Skip to content
Request a demonstration

Executive Intelligence · Capital Allocation and Investments

Investment Portfolio Evaluation

A register of investments with owner, cost, expected benefit, status and evidence of realised benefit.

Demonstration: Rosewell Capital Management (fictional) · Asset management. Fictional data and a scripted answer.

The situation

Organisation
Rosewell Capital Management (fictional)
Who is asking
Chief investment officer
Industry
Asset management
What happened
The firm has six proposals for investing its own balance sheet in strategic projects and room for two.

The question asked

Which two investments should we back, and does the choice depend on how we weigh return against risk?

What it reads, and who can see the result

  • Investment proposals documentEach proposal's case.
  • Risk appetite statement documentThe board's limits.
Reads
The proposals' summary cases and the risk appetite statement.
Does not read
Client assets.
Permission
CIO office access.
Who sees it
The CIO, the CFO and the investment committee.

Try it

Change how much each criterion matters. The ranking is recomputed, and the page tells you whether the leader would survive a different judgement.

How much each thing matters (0 to 10)
6
6
5
3
  1. 1A distribution partnershipSteady; strategic.Expected return: 3Low risk: 4Strategic fit: 5Liquidity (can be exited): 33.80
  2. 2An advisory acquisitionBrings clients and skills.Expected return: 3Low risk: 3Strategic fit: 5Liquidity (can be exited): 13.20
  3. 3Listed infrastructure holdingLow return; easily sold.Expected return: 2Low risk: 5Strategic fit: 1Liquidity (can be exited): 53.10
  4. 4A fintech minority stakeGood return; adjacent.Expected return: 4Low risk: 2Strategic fit: 4Liquidity (can be exited): 23.10
  5. 5A data analytics start-upHigh growth; illiquid.Expected return: 5Low risk: 1Strategic fit: 4Liquidity (can be exited): 12.95
  6. 6A real-estate fundModerate; slow to exit.Expected return: 3Low risk: 3Strategic fit: 2Liquidity (can be exited): 22.60

Leader's margin over the next option: 0.60. The leader holds under every weighting tested.

The answer

Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.

With these weights the strongest proposal is: A distribution partnership (score 3.80).

The six proposals are compared on return, risk, fit and liquidity against the board's limits [S1][S2]. The order is holds under the weightings tested; it would change if none of the tested weightings.

The committee backs two, so the second place matters as much as the first. Rank the pair together: two proposals that share the same risk are not a diversified choice.

Relies on: S1 · Proposal summariesS2 · Risk appetite statement

Review and approval

The investment committee decides. Approving shortlists the top proposals for detailed review. It does not commit any capital.

Ready for the reviewer.

In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.

What it produces

recommendationDraft, not approved

Shortlist

  • Strongest on these weights: A distribution partnership.
  • Order sensitive to: none of the tested weightings.

Limits of this example

  • Scores are judgements from summary cases.
  • A shortlist is a prompt for diligence, not a decision.
  • This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.