How to Answer “How do you decide how much leverage a company can support in an LBO?” in Private Equity Interviews
This is a common LBO leverage assessment prompt in associate-level private equity interview prep: “How do you decide how much leverage a company can support in an LBO?” Interviewers want to hear a repeatable debt-sizing process that ties business risk to cash flow, covenants, and return targets.
A strong answer balances (1) what the company can safely service through the cycle with (2) what the market will actually lend at acceptable pricing and terms, and (3) what structure still produces the required equity returns.
What Interviewers Look For in an LBO Leverage Assessment
Interviewers are checking whether you can translate a qualitative business view into a quantitative debt-sizing conclusion. In other words: can you connect the company’s cash flow profile, cyclicality, and asset coverage to the right leverage in LBO structure and the key credit metrics (interest coverage, leverage, fixed-charge coverage, liquidity)?
They’re also testing judgment under constraints. In real deals you rarely “max leverage” in a vacuum—you size debt against downside cases, covenant headroom, and refinancing risk. A good answer acknowledges market terms (senior vs subordinated, amortisation, covenants, floating vs fixed), and explains how you’d adjust the structure if the business can’t support the returns.
Finally, it’s a communication test typical of private equity technical questions: can you be structured, use the right vocabulary, and sanity-check your conclusion with multiple lenses (cash flow sweep, DSCR/coverage, comps/precedent, and credit docs).
Leverage in LBO: Step-by-Step Debt Sizing Framework
- 1
Step 1: Frame the goal (capacity vs market vs returns)
I start by separating three related questions: (a) leverage capacity (what the company can service through a conservative downside), (b) market leverage (what lenders will offer given the sector and the credit), and (c) required leverage (what the sponsor might want to hit a target equity IRR).
That framing keeps the answer practical: even if lenders offer more, we may choose less to protect covenants and refinancing risk; and if capacity is low, we may need to adjust purchase price, business plan, or hold period rather than forcing leverage.
I also clarify the core cash flow metric I’ll size to—usually levered and unlevered cash flow analysis anchored on EBITDA to free cash flow conversion—and I call out whether the company is more “cash generative” (good for leverage) or reinvestment-heavy (limits leverage).
- 2
Step 2: Build a base case and define sustainable cash flow
Next I build (or at least conceptually outline) the base-case operating model: revenue drivers, margins, working capital seasonality, capex (maintenance vs growth), taxes, and one-offs. The key output is free cash flow available for debt service after required reinvestment.
From there I translate cash flow into serviceability metrics: interest coverage (EBITDA/interest and EBIT/interest), fixed-charge coverage (including lease or other fixed commitments where relevant), and debt paydown capacity (annual FCF / debt). I also look at cash flow volatility—customer concentration, cyclicality, commodity exposure, pricing power—because stable cash flows can carry higher leverage in LBO than a cyclical or disrupted business.
This step is where I’m explicit about “sustainable EBITDA” vs peak earnings, because leverage set on peak EBITDA typically breaks in the first downturn.
- 3
Step 3: Size the debt stack using downside cases and covenant headroom
Then I run downside scenarios and size each tranche so the company can survive without an equity rescue. Practically, I’ll set leverage based on the tightest constraint among:
- Coverage/DSCR under a downside (including higher base rates for floating-rate debt),
- Covenant headroom (e.g., total leverage and/or FCCR tests),
- Liquidity runway (minimum cash, revolver availability), and
- Amortisation and maturities (near-term amortisation reduces capacity; a large bullet maturity raises refinancing risk).
I also consider the mix of senior secured vs junior capital. For example, more junior debt increases total leverage but may stress cash interest and reduce flexibility; heavy PIK can help near-term cash flow but increases refinancing and exit deleveraging requirements.
As a quick check I relate the implied debt-to-equity ratio to the risk profile—high D/E can be fine in a stable, high-conversion business, but dangerous in a cyclical, capex-heavy one.
- 4
Step 4: Cross-check with market comps and LBO valuation techniques
After sizing from fundamentals, I sanity-check against what comparable deals support. I look at precedent transactions and current lender appetite in the sector: typical total leverage, senior leverage, pricing, and covenant packages for similar companies (scale, margin profile, sponsor history, and asset coverage).
I also cross-check the structure against LBO valuation techniques: if my debt sizing requires an aggressive entry multiple, unrealistic margin expansion, or a “perfect” exit multiple to meet returns, leverage is probably too high for the risk.
This is also where I confirm the implied credit profile: is the company closer to a covenant-lite large-cap style loan, or a more tightly covenanted middle-market structure? The answer affects how much leverage is feasible and how I think about headroom and amendment risk.
- 5
Step 5: Conclude with a defendable range and the key sensitivities
I finish by stating a range (not a single point) and the 2–3 variables that move it most. For example: “Based on cash flow stability and downside coverage, I’d expect X–Y turns of total leverage, with senior leverage capped at A–B turns, and I’d flex up/down primarily with FCF conversion, cyclicality, and interest rates.”
