THE PROBLEM NOBODY TALKS ABOUT
Most feasibility models look healthy on paper. Strong IRR, reasonable margins, clean sensitivity tables. Then the project gets underway, and somewhere around month eight, the developer is scrambling for bridge financing they never planned for. Working capital stress is one of the most common reasons projects stall, and it's rarely modeled properly.
This isn't a skills gap. It's a structural problem in how feasibility models are built.
WHAT THE WORKING CAPITAL STRESS ACTUALLY MEANS IN DEVELOPMENT
Working capital stress happens when a project is cash-flow negative for longer than the model predicted, even if the overall return still looks fine. Construction drawings get delayed. Presales fall short of thresholds. A subcontractor goes under and causes a six-week delay. Each of these events creates a gap between when money goes out and when it comes in.
The model shows you the endpoint. It rarely shows you the journey, and the journey is where projects die.
WHY MODELS MISS IT
The first issue is timing. Most feasibility models work on a monthly cadence at best, and many use a quarterly. That's too coarse to catch the real cash valleys. A project might show positive working capital in Q2 but be dangerously short during weeks three through seven of that quarter.
The second issue is that construction cost drawdowns are usually modeled as smooth S-curves. In reality, they're lumpy. A major concrete pour, a steel delivery, or a façade package can represent 15-20% of total construction cost, hitting in a single month. That kind of concentration just doesn't show up in an averaged drawdown schedule.
The third and most overlooked issue is that revenue receipts are assumed to be on time. They're not. Settlements get delayed. Solicitors take longer than expected. Buyers fall over at the last minute and get replaced. Even in a strong market, there's always a lag between when you expect money and when it actually lands in your account.
WHAT A PROPER WORKING CAPITAL ANALYSIS SHOULD INCLUDE
A credible working capital stress test needs to account for: a construction draw schedule that reflects actual milestone payments, not averages; a revenue receipts schedule that applies realistic settlement lag (not just contract dates); a minimum cash reserve buffer typically 8-12% of construction cost, depending on project complexity; and scenario testing for what happens if 15-20% of presales settle 60-90 days late.
None of this is exotic. It's just rarely done because the standard feasibility template doesn't have a row for it.
THE REAL COST
When working capital stress hits unplanned, the options are all expensive. Emergency bridging finance at elevated rates. Selling down equity to bring in a capital partner. Delays that trigger penalty clauses. In some cases, forced early sales at discounts are used to generate liquidity. Any one of these can turn a 22% IRR project into a 14% one.
The irony is that the model showed 22% all along. It just didn't show you how tight the path to that return actually was.
Top comments (0)