CMA data format: the seven statements, filled in

If your bank has sent you a blank CMA template, the difficulty is rarely the arithmetic. It is knowing what each form is asking for, and how the forms constrain each other — because a figure you enter in one statement reappears, in a different shape, in three others.

This walks through all seven statements on one consistent set of numbers, so you can see how they connect. For what CMA data is and how it fits into a loan application, start with the main page on CMA data for bank loans.

The example we will use throughout

A trading business, projecting the year ahead:

Every form below draws on these figures.

Form I — Existing and proposed limits

The simplest form, and the one people fill in most carelessly. It lists every credit facility you already have: the sanctioned limit, the outstanding balance, the security offered, and the rate. Then the limit now being applied for.

Two things matter here. Disclose every facility, including those with other banks — credit information reports will show them anyway, and an omission reads as concealment rather than oversight. And make sure the "limit applied for" agrees with the MPBF you arrive at in Form V. Asking for ₹75 lakh when your own Form V computes ₹50 lakh invites the obvious question.

Form II — Operating statement

The profit and loss account, restated across the CMA's columns: past actuals, current-year estimate, and projections.

The credit team is reading the trend across the columns, not the absolute numbers. A projection that jumps sharply from the last audited year needs a stated reason — a new contract, added capacity, a fresh distribution line. Growth asserted without a cause is the most common thing that gets queried.

Keep the gross margin honest. If your audited margin has run at 15% for three years and the projection shows 22% with no explanation, the whole set of projections loses credibility, including the parts that were accurate.

Form III — Analysis of balance sheet

Your balance sheet reclassified the way a lender reads it: liabilities separated into current, term and net worth; assets into current, fixed and non-current.

The reclassification is the point. Items you may treat as current in your own accounts get moved — instalments of a term loan falling due within twelve months come into current liabilities, while loans from directors and family are often treated as quasi-equity if they are formally subordinated. Where those balances sit changes your current ratio, so this form quietly determines the outcome of Form VII.

Form IV — Comparative current assets and current liabilities

The detail behind the working-capital cycle, and the form credit teams scrutinise hardest — because it is where inflation is easiest and most visible.

Each item is expressed as a holding period:

These get compared against your own history and against the sector. Stretching inventory from 64 to 90 days inflates the working-capital gap and therefore the limit you can claim — and it is the first thing an experienced credit officer tests. If your holding periods are genuinely lengthening, say why: a new product line with slower turns, a customer segment with longer credit terms. An unexplained stretch reads as manufacturing a bigger number.

Form V — Computation of MPBF

Where the limit is actually decided. Two methods, and the difference between them is real money:

Working-capital gap = current assets − other current liabilities = ₹1,00,00,000 − ₹25,00,000 = ₹75,00,000

Method II asks the borrower to bring more of their own money, so it yields the smaller limit. It is the stricter test and is commonly applied above a threshold the bank sets.

Now look at what each does to your current ratio, with the limit drawn:

This is where the famous 1.33:1 benchmark comes from. It is not a rule handed down separately — it is the arithmetic result of Method II. If your projected current ratio lands below 1.33, you are implicitly asking for more than Method II permits, and the file will be questioned on exactly that point.

Form VI — Fund flow statement

Sources and uses of funds across the projection period: profit generated, capital introduced, loans raised, against assets bought, loans repaid, drawings taken.

Its job is to catch internal contradictions. If Form II projects ₹12 lakh of retained profit but Form III shows net worth rising by ₹30 lakh with no capital introduced, the fund flow will not balance — and the file goes back. Most CMA rejections that arrive as "please recheck the statements" are a fund flow that does not tie.

Form VII — Ratio analysis

The screens the file is judged against. On our numbers:

Thresholds vary by bank, sector and scheme, so treat the usual figures — current ratio around 1.33, TOL/TNW up to roughly 3, interest coverage of 2 or better — as the common screens rather than fixed rules. A file can carry one weak ratio if the rest is strong and the reason is explained. Two or three weak ratios with no narrative is where applications stall.

What ties it together

The seven forms are one model viewed from seven angles. Sales in Form II drive receivables in Form IV, which drive the gap in Form V, which sets the limit that changes the ratios in Form VII, all of which must reconcile in Form VI. Change one assumption and five forms move.

That is why a CMA assembled form by form, each in isolation, almost always comes back from the bank — and why the reconciliation, not the data entry, is the actual work.