Case Study (Perth Importer): Fixing an Inventory Gap with Switchboard Finance
Invoice finance and working capital stack for a Perth importer case study | Switchboard Finance
📍 perth case study · importer cashflow · facility sequencing · 2026 ·
Business Cashflow System
The business wasn’t “unprofitable” — it was stuck between supplier timing, freight/GST timing, and slow receivables. The fix wasn’t a bigger term loan. It was a clean facility stack that matched the cash cycle.
If you want the plain-language explainer first, start with Invoice Finance 101. If you’re solving the same gap right now, the “money page” is here: Invoice Finance.
1) Snapshot (the numbers that created the gap)
This Perth importer sold B2B into trade buyers on 30–45 day invoices, but paid suppliers and landed costs much earlier. They were growing — and growth made the gap worse.
- Monthly sales: ~$320k
- Gross margin: ~22%
- Debtor days: ~45 days (some customers pushed to 60)
- Inventory cycle: 30–70 days (order → land → sell → collect)
- Pain point: cash dipped every time a larger shipment landed
2) The 30–70 day gap (what actually happens in the cash cycle)
The gap wasn’t mysterious. It was timing: cash out now, cash in later. The lender didn’t care about the story — they cared that the timing was measurable and repeatable.
Here’s the simplified timeline on one typical container-sized order.
| Timing | What happens | Cash impact | What it causes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 0–7 | Supplier deposit / production start | -$60k to -$120k | Cash drops before any revenue exists |
| Day 14–35 | Freight + landed costs + GST timing | -$40k to -$90k | Another dip while stock is still “in transit” |
| Day 35–55 | Stock sells to trade customers on invoice | +$0 today | Sales happen, but cash hasn’t arrived |
| Day 55–70 | Invoices get paid (some late) | +$120k to +$220k | Cash recovers — but only after the next order is due |
3) The facility stack (sequencing that fixed the gap without choking repayments)
The solution was a two-layer stack: invoice finance for the “money-in” side, plus a working capital buffer for the “money-out” side. That way the business wasn’t forced into a rigid repayment structure that punished growth.
For the working capital layer explainer, this is the closest “winner seed”: Working Capital Loans 2025. If the business also needed a revolving top-up option later, this seed pairs well: Business Line of Credit Guide.
- Step 1: set up invoice finance against B2B invoices (turn “waiting 45–60 days” into faster access).
- Step 2: add a working capital buffer to cover the shipping/GST timing bumps and supplier deposits.
- Step 3: lock a rule: buffer is for the “gap” only; invoice finance is for growth churn.
4) What the lender actually cared about (not the pitch)
This approval wasn’t won on “potential.” It was won on clarity. The lender focused on a few decision points that made the cash cycle feel controllable.
- Debtor quality: repeat B2B customers, consistent invoice behaviour, low disputes.
- Customer concentration: not “one customer = the whole business.”
- Trading conduct: clean bank behaviour (no constant overdrawn chaos).
- Margin + returns: stable gross margin and manageable returns/credits.
- Facility discipline: a simple rule for what each facility is used for.
The proof pack was also practical — not fancy. A clean AR ledger/invoice sample set, bank statements showing normal operations, and a clear explanation of the inventory timing.
5) Outcome (what changed after the stack went live)
Within the first cycle, the business stopped “pausing orders” to protect cash. They could land stock, sell it, and keep replenishing without creating a cash crash every shipment.
- Stock continuity: fewer out-of-stock weeks on fast-moving lines
- Less stress: no more payroll/BAS being “funded by delay”
- Cleaner growth: facility use matched the cycle instead of fighting it
If you’re dealing with the same “timing squeeze” from BAS + supplier runs, this sibling post is genuinely different intent: The Manufacturing BAS Squeeze (2026): 14-Day Bridge Plan.
This Perth importer didn’t need “more debt” — they needed timing control. Invoice finance handled the receivables delay, and a working capital buffer handled the landed-cost and supplier timing spikes.
The consequence of using the wrong facility is predictable: repayments that don’t match the cycle, slower reorders, and growth that feels painful. The right stack makes growth smoother — without choking the business.
FAQ
Because the problem was timing, not profit. Invoice finance aligns to receivables: when invoices go out, liquidity improves. A term loan can add rigid repayments that don’t match the cycle.
The buffer covered the “cash-out” moments: supplier deposits and landed-cost timing spikes. It wasn’t used to permanently fund losses — it was used to smooth the gap.
Using one facility for everything. When the “growth engine” and the “gap buffer” are mixed, limits get chewed up fast and the business feels like it’s always behind.
Consistency and dispute risk. Lenders want to see predictable invoice payment behaviour and low “credit note” volatility, especially when receivable timing is the core issue.
One facility = one job. Invoice finance for receivables churn, working capital for timing spikes. That discipline kept repayments and limits aligned to the actual cycle.
Disclaimer: This content is general information only and isn’t financial, legal, or tax advice.
