Political analysts are speculating that the recent reshuffle in the army precisely the Presidential guards was to prepare a way for a possible transfer of power to Frank Biya making him successor.
Most economic indicators of the country are down - except debt and interest payments are UP
Do you think Frank Biyq could make this better or worse
One topic I've noticed generates strong reactions is upfront fees in private lending. On one hand, institutional project finance routinely requires borrowers to cover costs such as: Independent technical and feasibility studies, Financial model reviews, Legal due diligence, Environmental assessments,, Market studies, Valuations, Sponsor and KYC reviews
Those costs are typically paid by the borrower before financial close because they're transaction specific and performed by independent firms. On the other hand, the moment someone mentions an upfront fee in private credit, many immediately assume it's an advance fee scam. Obviously, there are plenty of scams in the market, so the skepticism is understandable. What I'm curious about is where experienced practitioners draw the line.
For example, in a context of a borrower seeking a 100% financing, if a lender has already issued a term sheet or conditional approval and requires an independent third party feasibility and risk assessment before funding, with fees ranging from roughly **0.5% to 2% of the facility** for large, cross border, complex projects, would you consider that consistent with institutional practice, or would you still view it as a red flag?
Interested to hear perspectives from people active in leveraged finance, syndications, project finance, or private credit. What distinguishes legitimate underwriting costs from structures you would immediately walk away from?
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is preparing to deepen its government securities market and develop its first national stock exchange.
I have been examining the infrastructure that would need to support this transition.
The existing structure appears to be built around:
The legal framework has improved since the adoption of the 2018 law governing payment and securities-settlement systems. The country also maintains an active government securities programme, including Treasury bills and bonds in Congolese francs and US dollars.
The strengths I see are:
The weaknesses are more structural:
In my view, the DRC should not begin with the technology vendor for the stock exchange.
It should first define the complete market architecture:
The government securities market should probably be deepened first because it can provide benchmark yields, institutional trading practices and the operational infrastructure on which the equity and corporate bond markets can later build.
My central conclusion is that the stock exchange will be the visible part of the reform, but the invisible infrastructure—payments, custody, settlement, supervision, data and risk management—will determine whether it becomes a real market rather than simply a new institution.
For those with experience in African frontier markets: which should come first in the DRC—an independent securities regulator, the central securities depository, or a formal market-making framework?
One topic I've noticed generates strong reactions is upfront fees in private lending. On one hand, institutional project finance routinely requires borrowers to cover costs such as: Independent technical and feasibility studies, Financial model reviews, Legal due diligence, Environmental assessments,, Market studies, Valuations, Sponsor and KYC reviews
Those costs are typically paid by the borrower before financial close because they're transaction specific and performed by independent firms. On the other hand, the moment someone mentions an upfront fee in private credit, many immediately assume it's an advance fee scam. Obviously, there are plenty of scams in the market, so the skepticism is understandable. What I'm curious about is where experienced practitioners draw the line.
For example, in a context of a borrower seeking a 100% financing, if a lender has already issued a term sheet or conditional approval and requires an independent third party feasibility and risk assessment before funding, with fees ranging from roughly 0.5% to 2% of the facility for large, cross border, complex projects, would you consider that consistent with institutional practice, or would you still view it as a red flag?
Interested to hear perspectives from people active in leveraged finance, syndications, project finance, or private credit. What distinguishes legitimate underwriting costs from structures you would immediately walk away from?
I have been reviewing monthly monetary and financial data for the Democratic Republic of the Congo through June 2026.
Several figures stood out when comparing December 2025 with June 2026:
The deposit growth suggests that the banking system’s funding base has expanded significantly. However, the much slower increase in credit raises questions about how the additional funding is being allocated.
Possible explanations could include conservative bank risk appetite, a limited supply of bankable borrowers, high credit-risk and enforcement costs, regulatory liquidity preferences, or increased demand for government securities. The data alone do not establish which explanation is dominant.
Currency composition is another important issue.
By June 2026:
This may reduce some exchange-rate exposure for depositors and lenders, but it potentially creates currency mismatch for businesses that earn primarily in Congolese francs while servicing dollar-denominated debt.
The geographic distribution is equally concentrated:
Monetary conditions were becoming more accommodative during the same period. The policy rate declined from 15% in January to 13.5% in June, while the interbank rate fell to 13%. Year-on-year inflation was approximately 2.9% in June.
The overall picture seems to be one of expanding financial resources, but incomplete financial deepening.
The main questions I would be interested in discussing are:
Source: Monthly Central Bank of Congo monetary data and outstanding government securities data compiled through June 30, 2026.
