Why can two companies with the same net debt face different funding deadlines?

Declare the stock and flow measures

For this worksheet, define net debt narrowly as interest-bearing debt principal less unrestricted cash. Published net-debt measures can include other items, so reconcile the issuer’s definition before comparing it with another report.

The cited AASB 7 February 2025 compilation, identified as operative for reporting periods beginning from July 2026, addresses remaining contractual maturities and distinguishes undiscounted payment schedules from balance-sheet carrying amounts. Its liquidity discussion also considers funding availability. The example below uses only a stripped-down principal schedule; it is not a complete statutory maturity disclosure.

Hold the debt and cash totals constant

Stipulate fictional A and B, each with debt principal 1,000 and unrestricted opening cash 200. Both net-debt figures are 1,000−200=800. Assume the debt balances equal principal for this exercise; there are no discounts, premiums or other net-debt adjustments.

A must repay 800 in 30 days and 200 in two years. B must repay 100 in 30 days and 900 in two years. Each principal ladder sums to 1,000. The matching 800 net-debt headline therefore does not identify which company has the larger immediate payment commitment.

Add other receipts and payments before the deadline

Assume each receives 50 of operating cash before day 30 and must pay 100 of other operating obligations before making the debt payment. Exclude all other cash movements for now. Each has 200+50−100=150 available for the stated principal deadline.

A’s 800 principal payment leaves a 650 modeled gap. B’s 100 payment leaves 50. These are timing-based cash balances, not changes in net-debt definitions. The same stock figure can coexist with different near-term schedules because it omits the ordering of cash movements.

Test a facility without assuming it is available

Suppose A has an indicative, uncommitted credit limit of 500. The base ledger assigns it zero available funding, because this example supplies no enforceable commitment or confirmed ability to draw. It remains a possible response requiring evidence, not an automatic asset.

In a separate branch, stipulate an undrawn committed facility of 300 whose draw conditions have actually been met for the needed date. Drawing all 300 would reduce A’s modeled 650 gap to 350. The exercise neither establishes that a lender would provide this facility nor treats a commitment with unmet conditions as spendable cash.

Identify the omitted payments before using the result

The base schedule deliberately excludes interest and fees. Adding a separately stipulated 10 interest payment due before day 30 would leave 140 for principal: A’s gap becomes 660 and B’s remainder 40. Real contractual schedules must include applicable amounts and acceleration terms, not just principal.

Restricted cash, delayed operating receipts, covenants and refinancing conditions can also alter availability. A funding gap under a limited worksheet is not a bankruptcy prediction or an issuer credit opinion. Use it to identify the evidence still needed, rather than to announce that either company is safe or insolvent.

Method, sources, and limits

The paired principal ladders, cash constraints and facility branch are original hypothetical teaching inputs calculated on 27 October 2026. The Australian compilation is identified by its reporting-period scope and supplies context, not a complete jurisdictional compliance assessment. AI-assisted drafting is not qualified human credit, treasury or investment review.