Banks review every borrower’s credit annually. The review has two parts:
1) Review financial results, collateral and any material changes in the borrower or in the borrower’s industry to update the credit risk rating;
2) Determine whether revenue and return on capital are consistent with the bank’s strategy and targets.
If the review doesn’t go well the result will be increased prices, fees, requirements for more collateral, new covenants or reporting. If the review goes well the borrower may hear nothing.
Either way, borrowers should get a second opinion. If the terms are getting more onerous, is the bank’s decision justified? Alternatively, if the bank’s not asking for changes, should a borrower be asking for changes that would suit them?