowing base and availability next to the borrower's certificate. Cite the clause and tape rows behind each difference.
Data
Walk-through uses a SAMPLE deal pack: fictional company, illustrative figures. In practice the inputs are your own confidential borrower or fund documents; keep them inside an approved environment.
Who uses it, vendors and build
- Segments
- ABF / asset-based, Fund finance
- Who uses it
- ABF portfolio manager, Collateral analyst, Fund ops
- Build
- Vendor + in-house
- In-house
- Rules are facility-specific; vendors configure them per deal. A script works once the rules are written down.
- Last verified
- 2026-10-15
Vendors that claim this capability
- Cardo AI: Borrowing base automation and third-party reconciliation
- dv01: abf-tape-review, borrowing-base
- Intain: abf-tape-review, borrowing-base
- Setpoint: abf-tape-review, borrowing-base
- Lumonic: borrowing-base
- 1 more vendors claim related capabilities. See all vendors for this stage →
Tags reflect each vendor's own public claims at the linked page (checked 2026-10-15). Not tested, ranked or endorsed.
Sources and related
- Cardo AI: borrowing base automation, eligibility and concentration testing, third-party reconciliation
- Cardo AI case study: Blackstone Credit and Insurance, drawdown and capital-call workflows (PDF, Mar 2026)
- Lama AI: borrowing base certificate automation
- Botminds: borrowing base verification for asset-based lenders
- Deal packs used in the walk-throughs (SAMPLE, fictional companies)
Related cards
- PCT-069 ABF data-tape anomaly screen: duplicate collateral, stale borrowing-base assets and impossible loan fields
- PCT-035 Will the new concentration limit bite? Test your portfolio against your back-leverage facility's eligibility limits
- PCT-071 Every borrower's quarterly pack, spread into one monitoring model: covenant headroom tracked quarter by quarter
Next step
Related use cases
Get new walk-throughs
Not investment advice. Names marked SAMPLE are fictional. Found an error? See the corrections log.