Monitor portfolio · PCT-071 · Sourced card
Spread quarterly packs into one model
Spreads each borrower’s monthly and quarterly pack into one monitoring model, whatever the layout, and flags new or renamed add-backs.
Worked example: The Q2 pack adds a first-time add-back (strategic review fees, $0.6m) and renames another. Both are mapped and flagged. Recomputed leverage 5.29x vs 5.12x on the certificate. See the walk-through ↓
Today vs automated
- Open each borrower packAnalyst · manual
- Re-key into the modelAnalyst · manual, re-keying
- Recompute covenantsPM · manual
- Email / meeting hand-offAnalyst → PM
- A borrower’s monthly or quarterly pack arrivesTrigger: starts on its own
- Read packs and certAutomated · Document store
- Map to one templateAutomated · LLM
- Track headroom over timeAI draft, human review · Monitoring model
- Whether a gap is a definitional judgment, a timing difference or a reporting problemApprove / override · PM
AutomatedAI draft, human reviewHuman onlyTools: Inbox / portal, Document store, LLM, Monitoring model, Loan system
Estimated valuesourced + estimate
180–3,300 analyst hours a year
$27k–$825k of time, vs an assumed $20k–$100k tool cost
Net: −$73k to $805k a year net of tool cost; at the low end of the assumptions it does not cover the tool cost.
Assumptions
- 3–6 analyst hours per borrower quarter today; 0.5–1.5 hours with an agent, including review
- 120–600 borrower quarters 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 late or incomplete deliveries per borrower
- Feed signals into the early-warning brief
- Pre-fill the quarterly portfolio review
- Update internal risk ratings
- Produce the LP portfolio KPI table
Worked walk-throughKey catch: The Q2 pack adds a first-time add-back (strategic review fees, $0.6m) and renames another. Both are mapped and flagged. Recomputed leverage 5.29x vs 5.12x on the certificate.
1. The input
SAMPLE: fictional company, illustrative figures. Not a real borrower, deal or lender group.
Project Meridian’s Q2 2026 monthly pack in the borrower’s own layout, the prior quarter’s spread, and the facility’s EBITDA definition. See the full SAMPLE deal pack →
Q2 2026 monthly pack, EBITDA bridge (SAMPLE, LTM Jun 2026, $m): Net revenue 281.2 · EBITDA (management accounts) 33.2 · Integration costs 1.4 · Recruiting and relocation 1.1 · Legal settlement 0.8 · Strategic review fees 0.6 · Clinic ramp costs 2.3 · Run-rate savings 4.6 · Sponsor monitoring fee 1.2 · DSO 57 days
Borrower’s own layout and labels. The Q1 pack used different line names.
2. What the AI produces
| Borrower’s label (Q2 pack) | Template line | LTM Mar 26 | LTM Jun 26 | Mapping | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net revenue | Revenue | 284.0 | 281.2 | High | |
| EBITDA (management accounts) | Reported EBITDA | 33.9 | 33.2 | High | Sum of monthly P&L; the certificate uses 34.1 |
| Integration costs | Add-back: non-recurring | 1.5 | 1.4 | High | |
| Recruiting and relocation | Add-back: non-recurring | 1.1 | 1.1 | High | |
| Legal settlement | Add-back: non-recurring | 0.9 | 0.8 | High | |
| Strategic review fees | Add-back: non-recurring | n/a | 0.6 | Medium | New this quarter. Not in the QoE or prior packs |
| Clinic ramp costs | Add-back: de novo losses | 2.2 | 2.3 | Medium | Renamed. Q1 pack called it “De novo clinic losses” |
| Run-rate savings (billing, procurement) | Add-back: run-rate cost savings | 4.4 | 4.6 | High | Within the 20% cap |
| Sponsor monitoring fee | Add-back: sponsor fee | 1.2 | 1.2 | High | |
| Days sales outstanding | KPI: DSO (days) | 53 | 57 | High | Up 9 days in two quarters |
Covenant row written to the model: recomputed Total Net Leverage 5.29x against 7.00x; the certificate shows 5.12x. Non-recurring items are 11.7% of reported EBITDA, over the 10% cap, so 0.6 is excluded. Line-by-line certificate check →
| Monitoring history | Q4 25 | Q1 26 | Q2 26 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recomputed Total Net Leverage (covenant 7.00x) | 4.71x | 4.95x | 5.29x |
| Leverage per certificate | 4.66x | 4.88x | 5.12x |
| Non-recurring add-backs, % of reported EBITDA | 8% | 10% | 12% |
| DSO (days) | 50 | 53 | 57 |
3. What a person still checks
- Ask the borrower what the strategic review is (a sale process, a refinancing, a restructuring adviser) and whether more fees are coming. The answer matters more than the $0.6m.
