Every engagement is built around one standard: your deal must be defensible before the people who will question it most. That means a credit committee. That is who we build for.
You have a deal you are preparing to take to a lender. The numbers look right. They have never been independently challenged by someone who thinks like a credit committee.
THIS IS YOUR ENGAGEMENT ↓You are raising capital for your deal. Any size. Any deal. A stress-test gives you a verdict - this gives you the fully packaged submission that speaks the lender's language and survives the room.
THIS IS YOUR ENGAGEMENT ↓You have multiple deals active simultaneously and no consistent view of which ones are quietly moving against plan before a lender review surfaces it.
THIS IS YOUR ENGAGEMENT ↓You have done the numbers. The deal looks right. What you have not had is an independent challenge to the assumptions holding it together -- from someone who thinks the way a credit committee does, not the way a developer does. That gap is not theoretical. It is where deals get held up, restructured under pressure, or sent back after months of process -- with costs already moving and capital already planned around numbers a lender just rejected.
A clear verdict on your deal -- Go, No-Go, or Conditional -- delivered in 48 hours. Every material assumption stress-tested across three scenarios. Five failure modes identified and explained. An investment committee-ready summary memo you can take directly into any lender conversation. You walk in knowing what the lender is going to challenge and what your answer is -- because someone who has sat on their side of the table already ran it.
Your deal holds under independent challenge. Your DSCR clears 1.25x under stress. You walk into a lender conversation carrying a verified verdict, not a projection.
Your deal breaks below a specific threshold. You find out here, for US$3,000 -- not at a lender's desk after months of process, with capital already committed.
The most common outcome. Your deal holds under specific conditions. The report tells you exactly what needs to change before it is lender-ready -- on your timeline, not theirs.
What you walk into the room with: a verdict that was built to survive the same scrutiny a credit committee applies. The questions they were going to ask are already answered in your submission. The back-and-forth that typically takes months collapses before it starts.
The DIR stress-tests your deal and gives you a verdict. This engagement goes further. You have a deal and you need to raise capital from a bank, a local lender, or an equity partner. Any deal size. The person providing that capital does not accept a model and a verdict alone. They require a fully structured narrative; capital stack logic, covenant framing, sensitivity evidence, and a memo that answers the questions their team will raise before they raise them. One number that cannot be defended ends that conversation before the capital conversation even begins.
A complete, lender-ready underwrite built to survive the hardest questions in an institutional financing room. Every assumption defended. Every scenario documented. Structured and packaged so the committee can follow the logic from deal premise to verdict without a gap.
What this changes about the room: your submission arrives structured the way the way a capital provider thinks - not the way a developer presents. The questions they were going to spend three meetings asking are answered in the document they open first. Your analysis holds under pressure because it was built under it.
You have multiple deals active simultaneously. Some are in development. Some are stabilised. Some are approaching a lender review or refinancing event. You have no consistent way of knowing which ones are quietly moving against plan until a lender surfaces it -- by which point the covenant headroom has already shrunk, the assumptions have already aged, and you are having a conversation you were not prepared for. Each deal reviewed in isolation means each one carries a blind spot the others could have informed.
A dedicated advisory relationship built around your active deal stack. Quarterly DSCR and covenant monitoring across every asset. Early warning when a deal begins moving against plan -- before a lender sees it. An annual portfolio intelligence report you can take into any lender conversation about your book. And priority turnaround on every new deal submission across the engagement.
Every active deal stress-tested against current market inputs. Covenant headroom tracked. Early warning issued when a deal begins drifting outside plan.
Priority turnaround on every new DIR submitted during the engagement. New deals assessed in the context of the existing portfolio, not in isolation.
When market conditions shift -- construction costs, lending rates, occupancy trends -- assumptions across the portfolio are updated so your inputs are never running on last year's data.
A full portfolio-level review. Performance against plan. Risk concentration analysis. Forward-looking scenario modelling. Structured for a lender conversation about your entire book.
What this changes: you stop finding out what is wrong with your portfolio from the people with the most leverage over you. A lender surfacing a covenant breach, a refinancing event catching you with stale assumptions, a deal drifting quietly off-plan while your attention is on the next one -- those are the moments this relationship exists to prevent. The cost of this engagement is a fraction of the cost of one conversation you were not prepared for.
Finding out what breaks in your deal costs US$3,000 and 48 hours. Finding out at a lender's table costs significantly more -- in time, in capital already committed, and in credibility you cannot bill back. Submit your deal. We will tell you exactly where it stands before any of that is on the line.