Previous Next case → Close
Real Estate & Land Development · Investment & Deal Advisory
Land for a share, or a sale?
The question A state-linked investment group received two offers from a developer for its land: a share in the future project, or an outright purchase.
What we did We rebuilt the developer's figures, valued every offer in today's money at the group's own cost of funds, and set out what a fair deal looks like.
What it showed The first partnership offer was worth far less than its headline. The developer came back with a better offer for the same land.
Value gained +47% more for the same land, hundreds of millions of Egyptian pounds in today's money, from the developer's improved offer
Culture, Heritage & Nature Destinations · Investment & Deal Advisory
A long concession for a historic public attraction
The question A private promoter proposed a long-term concession to rebuild and run a historic public attraction, paying the state a fixed amount.
What we did We rebuilt the promoter's model until it matched the promoter's own results, then tested who keeps the value.
What it showed The promoter's fixed fee gave the state a tiny share of the value. We showed how a share of sales would pay the state far more.
Value gained 66× more income for the state, billions of Egyptian pounds over the concession, than the promoter's fixed fee
Banking, Insurance & Non-Bank Financial Institutions · Investment & Deal Advisory
Buying into a life insurer's share offering
The question An investor was invited to buy shares when a state-owned life insurer came to market.
What we did We valued the insurer's future profits from verified sources and compared the result with the offer price.
What it showed The offer price was well above fair value. We advised the investor not to pay more than the value we found.
Loss avoided Up to 50% of the asking price was above fair value: the investor avoids overpaying by up to half on every share it buys
Renewable Energy, Power & Water · Investment & Deal Advisory
A battery maker's partnership offer
The question A battery maker offered the client a minority stake in return for a long-term purchase commitment.
What we did We rebuilt the maker's own model exactly, then measured what each side would bring and what each would receive.
What it showed The stake offered was far below a fair share, which was closer to half the company. We drafted the client's counter, and the maker stepped back.
Loss avoided 70% of the client's contribution, tens of millions of dollars, would have gone to the partner for nothing
Mining & Minerals · Investment & Deal Advisory
What a mineral value chain is really worth
The question A national mineral value chain was being promoted with a headline grade that looked very rich.
What we did We traced the chain step by step from published sources, from extraction to finished products, and tested the case for a new plant.
What it showed The headline grade was a maximum, not an average. A new plant on that basis would take decades to pay back; the faster gain sits in an existing plant running at about a third of its design output.
Loss avoided 7× overstated. The client was spared from putting hundreds of millions of dollars into a new plant on a resource worth a seventh of its headline
Data Centres & Digital Infrastructure · Project Technical Advisory
The right rent for a data centre
The question A landowner received a tenant's offer to lease a large data centre.
What we did We costed the landlord's build ourselves and worked out the rent needed to earn a fair return.
What it showed The rent offered could not pay back the build. The landowner gained a counter-offer backed by real costs.
Value gained 3.5× the rent in the landowner's counter-offer: millions of dollars more every year of the lease than the tenant offered
Government & Public Sector · Governance, Risk & Compliance
A company removed from the stock exchange
The question A government office needed to understand the accounts of a company that had been removed from the stock exchange.
What we did We re-added every sum in its financial statements and checked them against its filings and the public record.
What it showed Liabilities above assets, receivables with no provision and balances with no explanation, set out in a review and a memo ready for the authority.
Risk exposed 3× unexplained balances, hundreds of millions of Egyptian pounds, against the company's current assets, set out for the authority
Fintech & Payments · Governance, Risk & Compliance
When a partner's accounts don't add up
The question A payments company doubted the yearly accounts of a partner in its agent network.
What we did We matched the partner's financial statements, bank statements, profit-and-loss accounts and transaction logs, and ran pattern tests on the figures.
What it showed Revenue the partner had not declared, salaries it had overstated and expenses with no documents. We closed with an exact inquiry letter to its accountants.
Revenue found Hidden revenue the partner had kept off its accounts, now documented for the company's claim
Fintech & Payments · Fintech & Payments Licensing
A complete licence file for a payments company
The question A payments company preparing for a central-bank licence needed its complete submission for several new services.
What we did We prepared the business model, service model and business plan for each service, together with a full policy library, from corporate governance and risk management to cybersecurity, AML and customer-funds safeguarding.
What it showed A submission-ready file, with completion guides so the company's own team could finish the details.
Value gained New revenue streams several new payment services, each a new source of income, ready for licensing in one file
Technology & AI · Technology & AI Transformation
Choosing an AI infrastructure vendor
The question A state-linked group planning its own on-premise AI capacity received a vendor's proposal.
What we did We set the requirements, checked every line of the proposal against them and put technical and commercial questions to the vendor.
What it showed A clear view of what was required, what was optional and what was missing. We also advised paying most of the price only after the acceptance test.
Loss avoided 14% of the vendor's price, hundreds of thousands of dollars, was for equipment its own reply called optional
