How the CGE Alignment Index shapes each mandate type
The CGE Alignment Index (Capital · Governance · Execution) is the lens that orients every mandate type: in real assets, risk is misalignment — not merely technical or financial. The reasoning, mandate by mandate.
Co-investment: deal structure and governance
In co-investment, misalignment risk peaks at the outset: capital is committed before governance is built. The Capital Alignment axis verifies coherence between the fund's or family's horizon and the deal structure — rights, exit mechanisms, protective clauses. The Governance Architecture axis determines who decides, with what weight and in which forum. Representative example: a family office enters an owner-led industrial business with a mid-market ticket. The Capital Alignment score reveals the family's stated horizon is incompatible with the asset's development timeline — a gap that, left uncorrected before closing, creates premature exit pressure that harms both parties.
Independent board role: governance that actually governs
Serving on a board or advisory board requires a precise diagnosis on the Governance Architecture axis: who holds the real decision rights? What control mechanisms are in place? An independent director without this map operates reactively, not preventively. The question I bring to every board role is direct: does the current governance protect the capital's value or expose it? If the Governance Architecture score is below the correction threshold, the first contribution is architectural, not strategic.
Value-creation oversight: EBITDA is built through execution
Bain's Global PE Report 2026 shows that 71% of value created in 2024 PE exits came from revenue and EBITDA growth — not multiple expansion. "12 is the new 5": longer holding periods, value built through execution rather than financial engineering. As an operating partner, the CGE Index guides the prioritisation of the 100-day plan: Capital Alignment and Governance Architecture are verified first; only then are the operating levers activated. A plan launched on dysfunctional governance produces corrective actions no one is authorised to execute.
Capital-allocation review: discipline before structure
BCG's Global Principal Investors Report 2026 projects roughly $59 trillion of total principal-investor AuM across all asset classes by 2030: the pool is vast, but allocation discipline does not scale automatically. In a capital-intensive programme, the CGE Index is applied on the Capital Alignment axis to verify that every allocation decision — in timing, in priorities, in protective mechanisms — remains coherent with the capital's original intent. This is not an audit: it is a reading from an investor's perspective.
Investor-readiness: preparing a business for capital
An owner-led business that does not speak the language of capital is not a poor asset — it is an asset not yet structured to engage with it. The investor-readiness mandate focuses on the Governance Architecture axis: building decision rights, reporting mechanisms and board structure that make the business legible to an institutional investor or family office. The most effective work happens before capital enters — correcting governance after closing is far more costly.
Cross-border access: aligning counterparts with different capital cultures
Cross-border access amplifies governance risk more than regulatory risk: counterparts with different capital cultures — Anglo-Saxon funds, Middle Eastern family offices, European industrial groups — read the same numbers with different priorities. I ran capital-intensive energy programmes across Europe and the Middle East: cross-border complexity is resolved by aligning counterparts on capital objectives, not just contracts.
The real case: European industrial programme — approximately €1 billion
I represent the investment sponsor in a European industrial programme worth approximately €1 billion — 15 circular-economy and energy-transition plants across Europe, Luxembourg-based infrastructure fund. It is the proof that the three CGE Index axes — Capital Alignment between fund and programme, Governance Architecture of the deal, Execution Oversight across plant development — must work together, across jurisdictions, over a multi-year horizon. The same discipline applies to mandates in the industrial mid-market: the scale changes, the method does not.
FAQ — Experience and mandates
How do you select the mandates you take on?
The criterion is alignment: I accept mandates where the stakes are real and where the counterpart is willing to work with the same discipline. I do not extend mandates beyond where I create real value — and I say so clearly when I am not the right figure.
Do you publish client names?
No. Those who operate with institutional capital run due diligence on discretion. I share verifiable facts and scenarios labelled as representative — never invented clients, never inflated metrics.
Is the CGE Index applicable in situations of operational crisis?
Yes. In a turnaround, the diagnosis on the three axes pinpoints where alignment broke down — Capital Alignment, Governance Architecture or Execution Oversight. The correction plan is built from the most critical axis, not from generic interventions.