Guide
SIDF and bank business plan requirements
The honest answer to 'what format do they require?' is: check the institution's current guidance. What can be described here is the shape such documents generally take.
Development-finance and bank applications generally require a clear use of funds, credible financial projections, evidence of repayment capacity, a risk section and supporting documents. The exact format is set by each institution and must be confirmed with them.
What such documents generally contain
| Element | What it demonstrates |
|---|---|
| Applicant and entity details | Who is borrowing, and the legal structure |
| Project description | What is being financed and why |
| Use of funds | Line-item allocation with quotes where available |
| Market assessment | Demand for the output of the project |
| Technical and operational plan | Capacity, equipment, staffing, timeline |
| Financial projections | Revenue, costs, profit, cash flow, debt service |
| Repayment capacity | Coverage ratios and sensitivities |
| Security and guarantees | Collateral, guarantees, owner contribution |
| Risks and mitigations | What could go wrong and how it is handled |
Why this site does not publish a required format
Because formats change, differ between institutions, and are sometimes template-specific. A website that lists "the requirements" is usually repeating an old blog post.
The consequence of a wrong format claim is not embarrassment; it is a rejected application months later. So the rule here is simple: any specific requirement is verified against the institution's own published guidance at the time of the engagement, and the document records what was checked.
No statement on this page asserts a specific eligibility threshold, document list, financing ratio or form number for SIDF, any Saudi bank, or any programme. Those must be confirmed from the institution's current official material before use.
What can be prepared in advance
Even before the format is confirmed, most of the work is transferable:
- Use-of-funds schedule with quotes, quantities and payment timing.
- Financial model with monthly cash flow and debt service.
- Downside scenario showing coverage under lower revenue.
- Market evidence specific to the project's output and location.
- Owner contribution and security documentation.
- Project timeline with procurement and mobilisation phases.
If the institution later requires a particular template, the content maps into it. That is why building the model first is usually the right order.
The repayment test
Lenders look at whether cash generated by the project covers instalments with a margin. A simple way to present it:
| Year | Cash generated | Debt service | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 |
If coverage is thin in year one, say so and explain the mitigation — a grace period, a phased drawdown, or additional equity. Concealing a thin year rarely works; credit analysts find it.
Common weaknesses
- A use-of-funds table that does not match the asset list.
- Revenue projections with no link to capacity.
- Costs that omit mobilisation, spares, training or working capital.
- No treatment of delay.
- A risk section that lists only external risks and none of the project's own.
Related
Bank loan business plan service, financial modelling and business plan writing.
A document pack checklist
Applications vary, but the supporting material usually includes most of the following. Assemble it in parallel with the plan, because paperwork is the usual cause of delay.
| Item | Owner | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial registration | Company | Current and consistent with the applicant name |
| Articles of association | Company | Showing ownership |
| Financial statements | Finance | Audited or management accounts, as required |
| Bank statements | Finance | Usually the last 6–12 months |
| Supplier quotations | Procurement | For the assets being financed |
| Lease or premises documents | Operations | Where the project requires a site |
| Project timeline | Operations | Procurement, mobilisation, commissioning |
| Owner contribution evidence | Shareholders | Source of equity |
| Feasibility or market evidence | Consultant | Where required by the institution |
A plan referencing documents that do not exist yet is a plan with an unfinished foundation.
What the timeline usually looks like
| Phase | Typical duration |
|---|---|
| Guidance check and document collection | 2–4 weeks |
| Plan and model preparation | 3–5 weeks |
| Internal review and signatures | 1 week |
| Submission and initial review | Several weeks |
| Clarifications and site visit | Variable |
| Credit decision | Variable |
The second half is outside your control. What is inside your control is submitting a complete pack on the first attempt, which is the single biggest factor in avoiding months of back-and-forth.
Working with the relationship manager
Ask three questions early: which template applies, which documents are mandatory, and who signs off. Those answers determine the plan's structure. Guessing at them is how applicants end up reformatting a finished document.
Presenting the project timeline
Lenders finance a schedule as much as a business. A credible timeline shows dependencies, not just dates:
| Phase | Duration | Depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Licensing and approvals | Authority processing time | |
| Site preparation | Handover of premises | |
| Equipment procurement | Supplier lead time and payment | |
| Installation and commissioning | Site readiness | |
| Recruitment and training | Equipment availability | |
| Pilot or soft opening | Licensing inspection | |
| Full operation | Ramp assumptions |
Two mistakes recur. The first is a timeline that begins at financial close but assumes licensing already happened. The second is a procurement schedule that ignores the payment terms attached to the finance. Both produce a project that is technically funded but operationally late.
A simple sensitivity helps: show the effect on debt service if commissioning slips by three months. If the answer is uncomfortable, the timeline is part of the funding requirement, not an administrative detail.