One topic I've noticed generates strong reactions is upfront fees in private lending. On one hand, institutional project finance routinely requires borrowers to cover costs such as: Independent technical and feasibility studies, Financial model reviews, Legal due diligence, Environmental assessments,, Market studies, Valuations, Sponsor and KYC reviews
Those costs are typically paid by the borrower before financial close because they're transaction specific and performed by independent firms. On the other hand, the moment someone mentions an upfront fee in private credit, many immediately assume it's an advance fee scam. Obviously, there are plenty of scams in the market, so the skepticism is understandable. What I'm curious about is where experienced practitioners draw the line.
For example, in a context of a borrower seeking a 100% financing, if a lender has already issued a term sheet or conditional approval and requires an independent third party feasibility and risk assessment before funding, with fees ranging from roughly 0.5% to 2% of the facility for large, cross border, complex projects, would you consider that consistent with institutional practice, or would you still view it as a red flag?
Interested to hear perspectives from people active in leveraged finance, syndications, project finance, or private credit. What distinguishes legitimate underwriting costs from structures you would immediately walk away from?
One topic I've noticed generates strong reactions is upfront fees in private lending. On one hand, institutional project finance routinely requires borrowers to cover costs such as: Independent technical and feasibility studies, Financial model reviews, Legal due diligence, Environmental assessments,, Market studies, Valuations, Sponsor and KYC reviews
Those costs are typically paid by the borrower before financial close because they're transaction specific and performed by independent firms. On the other hand, the moment someone mentions an upfront fee in private credit, many immediately assume it's an advance fee scam. Obviously, there are plenty of scams in the market, so the skepticism is understandable. What I'm curious about is where experienced practitioners draw the line.
For example, in a context of a borrower seeking a 100% financing, if a lender has already issued a term sheet or conditional approval and requires an independent third party feasibility and risk assessment before funding, with fees ranging from roughly 0.5% to 2% of the facility for large, cross border, complex projects, would you consider that consistent with institutional practice, or would you still view it as a red flag?
Interested to hear perspectives from people active in leveraged finance, syndications, project finance, or private credit. What distinguishes legitimate underwriting costs from structures you would immediately walk away from?
One topic I've noticed generates strong reactions is upfront fees in private lending. On one hand, institutional project finance routinely requires borrowers to cover costs such as: Independent technical and feasibility studies, Financial model reviews, Legal due diligence, Environmental assessments,, Market studies, Valuations, Sponsor and KYC reviews
Those costs are typically paid by the borrower before financial close because they're transaction specific and performed by independent firms. On the other hand, the moment someone mentions an upfront fee in private credit, many immediately assume it's an advance fee scam. Obviously, there are plenty of scams in the market, so the skepticism is understandable. What I'm curious about is where experienced practitioners draw the line.
For example, in a context of a borrower seeking a 100% financing, if a lender has already issued a term sheet or conditional approval and requires an independent third party feasibility and risk assessment before funding, with fees ranging from roughly 0.5% to 2% of the facility for large, cross border, complex projects, would you consider that consistent with institutional practice, or would you still view it as a red flag?
Interested to hear perspectives from people active in leveraged finance, syndications, project finance, or private credit. What distinguishes legitimate underwriting costs from structures you would immediately walk away from?
One misconception I regularly encounter is that commercial lenders simply review a business plan and decide whether to approve financing. In reality, institutional lending involves several structured stages before capital is deployed:
What I find interesting is that independent due diligence often becomes one of the most valuable parts of the process. It doesn't just help the lender assess risk—it can also identify weaknesses in a project's assumptions before significant capital is committed. For those who have worked with private credit funds, banks, infrastructure lenders, or project finance institutions: Which stage of the underwriting process do you think has the greatest impact on whether a transaction ultimately closes?
One thing I've learned working around institutional private credit:
People often ask why lenders require an independent feasibility study before funding a project. The answer isn't because they distrust the borrower. It's because they need an objective basis for underwriting.
A good feasibility study answers questions like:
* Is the business model commercially viable?
* Are the financial projections reasonable?
* Can cash flows support repayment?
* What happens if costs increase or revenues fall?
For lenders deploying millions of dollars, relying only on a sponsor's projections isn't sufficient. Independent verification reduces uncertainty and improves underwriting quality. That's why institutional lending places so much emphasis on third-party due diligence. Curious how others here view the role of independent feasibility studies in large financing transactions.
seven top European asset allocators reveal how they would spend €100,000 in a fund supermarket for a fairly conservative client with a balanced strategy
For full details https://www.pwmnet.com/content/4f7c56b1-e243-4b84-9442-169e4e3a63d4
One thing I've learned working around institutional private credit:
People often ask why lenders require an independent feasibility study before funding a project. The answer isn't because they distrust the borrower. It's because they need an objective basis for underwriting.
A good feasibility study answers questions like:
For lenders deploying millions of dollars, relying only on a sponsor's projections isn't sufficient. Independent verification reduces uncertainty and improves underwriting quality. That's why institutional lending places so much emphasis on third-party due diligence. Curious how others here view the role of independent feasibility studies in large financing transactions.
