CMA data vs project report vs DPR: which does your bank actually want?

Short answer: CMA data answers how much working capital does this business need? A project report answers is this specific investment viable and can it repay a term loan? A DPR answers the same question as a project report, plus technical feasibility, market study and risk analysis, and is used for larger or scheme-linked projects.

The three get used interchangeably in conversation — including, sometimes, by branch staff — and preparing the wrong one costs a full cycle with the bank. Here is how to tell them apart.

The distinction in one line each

The underlying split is working capital versus capital expenditure. Money that cycles through the business — buy stock, sell it, collect, buy again — is working capital, and CMA data is how a bank sizes it. Money that buys a durable asset is capex, and a project report is how a bank appraises it.

What actually goes inside each

CMA data runs to six or seven prescribed statements: existing and proposed limits, operating statement, analysis of balance sheet, comparative current assets and liabilities, computation of maximum permissible bank finance, fund flow, and ratio analysis. It is heavily formatted, largely numerical, and derived from your audited financials projected forward. The full walkthrough is in CMA data format: the seven statements.

A project report is narrative plus financials. Typically: a description of the business and promoters, the cost of the project itemised, the means of finance showing promoter contribution against borrowing, projected profitability, cash flow, a repayment schedule, break-even analysis, and the debt service coverage ratio. There is no single mandated format — banks accept a reasonable structure provided the numbers are complete and consistent.

A DPR takes the project report and adds depth: technical feasibility and process details, machinery specifications and sourcing, market demand and competition, raw material and utility availability, manpower plan, implementation timeline, statutory approvals, environmental considerations where relevant, and a risk and sensitivity analysis. It is a substantially larger exercise, and it exists because the appraising body needs to satisfy itself the project can physically be built and commercially sustained — not merely that the arithmetic works.

Which one your situation calls for

A running business renewing its CC limit. CMA data. Renewals are the most common trigger of all, and banks generally expect them annually. Nothing else is usually required unless the limit is being materially enhanced.

A trader seeking a first working-capital limit. CMA data, built on whatever financial history exists. Where the books are thin, the reconciliation with GST returns and income-tax filings becomes the credibility test.

A manufacturer buying machinery. A project report, appraised on DSCR. If the same business also holds a CC limit, expect the bank to want CMA data alongside — the facilities are appraised together, not separately.

A new venture with no trading history. A project report at minimum. Where the amount is large, the sector is capital-intensive, or a government scheme is involved, a DPR.

Anything with a subsidy or scheme attached. Assume a DPR until told otherwise. Scheme-linked applications generally carry their own formats and appraisal requirements, and these change from time to time — so the operative version of the scheme guidelines matters more than any general description.

The overlap people miss

A business expanding usually needs both. Buying a new machine is capex, appraised on a project report. But the expanded capacity means more stock and more receivables, which needs a larger working-capital limit, appraised on CMA data. Applying for the term loan alone is a common and expensive omission: the machine arrives, output rises, and there is no working capital to fund the extra inventory.

Where both are prepared together, the projections must agree. The sales figure in the project report and the sales figure driving receivables in the CMA have to be the same number. Two documents prepared separately, with different assumptions, is a straightforward way to have the whole application questioned.

How to work out what you have been asked for

Bank requirement letters often name the document loosely. Read for the facility instead:

• The letter says cash credit, overdraft, working capital, drawing power, or renewal → CMA data
• The letter says term loan, machinery, equipment, expansion, or repayment schedule → project report
• The letter mentions a scheme, subsidy, technical appraisal, or feasibility → DPR
• The letter says both a limit and a term loan → both

Where it is genuinely ambiguous, one clarifying question to the relationship manager saves days. It is a routine question and asking it does not signal inexperience — preparing the wrong document does.

For what goes into the working-capital side and how the limit is computed, see CMA data for bank loans.

Once you have established that CMA data is what you were asked for, the process from there — what to assemble, who prepares it, and how the branch appraises it — is in the CMA data process end to end.