Development Bank Catches an Unquantified Concessionality Gap Before Board Approval
Executive Summary
Illustrative Scenario
This case study is a composite, educational scenario built from patterns commonly observed in financial model reviews. It does not describe a specific, identifiable client engagement, and any resemblance to a particular transaction is coincidental.
Background¶
A development finance institution was preparing to present a blended finance transaction to its board for approval — a renewable energy project in which the institution's own capital would take a subordinated, below-market-rate position alongside commercial co-investors, intended to improve the risk-return profile enough to mobilize private capital into the deal.
As part of a routine pre-board-approval model review, the institution's internal model risk function examined the transaction model supporting the board memo.
The Problem¶
The transaction model calculated the blended transaction's overall project return and the effective return to each capital provider, but the concessional element of the development finance institution's own position — the fact that its capital was priced below what an equivalent market-rate facility would have charged — was described in the accompanying memo only qualitatively, as "concessional" and "below market," with no supporting calculation showing the actual size of that concession.
Findings¶
The review found that the model contained no line item calculating the present-value gap between the concessional terms actually offered and an equivalent market-rate facility — the specific quantification described in Development Finance Institution Models as the concessionality figure a blended finance model should show explicitly.
Without this calculation, the board memo's supporting model could not answer a basic governance question: how large a subsidy was actually being provided, in dollar or present-value terms, to achieve the transaction's structuring.
Root Cause¶
The transaction team had structured the blended finance terms based on negotiation outcomes with the commercial co-investors, but had not built a parallel calculation comparing those terms to a market-rate benchmark. The qualitative label "concessional" had effectively substituted for the quantitative analysis the board decision actually required.
Risk¶
Had this gone unaddressed, the board would have approved a transaction carrying an unquantified subsidy, with no way to weigh that subsidy's actual magnitude against the transaction's projected development impact — a decision made on a qualitative impression rather than a quantified trade-off, and one that would also complicate the institution's own subsequent reporting on how much concessional capital it had deployed across its portfolio.
Resolution¶
The transaction team built the missing concessionality calculation into the model, comparing the actual facility terms to a market-rate benchmark facility of equivalent tenor and risk profile, expressing the gap in present-value terms. The board memo was revised to present this figure alongside the transaction's projected development impact metrics, allowing the board to make an informed trade-off between the two before approving the transaction.
Lessons Learned¶
- Concessionality is a quantifiable model output, not a qualitative label, and a blended finance model should calculate it explicitly rather than describing terms as "below market" without a supporting figure.
- A board or investment committee approving a subsidy cannot properly weigh it against expected impact if its magnitude was never calculated.
- Pre-approval model review should specifically check for this category of analysis, not only for formula or linkage errors within the model that is present.
- Consistent concessionality quantification across transactions also supports an institution's own portfolio-level reporting on total concessional capital deployed.
Continue Reading¶
Related Technical Guides¶
Related Pillars¶
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a real client engagement?
No. This is an illustrative, composite scenario built from patterns commonly observed in financial model reviews. It does not describe a specific, identifiable transaction or institution.
What does it mean that concessionality was only described qualitatively?
In this scenario, the transaction memo described the facility's terms as "below market" and "concessional" without a supporting calculation showing the actual present-value gap between the concessional terms offered and an equivalent market-rate facility.
Why does quantifying concessionality matter for a board decision?
Because a board approving a transaction is implicitly approving a subsidy of some magnitude, and it cannot properly weigh that subsidy against the transaction's expected development impact if the subsidy's size was never actually calculated.
How is this different from a standard financial model audit finding?
A standard structural audit finding identifies a formula or logic error within a model. This scenario is about a category of analysis — concessionality quantification — being entirely absent from the model rather than present but calculated incorrectly.
What prompted the review in this scenario?
A routine pre-board-approval model review, applied as a standard governance step ahead of any blended finance transaction being presented to the investment committee or board for a final decision.
Related Articles
Development Finance Institution Models
A development finance institution (DFI) pursues development impact alongside, and sometimes in place of, pure commercial return, financing projects a purely commercial lender might not otherwise fund. This guide covers how a DFI model should represent concessional and blended finance structures — where DFI capital is combined with commercial capital at different risk-return positions — the additionality question a DFI investment should be tested against, and how development impact metrics should sit alongside, not replace, standard financial modelling discipline.
Banking Financial Modelling
Banking financial modelling is structurally distinct from a standard corporate model: it is built balance-sheet-first, with earnings derived from asset and liability volumes and spreads rather than a top-line revenue forecast, and it must represent loan portfolio and deposit dynamics, credit loss provisioning, and a set of bank-specific KPIs that a generic corporate model has no equivalent for. This page is the hub for the Knowledge Centre's banking modelling content: how the bank business model translates into a model's architecture, how the three financial statements are structured for a bank, how interest income and the net interest margin bridge are built, and how loan portfolios, deposits, and credit loss provisions should be modelled.