A transaction I recently observed got me thinking about leverage from a different angle. A sponsor was pursuing a project that would have struggled to fit within a traditional bank credit box. The project economics were sound, but the sponsor did not have the level of cash equity contribution that many lenders would typically require. The financing solution was interesting. Instead of focusing primarily on a loan to value metric, the lender focused on independent feasibility studies, risk analysis, projected cash flows, sponsor capability, and execution risk. The sponsor’s cash outlay was largely directed toward third party feasibility and risk assessment work performed by auditors. Once the project passed underwriting and risk review, the lender was prepared to finance essentially the entire project cost. From the sponsor’s perspective, a relatively small amount of capital unlocked access to a much larger financing package. It made me wonder whether we sometimes think about leverage too narrowly.
Traditionally, leverage is viewed as debt supported by equity. But in some corners of the private credit market, the sponsor’s capital is being used primarily to validate risk and structure the transaction rather than fund a significant portion of the project itself.
For those active in leveraged finance:
Do you view this as simply another form of leverage, or is it fundamentally a different underwriting philosophy from traditional bank credit?
One thing I’ve noticed around structuring projects for institutional lending: Lenders finance execution more than ideas. A lot of projects look great on paper: strong projections, attractive IRRs and growing markets. But lenders usually ask something deeper: Can this sponsor actually execute? Can they handle: delays, higher costs, operational pressure or weaker market conditions ??
That’s why experienced operators tend to get: better leverage, lower pricing and faster approvals
At a certain level, underwriting becomes less about the project itself and more about the probability of execution.
Glad to read your experience in similar arrangements.
Peter Oppenheimer, chief global equity strategist and head of Macro Research in Europe, in a report writes
Bond yields are climbing in response to increasing inflation risks as well as growing government-debt issuance, which is resulting in more competition for capital, according to Goldman Sachs Research. The demand for capital is also rising to build out infrastructure for artificial intelligence (AI) as well as for critical infrastructure such as energy and defense.
The market moves have caused the correlation between equities and bond yields to turn negative—stocks have climbed as bonds have declined in price. Rising bond yields have also compressed equity risk premiums, meaning investors are being paid less to take on the additional risk of owning stocks instead of risk-free assets like government bonds.
“If oil disruptions continue into the second half of this year and inflation expectations rise further, there is a real risk of a speed bump for equity markets,” Oppenheimer writes.
Investors reacted positively to Granite REIT’s strong Q1 2026 performance, driven by higher leasing activity, rising occupancy, property acquisitions, and stronger cash flow metrics across its industrial and logistics portfolio. The REIT reported revenue of C$165.8 million and net income of C$91.2 million, while maintaining stable 2026 FFO guidance, reinforcing confidence in the resilience of logistics real estate despite ongoing concerns around refinancing costs and interest rates.
Curious how people here view the role of unsecured or lightly structured debt within a broader capital stack.
Recently came across a model where lenders are willing to finance up to full project cost, but place heavy emphasis on independent feasibility and risk analysis upfront, along with strong underwriting of the sponsor and project economics.
Minimum deal sizes were in the $3M+ range, and the approach seemed more focused on risk pricing and validation rather than traditional collateral-heavy structures.
From a CRE perspective, does this type of capital ever make sense as part of the financing mix, or is it generally too far outside typical risk parameters?
Something I’ve noticed around lending: Debt is actually pretty cheap when risk is clear. A lot of borrowers think financing costs are mainly about negotiation. But lenders usually price uncertainty more than anything else. If the lender clearly understands: repayment,cash flow, downside scenarios, execution risks, then financing often becomes much easier and cheaper. The opposite also happens. Projects with strong upside projections still get expensive terms because the risks are unclear or poorly structured.
From what I’ve seen, clarity lowers pricing more than optimism does. Debt becomes expensive when lenders are forced to price uncertainty. Happy to hear from potential borrowers and have a discussion on your interpretation of cost of debt
Private equity investment in U.S. data centers surged to a five-year high in 2025, with firms deploying approximately $45.7 billion — representing nearly 72% of the sector’s total deal value — as AI-driven demand accelerates the race for digital infrastructure. The boom highlights how institutional investors are increasingly treating data centers as a core infrastructure asset class, fueled by explosive growth in cloud computing, AI workloads, and long-term demand for power and connectivity.
One thing I’ve noticed around institutional lending: Lenders care more about repayment visibility than profitability. A business can look very profitable on paper and still struggle to get financing. Why? Because lenders are usually asking: “How clearly can we see repayment happening?” Not just: “How much profit could this make?” That means they look hard at:
cash flow timing
liquidity
stress scenarios
execution risk
debt coverage
A lot of borrowers focus heavily on upside projections. But lenders are often more concerned about whether the structure still works when things don’t go perfectly. Curious if others working around lending or capital markets see the same.
