Earlier this year Greensill Capital declared insolvency raising questions about transparency and the role of the trade finance industry.
| What went wrong? | How is the SYNTHESIS approach different? |
|---|---|
| Lack of transparency with regards to underlying exposures and assets | Listed notes with investment parameters set by the use of proceeds and investment methodology sections of the notes prospectus |
| Poor governance and risk management resulting in failure to detect discrepancies | Multiple levels of checks and balances embedded in the governance structure to ensure quality of the portfolio and accountability of the team members, eliminating the possibility of ‘management override’ of control functions
Monthly monitoring of the portfolio by ARC Ratings and, prior to authorising each portfolio transaction, by Maples independent director to ensure compliance with the bond prospectus “Digital-first” approach to monitor the portfolio and limit the risk of fraud using IT solutions used by major banks Robust corporate governance monitored by a senior legal team |
| Hyper-growth mentality at the cost of sound credit decisions
Over-exposure to a single high-risk company |
Portfolio assets backed by credit enhancement from multiple banks and insurers with a minimum credit rating of BBB+ |
| Over-reliance on a single credit insurer | Robust investment processes and methodology
Strict concentration limits fixed by the bond prospectus Team members with top level TCF experience, over 300 years of industry expertise and unparalleled market standing |