For the bank
It has to show the debt is sustainable: that the expected cash flows cover the repayments, with a margin.
Businesses · Planning
It serves two different purposes that are often confused: persuading someone to give you money, and working out for yourself whether the project stands up. The second use is the more valuable one, and it is also the one almost nobody bothers with.
A business plan has an external function (presenting the project to a bank, to a body that awards grants, to a potential partner) and an internal function, which is finding out whether the numbers add up.
The external function produces documents that are polished in form and optimistic in substance. The internal function produces numbers that sometimes say not to go ahead, and that is why it gets skipped.
A well-built plan serves both, because an outside reader can almost always tell the difference between a plan that has been reasoned through and one worked backwards from the desired result.
It has to show the debt is sustainable: that the expected cash flows cover the repayments, with a margin.
It must follow the structure the call requires and stand up to the stated assessment criteria.
It sets out what each person contributes, what they expect and over what time frame.
It tells you how much money you need before the business can support itself, which is the most important question and the one least often asked.
The structure varies with the reader, but these parts are always there. The narrative makes the numbers readable; the numbers make the narrative credible.
There is only one rule: every number must come from reasoning that can be checked, not from a growth percentage applied to an invented starting figure.
The difference between a credible plan and one that is not shows up in three places: where the first revenue comes from, how long it takes to collect it, and how many costs build up in the meantime.
Not "a share of the market", but: how many customers, how often, at what price. Every factor must be a quantity you can estimate.
Fixed costs set the break-even point, variable costs the margin. Mixing them up makes the plan unreadable.
It is not the same as the profit and loss account. An invoice issued is not money collected, and taxes are paid on an accruals basis, not on collections.
The moment when cash is at its lowest. That is the money you need, not the total of the investments.
People who assess plans read a great many of them, and spot the same flaws every time.
| Mistake | Why it stands out |
|---|---|
| Straight-line double-digit growth for five years | No market behaves like that, and the reader knows it |
| No customer acquisition cost | Customers do not arrive for free: if the cost is not there, an item is missing |
| Revenue from the first month | It ignores the start-up period, which always exists |
| No cautious scenario | It signals that the plan has not been tested |
| No pay for the owner | If you do not pay yourself, the plan is not sustainable: it is a subsidy |
| Taxes and contributions missing from the cash plan | It is the mistake that kills the most real businesses, not just plans |
| Competition described as non-existent | Either the market is not there, or nobody looked |
If the plan does not answer these, it is not ready.
The bank does not assess the idea: it assesses your ability to repay. The plan is there to show that the expected cash flows cover the repayments even in a less favourable scenario.
A plan that ends up in a drawer has served only its external function. The internal one starts the next day.
Formally, no: no plan is required to open a partita IVA (Italian VAT number).
In substance, yes, at least in its simplest form: how much you invoice, how much you spend, how much is left and how much money you need in the first months. Four numbers, and knowing those four numbers changes your decisions.
Three years is the standard for most situations; five when there are investments with long payback periods or when the grant call requires it.
Beyond three years the numbers are indicative. What really counts is the month-by-month detail for the first year, where the real funding need shows up.
As a structure, yes, and it actually helps you not forget sections. The problem is never the format: it is whether the numbers inside have been built from the bottom up rather than copied.
A nicely laid-out plan with invented revenue does more harm than no plan at all, because it also undermines the credibility of whatever is good in the project.
The technical part, with the data in hand, can be built in a reasonably short time. The long part is gathering the data: real supplier prices, the cost of premises, payment times in your sector.
If you arrive with that information already gathered, the work is cut in half, and you end up with a plan that is much easier to defend.
Bring us the idea and the data you already have: expected revenue, known costs, timing. From there we build something that holds up when someone else reads it.