Monday Feb 16, 2026
Monday Feb 16, 2026
Thursday, 12 February 2026 00:43 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
In Sri Lanka, the phrase “Balance Sheet restructuring” is appearing more frequently in stock exchange announcements, annual reports, and business news. For many readers, it seems to be a warning sign—something only distressed firms do. In reality, restructuring can be either a responsible reset or a cosmetic exercise, depending on what is being restructured and whether the company has fixed its underlying operating problems. The key is to understand what restructuring can and cannot achieve.
Balance Sheet restructuring refers to deliberate actions undertaken to reorganise assets, liabilities, and equity so that the Balance Sheet reflects economic reality and supports sustainable operations. It is not one single action; it is often a sequence of steps implemented over time. A restructuring can involve cleaning up bad assets, renegotiating debt, raising or reorganising capital, or simplifying equity after mergers. Crucially, restructuring is a financial tool, not a replacement for sound governance and business performance. Moreover, balance-sheet restructuring is not a growth strategy in itself; it is a strategic enabler that removes financial and structural constraints once operational recovery has been achieved.
When do companies restructure their Balance Sheets?
Companies commonly restructure after a period of stress and recovery, especially when they begin to profit again but still carry significant historical equity burdens. Restructuring is also common after macroeconomic shocks—such as COVID-19 or Sri Lanka’s economic crisis—because these events can permanently change loan performance, funding costs, and capital adequacy. Another frequent trigger is a merger or group reorganisation, where the combined company ends up with complex equity reserves that are legally correct but operationally unnecessary. In regulated sectors such as finance, restructuring may also be influenced by regulatory pressure to enhance stability and simplify corporate structures.
The main tools used in Balance Sheet restructuring
Balance Sheet restructuring typically employs a combination of tools rather than a single isolated decision. Asset-side restructuring can include writing off non-performing exposures, selling repossessed collateral, or transferring stressed portfolios to special structures. Liability restructuring can consist of refinancing borrowings, renegotiating interest rates, or adjusting the funding mix. Equity restructuring may involve rights issues, capital injections, or a reduction in stated capital to address accumulated losses or redundant equity layers. When used together—and communicated transparently—these tools can restore stability and credibility.
1. Stated Capital reduction: When it makes sense
Capital reduction is one of the most debated restructuring tools because it affects “stated capital,” a number that many investors associate with strength. Capital reduction is most appropriate when a company is already generating sustainable annual profits but has accumulated equity losses in prior years. In that situation, the firm’s business model is functioning again, but the Balance Sheet still reflects the past. A capital reduction can help remove that legacy overhang, making the Balance Sheet more straightforward and financial ratios—especially return on equity—more meaningful.
A crucial principle is that capital reduction should follow, not replace, recovery. If a company is still struggling operationally—due to weak credit discipline, inefficient cost structure, poor governance, or unstable funding—a capital reduction will not solve those problems. Operational inefficiencies appear in the income statement as weak margins and recurring losses; they cannot be “set off” through an equity restructuring. If a company attempts to address an operating problem through a capital reduction, it may appear healthier on paper for a short time. Still, the same weaknesses will re-create losses in future periods.
Softlogic Finance PLC provides a clear example of capital reduction used as part of a broader balance-sheet restructuring, rather than as a standalone solution. The company experienced prolonged financial stress over several years, which resulted in substantial accumulated losses and weakened equity. During this period, a capital reduction would not have addressed the root causes of distress, which lay in asset-quality challenges, operational inefficiencies, and funding pressures. The turning point came only after operational repair in 2025. Softlogic Finance undertook measures to improve asset quality, clean up non-performing exposures, strengthen governance, and restore profitability. Once the company began generating annual profits, the Balance Sheet still reflected the weight of accumulated historical losses.
2. Asset Clean-Up: The hard part of restructuring
Asset clean-up is often the most difficult and most important part of restructuring. It involves recognising and addressing reality—non-performing loans, weak collateral, and exposures unlikely to recover in full. Some companies restructure by transferring distressed portfolios, intensifying recoveries, or selling repossessed assets. This process can improve future profitability by preventing bad assets from continuously draining earnings. The quality of a restructuring is often judged by whether it addresses asset quality honestly, not by how neatly equity is presented.
3. Debt restructuring: Fixing the liability side
Debt restructuring focuses on aligning the company’s repayment obligations with its cash-flow capacity. For finance companies, this can include managing deposit maturities, rebalancing borrowings, and lowering the cost of funds. Re-profiling liabilities can reduce short-term pressure, but it is not a permanent cure. Without improved profitability and asset quality, debt restructuring becomes temporary relief rather than a sustainable solution.
4. Mergers and Merger reserves: Restructuring without distress
Not all Balance Sheet restructuring is distress-related. In group mergers under common control, companies may use “pooling of interests” accounting, which can create a merger reserve—an equity reserve that is neither a profit nor a loss. Over time, merger reserves and significant stated capital can make equity structures complex and inefficient. In such cases, companies may rationalise equity by reducing stated capital in favour of merger reserves. This kind of restructuring is better understood as optimisation and simplification, rather than as a bailout or a loss write-off.
