The Differences Between Obtaining Financing and a Bankable Deal
In international finance, a persistent misconception continues to undermine legitimate projects and frustrate well-intentioned principals: the belief that securing financing automatically means the transaction is complete. Over the years, I have observed many then prospects arrive at my desk after celebrating a signed financing agreement—only to discover that their bank will not accept the incoming funds. This is where they became clients of ECM. These are not isolated cases. They reflect a deeper misunderstanding between having a financing commitment and having a bankable deal. The two are not the same, and the gap between them can determine whether a transaction succeeds or collapses.
Financing is often viewed as the finish line, but in reality, it is only the starting point. When a funder issues a term sheet, prepares allocation documents, signs a loan agreement, or confirms readiness to disburse capital, what they are providing is an expression of willingness. It is a commitment on paper. It signals intent from the funder’s side, but intent is not execution. A deal can be fully financed and still fail long before funds reach the client’s account.
A transaction becomes bankable only when the receiving financial institution confirms that it can accept, process, and settle the incoming funds. This step is governed not by the funder, but by the receiving bank’s internal policies, compliance standards, and risk appetite. A bankable deal requires that the receiving institution is able to validate the legitimacy of the transaction, authenticate the sender, clear all AML and OFAC checks, ensure the transfer method is acceptable, and confirm that the receiving entity itself is properly structured and justified. Without all of these factors in alignment, no funds will ever be credited—regardless of how strong the financing documentation may appear.
The reason so many “funded” deals fail is rarely about the money itself. More commonly, the failure is structural. Many clients operate with entities that lack the governance, documentation, or operational footprint required to justify the incoming amount. Others initiate transfers using SWIFT methods that Tier-1 banks simply do not accept. In some cases, the funder’s jurisdictional protocols are incompatible with U.S. or EU banking practices. And in many instances, clients fall short on the most basic requirement: they do not pre-clear the transaction with their bank. Banks are not obligated to accept funds they cannot validate. When the transaction lacks clarity or the structure appears inconsistent with the client’s normal profile, the bank is required—by law—to reject or freeze the transfer.
A properly structured receiving entity is one of the most important determinants of bankability. This includes its corporate documents, tax identifiers, shareholder structure, commercial rationale, and compliance package. Banks routinely request articles of incorporation, organizational charts, purpose-of-funds and source-of-funds letters, beneficial ownership certificates, and supporting contracts. Without this foundation, even the most well-intended transfer becomes high-risk in the eyes of compliance teams.
Ultimately, a deal is only real when it clears the bank. This means the sending bank transmits the correct SWIFT sequence; the receiving bank authenticates the message; compliance officers sign off; AML systems detect no conflicts; and the funds settle into the client’s account. Until those conditions are met, the deal remains theoretical—regardless of how impressive the documentation may look.
Transforming financing into a bankable deal requires preparation, coordination, and expertise. It demands compliance-led structuring, advanced engagement with the receiving bank, alignment with permitted SWIFT protocols, and active management of communication between both institutions with the appropriate posturing. This is the work that ensures money not only moves, but moves cleanly, legally, and successfully. Importantly, this process must begin before funding is agreed upon—not after. Too many transactions fail because professionals are brought into the conversation only when problems arise, rather than at the stage where structural guidance, banking compliance, and transactional strategy should be shaping the deal itself. When experienced professionals participate early, the financing agreed on is inherently aligned with what banks will actually accept, reducing risk, preventing unnecessary delays, and protecting all parties involved.
The lesson is straightforward: financing is easy to obtain. Bankability requires engineering. One represents a commitment. The other represents capability. A financing agreement can be signed in an hour. A bankable deal requires deliberate, coordinated steps to satisfy real-world banking standards. The question is no longer “Do you have financing?”—the real question is “Will your bank accept it?”
This distinction, often overlooked, is what separates failed transactions from completed ones. And it is where experienced firms bring immeasurable value—protecting clients from costly missteps and ensuring that their financing can translate into actual, settled capital.