I call out the specific sensitivities I’d show in a model as part of financial modeling interview prep: EBITDA down case, working capital swing, capex step-up, and base rate/credit spread changes. If the downside breaches covenants or produces negative cash flow after interest, I reduce leverage, add equity, extend maturities, or revisit price.
That conclusion demonstrates I know how to answer LBO interview questions in a way that is actionable for an investment committee and credible to lenders.
Model Answer for PE Technical Questions on Debt Capacity
I decide how much leverage a company can support by sizing debt to downside free cash flow and covenant headroom, then cross-checking against market terms and required returns. In an LBO, I’m trying to find the highest leverage that the business can safely service through the cycle, not just what it can handle in the base case.
First, I forecast operating performance and convert EBITDA to free cash flow—after taxes, working capital needs, and maintenance capex—so I have cash flow available for debt service. Then I translate that into serviceability metrics like EBITDA-to-interest, fixed-charge coverage where relevant, and annual debt paydown capacity.
Second, I run downside cases—lower volume/pricing, margin compression, and a working-capital outflow—and I assume more conservative interest costs, especially if the debt is floating-rate. I size each tranche so the company maintains adequate liquidity and doesn’t trip leverage or coverage covenants, leaving real headroom rather than “model-perfect” compliance.
Third, I sanity-check the result versus comparable LBOs and current lender appetite: typical senior and total leverage, pricing, maturities, and covenant packages for similar risk. I also check that the implied debt-to-equity ratio and the equity returns don’t rely on aggressive entry/exit multiples.
I’ll usually conclude with a leverage range and name the key sensitivities—FCF conversion, cyclicality, and interest rates—that drive whether we can flex leverage in the LBO structure up or down.
- Lead with the organising principle: downside FCF + covenant headroom, not peak EBITDA.
- Use the language lenders use (coverage, covenants, liquidity, maturity wall) to sound deal-real.
- State a range and the drivers; it signals judgment and avoids false precision.
- Mention floating-rate sensitivity to show awareness of current market mechanics.
- Tie the debt decision back to valuation/returns so it feels like sponsor thinking.
Common Mistakes in LBO Interview Questions on Leverage
- Sizing leverage off headline EBITDA multiples only, without reconciling to free cash flow available for debt service.
- Ignoring downside cases and covenant headroom, then claiming the company can support “max leverage” based on the base case.
- Forgetting interest-rate and refinancing risk (floating-rate exposure, maturity concentration, amortisation).
- Treating lender appetite as the only constraint—capacity can be lower than market in a cyclical or reinvestment-heavy business.
- Using a single precise leverage number with no range or sensitivities, which reads as overconfidence.
- Mixing up enterprise value leverage with cash flow serviceability (e.g., focusing on D/E without coverage and liquidity checks).
Follow-Ups: Coverage, Covenants, and LBO Valuation Techniques
Which metrics matter most when evaluating leverage in an LBO?
I prioritise free cash flow after maintenance capex, EBITDA/interest and EBIT/interest, fixed-charge coverage where relevant, liquidity under a downside, and covenant headroom versus projected leverage.
How do you incorporate cyclicality into your leverage decision?
I size to a conservative through-cycle EBITDA (or downside case), require stronger coverage and liquidity buffers, and limit total leverage or shorten the reliance on refinancing in more cyclical sectors.
How would higher interest rates change your leverage recommendation?
Higher rates reduce coverage and cash flow available for amortisation, so I’d lower leverage or shift toward longer-dated/partially hedged structures, and I’d re-test covenants with higher base rate assumptions.
If lenders offer more leverage than your model supports, what do you do?
I’d stick to the capacity-based limit and use the extra availability as optionality; if returns require the extra leverage, I’d revisit price, business plan risk, or structure rather than forcing it.
How do you decide between more senior debt vs adding junior/PIK?
I compare cash interest burden, covenant flexibility, and refinancing risk; junior/PIK can help near-term cash flow but increases leverage build and dependence on exit deleveraging.
Financial Modeling Interview Prep: Practice Drills for Leverage Cases
- Practice a 90-second version that hits: downside FCF → coverage/covenants → market cross-check → range + sensitivities.
- Build a simple sensitivity grid (EBITDA down, WC outflow, capex up, rates up) and narrate which constraint binds first.
- Use consistent tranche language (revolver/term loan/senior secured/subordinated) and mention maturities and amortisation.
- Record yourself answering two variants: “maximum leverage?” and “how would you structure the debt stack?”—the framing should stay the same.
- Rehearse with AceTheRound by prompting follow-ups on covenants, floating-rate exposure, and what changes your leverage range.
Ready to practice with AceTheRound?
Create an account to unlock AI mock interviews, feedback, and the full prep library.