A clear Sri Lankan example of balance-sheet restructuring without distress is LOLC Finance PLC, which merged with LOLC Credit Ltd., as part of an internal group consolidation. Both entities were operationally viable, and the merger was undertaken to streamline the group structure rather than to rescue a failing business. Accounted for under pooling-of-interests, the merger created a merger reserve within equity. Subsequent balance-sheet restructuring, therefore, focused on capital optimisation and clarity, not loss repair, demonstrating that capital rationalisation after mergers can enhance transparency without signalling financial weakness.
The amalgamation of Nation Lanka Finance PLC with Kanrich Finance Ltd., in 2023 was not a failure of capital reduction, but a failure to assume that the amalgamation alone could resolve deep-seated operational and balance-sheet weaknesses. Without sustained profitability and asset-quality repair, consolidation could not prevent eventual regulatory intervention.
A more recent example is the 2025 acquisition of Associated Motor Finance Co. PLC by LB Finance PLC, which the Central Bank of Sri Lanka guided. This consolidation is structured as a phased process, with legal amalgamation required by 31 March 2027. During this period, the emphasis is on operational alignment and prudential stability rather than immediate capital restructuring. Any balance-sheet rationalisation would arise, if at all, only after post-merger stability is achieved.
Sri Lanka’s consolidation framework includes targeted tax incentives to encourage finance-sector mergers, which can materially reduce post-merger tax liabilities for a period. Still, these incentives are transitional and policy-driven rather than permanent tax exemptions.
Balance Sheet restructuring can be a responsible step toward long-term stability, but it is not a shortcut to success. When used at the right time and for the right purpose, restructuring restores clarity and supports growth. When used to disguise operational weakness, it simply delays the next crisis
Advantages of Balance Sheet restructuring
1. Restoring financial clarity and credibility
One of the most immediate advantages of Balance Sheet restructuring is financial clarity. Over time, accumulated losses, merger-related reserves, or complex equity layers can obscure a company’s actual financial position. Even when operations improve, the Balance Sheet may continue to reflect past distress rather than current reality. By restructuring, companies remove historical distortions and present a Balance Sheet that is easier to understand and more aligned with present performance. This improves communication with investors, regulators, lenders, and rating agencies, all of whom value clarity over optimism.
2. Enabling dividend payments through distributable profits
A critical but often overlooked advantage of Balance Sheet restructuring is its impact on dividend-paying capacity. Under the Sri Lankan Companies Act, dividends can be paid only if two conditions are met:
1. The company has distributable profits, and
2. The company satisfies the solvency test immediately after the distribution.
When a company has significant accumulated losses, even if it is currently profitable, those losses absorb retained earnings and prevent the creation of distributable profits. In such situations, shareholders may observe year-over-year profit growth yet still receive no dividends. A Balance Sheet restructuring—particularly a capital reduction undertaken after profitability has been restored—can eliminate accumulated losses and enable future profits to be distributed. This does not generate profits, but it removes a legal and accounting barrier that would otherwise prevent dividends from being paid indefinitely.
3.Improving the meaningfulness of financial ratios
Balance Sheet restructuring also improves the analytical usefulness of financial ratios. Significant accumulated losses or excess stated capital can distort key metrics, including return on equity (ROE), net asset value, and leverage ratios. As a result, a company may appear inefficient or weak despite generating healthy operating returns. By rationalising equity, restructuring allows these ratios better to reflect the company’s actual performance and capital efficiency. This benefits not only shareholders but also boards and management, who rely on accurate metrics for decision-making.
4. Supporting long-term sustainability and strategic focus
Another advantage of restructuring is that it allows management to move beyond legacy issues. When historical losses or technical reserves burden Balance Sheets, management attention is often diverted to explaining the past rather than planning the future. A properly timed restructuring enables the company to focus on core operations, growth opportunities, and risk management, rather than continually carrying forward yesterday’s problems. In this sense, restructuring supports sustainability by aligning financial structure with strategic direction.
5. Preventing escalation into severe financial distress
When undertaken early and responsibly, Balance Sheet restructuring can act as a preventive measure. Companies that ignore Balance Sheet distortions may find that even minor future shocks push them into solvency or liquidity stress. By contrast, companies that restructure once recovery begins strengthen their resilience and reduce the probability of insolvency. This is particularly relevant in regulated sectors such as finance, where early intervention is far less costly than late-stage rescue.
6. Strengthening investor confidence and market perception
A transparent restructuring, clearly explained and grounded in operational recovery, can enhance investor confidence. It signals that the board and management are willing to confront reality, clean up structural weaknesses, and align the Balance Sheet with long-term objectives. However, this advantage materialises only when restructuring is communicated honestly and supported by evidence of sustainable profitability. Markets reward discipline, not cosmetic fixes.
An important boundary: What restructuring cannot do
It is equally important to recognise what Balance Sheet restructuring cannot achieve. It cannot compensate for weak governance, poor credit discipline, inefficient cost structures, or unstable funding. Operational inefficiencies are reflected in the income statement and cash flows and must be corrected through management action, not through accounting adjustments. When restructuring is undertaken without addressing these fundamentals, any gains are temporary and misleading.
