Capital efficiency is not about spending as little as possible. It is about choosing the right capital for the job, understanding its full cost and preserving enough flexibility to keep making good decisions as the business grows.
The perspectives in this article draw on a recent discussion with Rob Paterson, CFO at Employment Hero, James Johnstone, Partner at Bailador Technology Investments, and Kal Jamshidi, Managing Director at Mighty Partners. Together, their experience spans operating and financing a global technology business ,investing in high growth software companies and providing growth credit to Australian and New Zealand businesses.
Start with the business problem, not the funding product
The debt versus equity question often arrives too early. Before comparing term sheets, define what the capital needs to achieve, how quickly it is required and how certain the expected return is.
A short acquisition timetable, a working capital gap and an expansion into a new market are different problems. They carry different levels of risk, different repayment profiles and different implications for control. The right funding structure should follow from those facts.
James Johnstone, Partner at Bailador Technology Investments, describes the starting point simply: “What’s the actual situation the business is trying to solve, and what’s the right solution to deliver that outcome, rather than starting with a pre-set view on debt or equity.”
Equity is generally better suited to uncertain plans with a wide range of possible outcomes. It can absorb risk without scheduled repayments, but founders pay for that flexibility through dilution and shared control. Debt is generally better suited to defined uses where the existing business has sufficient predictability to service it. It can preserve ownership, but repayments and covenants reduce room for error.
Many businesses will use both. The important question is whether each part of the structure has a clear job. Adding debt to an equity raise simply because it is available can create cost without creating strategic value.
Use debt against what is already working
Venture debt is strongest when it is supported by proven performance rather than dependent on a new bet succeeding. A software company with predictable recurring revenue, healthy retention and a clear path to cash generation may be able to use debt to fund an acquisition, extend runway or expand overseas without raising a larger equity round.
The distinction matters. A company entering the US, for example, may borrow against the strength of its established Australian business. That is very different from relying on the new market to produce the cash needed for repayment from day one.
“Debt underwrites predictability. It’s not a bet on upside, it’s priced against what’s already provable,” says Kal Jamshidi, Managing Director at MightyPartners.
A practical test is to separate the existing engine from the growth initiative. If the initiative takes twice as long as forecast, can the core business still meet its obligations? If the answer depends on perfect execution, the business may need more equity, a smaller facility or a staged funding plan.
Employment Hero used that kind of blended approach when it acquired KeyPay on a compressed timetable. After testing external and insider equity options, the company concluded the terms would be too dilutive and funded the transaction with approximately two thirds debt and one third equity. Paterson says the structure, which was later refinanced, worked well for the company’s capital structure and cap table over time. The lesson is not that debt is always better for M&A, but that a defined acquisition with an established underlying business can support a more deliberate mix of capital.
Calculate the full cost of capital
Headline pricing rarely tells the whole story. Equity has no interest rate, but its long term cost can be substantial if the company succeeds. Debt avoids immediate dilution, but its true cost includes more than the coupon.
For debt, model establishment fees, line fees, interest on drawn and undrawn amounts, compounding, amortisation, warrants and any early repayment charge. The Mighty Venture Debt Guide provides a practical framework for comparing these terms. Then test the cost under more than one scenario, including a slower draw, an earlier refinance and a longer repayment period.
For equity, look beyond valuation. Preference rights, board rights, reserved matters, anti dilution protections and other downside terms can affect future decisions and the distribution of proceeds. A high headline valuation can still produce an expensive outcome if the structure becomes difficult to manage in the next round or at exit.
Rob Paterson, CFO of Employment Hero, puts the issue plainly: “People over-focus on dilution and the economics of a deal, and under-focus on control.”
The most useful comparison is not debt cost versus equity dilution in isolation. It is the economic cost, control cost and flexibility cost of each option over the life of the capital.
Protect room to move
Terms that look manageable in the base case can become restrictive when performance moves even slightly off plan. That is why covenant headroom, reporting requirements, consent rights and repayment flexibility deserve the same attention as price.