- Confirm “Clinic ramp costs” is the same item as last quarter’s de novo losses, not a wider bucket.
- Approve the two medium-confidence mappings before the quarter is locked in the model.
- Decide whether a rising leverage trend with headroom intact is a watchlist matter.
4. Where it breaks
- Borrowers change layouts and labels; a silent mis-mapping puts an add-back in the wrong cap bucket.
- The agent applies the definition it was given; side letters or prior amendments that change caps must be loaded too.
- Monthly packs are usually unaudited; a gap to the certificate is a question, not a finding.
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 (21 vendors listed), build or hybrid, with the trade-offs of each.
Allvue, Orion (Private Credit AI), Lumonic, Chronograph, Cobalt, 73 Strings, Canoe Intelligence, Finley, Intain, Indus Valley Partners (IVP for Credit), Alphastream, CovenantIQ, Oxane Partners, Alkymi, Henon, Claira, Ellis, Goldslate, Raven (RavenRisk AI), Hypercore, Crediflow AI
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 team3–6 h → 0.5–1.5 h per borrower quarter (estimate); coverage goes from a sample of borrowers, quarterly to every borrower, every delivery.
How it works
Full title: Every borrower's quarterly pack, spread into one monitoring model: covenant headroom tracked quarter by quarter
“The Q2 pack added an add-back nobody mentioned and renamed another. The spread catches both.”
Scenario
A portfolio monitoring team receives monthly financials and a quarterly compliance certificate from each borrower and needs them in one standard model, with covenant headroom tracked over time.
What the human still decides
Whether a gap is a definitional judgment, a timing difference or a reporting problem, and whether the name moves on the watchlist.
Why it matters
Monitoring vendors now sell AI ingestion of borrower financials and compliance certificates (Alkymi launched its private credit product in Feb 2026), which says the manual spreading step is where teams feel the load.
What the record shows
Checked 2026-10-18.
Alkymi (Feb 2026) extracts compliance certificates and financial statements and cross-validates ratios against covenants; Equipped describes AI-driven ingestion of borrower financials with covenant tracking; Allvue's Portfolio Intelligence (Jul 2026) adds covenant headroom monitoring.
Try it: prompt and data
You are a private credit monitoring analyst. Using the attached compliance certificate, monthly financials and the facility's EBITDA definition (with caps), produce one row in our monitoring template: revenue, reported EBITDA, each add-back by category with its cap, net debt, covenant ratio and headroom. Recompute the ratio yourself. List every difference from the certificate with the page it comes from. Do not assess credit quality.
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
- Direct lending, ABF / asset-based
- Who uses it
- Portfolio monitoring analyst, Portfolio manager
- Build
- Vendor + in-house
- In-house
- Extraction plus a fixed template; definitions and caps must be configured per facility.
- Last verified
- 2026-10-15
Vendors that claim this capability
- Allvue: Portfolio Intelligence: covenant headroom and KPI monitoring, financial-extraction
- CovenantIQ: reporting-collection, financial-extraction, covenant-tests
- Lumonic: reporting-collection, financial-extraction, covenant-tests
- Oxane Partners: financial-extraction, reporting-collection
- Alkymi: financial-extraction, covenant-tests
- 16 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
- Equipped: direct lending platform with AI-driven ingestion of borrower financials and covenant tracking
- Alkymi: launch of Alkymi Private Credit, extracting loan agent notices, compliance certificates and financial statements (4 Feb 2026)
- Allvue: Portfolio Intelligence with covenant headroom and KPI monitoring
- Deal packs used in the walk-throughs (SAMPLE, fictional companies)
Related cards
- PCT-007 Don't trust the compliance cert: re-run the covenant math from the monthly pack, automatically
- PCT-008 EBITDA add-back autopsy: how much of this borrower's EBITDA exists only in the credit agreement?
- PCT-076 Early-warning brief across the book: financials, reporting behaviour, requests and news in one cited watchlist draft
Next step
Get new walk-throughs
Not investment advice. Names marked SAMPLE are fictional. Found an error? See the corrections log.