Disadvantages and risks of restructuring
1. Risk of market misinterpretation and loss of confidence
One of the most immediate risks of Balance Sheet restructuring is misinterpretation in the market. For many investors and depositors, restructuring announcements—especially those involving capital reduction—are instinctively associated with financial distress. If communication is unclear or overly technical, stakeholders may assume that losses are continuing or that deeper problems are being concealed. In thin or sentiment-driven markets, such perceptions can lead to share price volatility, deposit withdrawals, or reluctance by counterparties to engage, even when the restructuring is economically sensible.
This risk is particularly acute in Sri Lanka, where financial literacy varies widely, and past corporate failures have made investors cautious. Poorly framed restructuring can therefore damage confidence rather than restore it.
2. The danger of treating restructuring as a “solution”
A far more serious risk is the tendency to treat Balance Sheet restructuring as the solution, rather than as a supporting measure. Capital reduction, reserve rationalisation, or equity reclassification can improve Balance Sheet presentation, but they do not improve operating performance. If restructuring is undertaken without addressing weak credit discipline, inefficient cost structures, poor governance, or unstable funding, the same problems will re-emerge.
History shows that companies which restructure repeatedly—without fixing their operating models—often fall into a cycle of temporary relief followed by renewed losses. In such cases, restructuring delays failure rather than preventing it.
3. Cosmetic improvement without economic substance
Another significant risk is cosmetic restructuring. By writing off accumulated losses or simplifying equity, a company may appear healthier on paper even though cash flows remain weak and asset quality unresolved. This creates a false sense of recovery for investors and, at times, for boards themselves. When future shocks occur, the absence of real economic improvement becomes evident, often with greater severity because buffers have already been exhausted.
This is why regulators and sophisticated investors increasingly focus on asset quality, cash flows, and the sustainability of profits, rather than balance-sheet optics alone.
4. No immediate cash or capital benefit
Balance Sheet restructuring—especially capital reduction—does not create cash and does not inject new capital. In regulated sectors such as finance, this distinction is critical. While restructuring may clean up equity, it does not automatically improve liquidity, funding stability, or capital adequacy ratios unless accompanied by concrete measures such as capital injections, asset recoveries, or profitability improvements.
Companies that rely solely on restructuring without strengthening cash generation risk finding themselves constrained again when funding conditions tighten.
5. Shareholder dilution and control risks
Some restructuring paths involve new capital raising, debt-to-equity conversions, or asset transfers, which can dilute existing shareholders or alter control structures. Even when dilution is economically justified, it can be contentious if not transparently explained. Minority shareholders may feel disadvantaged if restructuring disproportionately benefits strategic investors, creditors, or related parties.
Inadequate disclosure of these aspects can give rise to governance concerns and legal disputes, undermining the credibility of the restructuring exercise.
6. Regulatory and legal complexity
Balance Sheet restructuring often involves complex legal and regulatory processes, particularly for listed and regulated entities. Capital reductions require shareholder approval, compliance with the Companies Act, and stock exchange disclosures. In finance companies, regulatory consent and capital adequacy considerations add further complexity. Delays, procedural missteps, or a lack of regulatory alignment can derail restructuring plans and create uncertainty, which in turn becomes a business risk.
7. Long-term reputation risk
Finally, repeated or poorly justified restructuring can damage a company’s long-term reputation. Stakeholders may begin to view restructuring as a recurring event rather than an exceptional measure. This can weaken trust in management’s ability to run the business sustainably and may increase the cost of capital over time. A reputation for discipline and transparency is far more valuable than short-term Balance Sheet cosmetics.
A critical lesson: Discipline before design
The central lesson from past restructurings—both in Sri Lanka and globally—is that Balance Sheet restructuring cannot compensate for weak fundamentals. It should follow operational recovery rather than attempt to replace it. When restructuring is driven by sustainable profitability, strong governance, and transparent communication, its advantages outweigh its risks. When used prematurely or defensively, the risks predominate.
What investors and the public should watch for
When a company announces Balance Sheet restructuring, the first question should be: Is the firm already operationally stable and profitable? The following questions should focus on asset quality, funding stability, governance discipline, and transparency. If restructuring is accompanied by clear disclosures, credible profitability, and honest handling of non-performing assets, it can be a positive signal. If it is presented as a substitute for operational reform, caution is warranted.
Conclusion: Discipline before design
Balance Sheet restructuring can be a responsible step toward long-term stability, but it is not a shortcut to success. Companies should fix the operating engine first—improving risk controls, governance, funding discipline, and profitability—before attempting to “reset” the Balance Sheet. When used at the right time and for the right purpose, restructuring restores clarity and supports growth. When used to disguise operational weakness, it simply delays the next crisis.
(The author is a professor of finance at the Sabaragamuwa University of Sri Lanka, a Director at the PMF Finance PLC, and the President of the Sri Lanka Institute of Marketing)