Covenants should provide an early signal that the business is moving away from plan. They should not be calibrated so tightly that a minor variance creates an immediate breach. If a company is at risk of breaching in its first reporting period, the structure was probably too tight from the outset.
Create competition where possible. Multiple indicative offers allow a business to compare more than interest rates and negotiate the terms that will matter in practice. Those can include minimum cash, leverage or coverage tests, permitted acquisitions, additional debt, distributions and the ability to repay or refinance early.
The same principle applies to equity. From Johnstone’s perspective, the headline valuation is only one part of the decision. Governance should remain workable as more investors join the cap table, and the business must retain the ability to operate and make decisions quickly. Founders should ask whether the proposed structure will still work in two or three years, not only whether it helps close the current round.
Stress test the downside before committing
A growth plan should be able to survive a version of events that is slower and more expensive than the forecast. New markets take time. Products launch late. Sales cycles stretch. Integration costs rise. Capital efficiency comes from acknowledging those realities before the money is committed.
Start with the health of the core business. Then assess how much additional risk it can absorb without putting the whole company under pressure. For a new market or acquisition, set clear milestones and decision points in advance. Define what evidence is required to continue investing and what would cause the company to pause, reduce spend or stop.
Scenario planning needs to be operational, not cosmetic. If costs had to be cut, identify which costs, when the savings would begin and what implementation costs would be incurred. Redundancies, contract commitments and delayed collections all affect the real cash outcome.
Johnstone looks for assuredness without overconfidence: a credible path to profitability, grounded in the company’s own data rather than assumed industry benchmarks. Customer acquisition cost, retention, gross margin and lifetime value should come from actual performance wherever possible, with enough buffer for execution taking longer than planned. A model that only moves up and to the right is not a funding plan.
Keep cash discipline at the centre
Capital efficiency is ultimately an operating discipline. A company with capital in the bank still needs a precise view of cash, runway and the return expected from each major investment.
“Cash is king. Know exactly where your cash position and your runway stand, at all times,” Paterson says.
That means maintaining a rolling cash forecast, reviewing actual performance against the plan and updating decisions as evidence changes. It also means resisting the assumption that a large cash buffer makes every initiative affordable. How a company manages spend when it has room to spend is often the clearest indication of financial discipline.
The goal is not to avoid risk. It is to size risk so one initiative cannot compromise the underlying business.
Become raise ready before you need capital
Fundraising nearly always takes longer and absorbs more management time than expected. The best way to reduce that disruption is to make readiness part of normal business operations.
Maintain clean historical financials, a credible forward model and a clear explanation for any periods where performance moved away from plan. Keep the cap table, customer cohorts, governing documents and key commercial data current. These should be management tools first and diligence materials second.
Work backwards from the likely funding need. If the next raise depends on proving an international expansion, a new product or stronger unit economics, identify the evidence funders will expect and start building it now. Map the investors and lenders that fit the company’s stage, sector and use of funds before the process begins.
Preparation improves more than the odds of securing capital. It creates a faster process, stronger negotiating position and clearer view of whether the company should raise at all.
Jamshidi’s advice is to operate as though the business may need to raise or exit sooner than expected. Being raise ready and exit ready require much of the same groundwork: clean historical financials, a defensible forecast, clear customer and cohort data, an accurate cap table and governing documents that can be understood quickly. Keeping those materials current reduces scramble, exposes issues earlier and preserves options when an opportunity appears.
The capital efficient approach
There is no universally superior source of capital. The right choice depends on the use of funds, the predictability of the business, the downside risk and the degree of control and flexibility the company is prepared to exchange.
Capital efficient companies make that choice deliberately. They match capital to a defined need, model its full cost, build in headroom and prepare before urgency weakens their negotiating position. Done well, funding becomes a tool for growth rather than a constraint on it.
Considering venture debt?
Mighty Partners provides non-dilutive debt to Australian and New Zealand technology businesses. Explore Mighty's venture debt facilities and how they can support your next stage of growth.
