F•IO IC
Every funding opportunity on this platform is assessed the same way. The method is published. The verdict is not.
The question is not what a project is worth. It is whether the funding gap should be met, on what terms, and what would have to go wrong. Value is an input to that question, not the verdict.
The committee
These are computed, not judged, and they describe the asset on its own terms.
The committee
What a project cannot see about itself: developer capacity across their portfolio; area pricing and absorption; legal structure; macro and cost environment; exit depth.
A project can be healthy and poorly rated — good pace and strong sales, but a developer carrying four other stalled sites.
The verdict
A view on a funding gap has to answer four things. One sub-committee owns each.
The answer resolves to one of four positions. Contracted receivables cover the cost to complete on their own. They cover it only once unsold stock has sold, which puts that sales risk on the funder. They do not cover it either way. Or the record is too thin to support a view, and we publish none.
Three of the four are computed. Sizing is not, entirely: where a project does not report built-up area we derive it, and record the confidence in that derivation. Whether a derived figure is firm enough to lend against is a committee judgement.
Disclosure
Released on execution of terms.
The committee
We view fair value, pricing tier, and area absorption against the asset’s own sales and cost base. The gap is sized here.
We view developer capacity across the portfolio and distress the asset cannot see in its own metrics. Capacity to finish is tested here.
We view the four measured inputs — pace, sales depth, coverage, and slippage — as computed facts on the record. The delivery forecast is set here.
We view legal structure, macro and cost environment, and exit depth around the project. The exit is tested here.