The feasibility study answers whether a project should be financed. Monitoring answers the question that follows for the life of the asset: is it performing the way the analysis said it would — and if not, why, and what does that mean for coverage?
Every Wert-Berater study ships with a fully linked financial model — zero hardcoded numbers, every assumption traceable to a cited source. Monitoring puts that instrument to its second use. Each quarter, the firm refreshes the model with the asset’s actual results and re-runs the full analytical battery against them: budget-versus-actual variance line by line, debt service coverage against the lender’s thresholds, covenant compliance, the complete ratio set with written interpretation, Altman Z-Score trajectory, and a re-check of the market evidence — the same published sources the original study was built on, updated to the current vintage. The deliverable is a quarterly performance memorandum, principal-reviewed and signed, with the refreshed model behind it.
Independent quarterly verification of how operating assets are actually performing against underwriting — from an analyst with no stake in the answer. Portfolio-level rollups across multiple assets.
Post-closing surveillance for special-purpose credits: coverage tracking, covenant testing, and early-warning variance flags — against the same model the committee approved.
Institutional asset-management discipline without the institution: where performance is drifting from plan, which assumptions are proving wrong, and what the trajectory means before the lender asks.
Through the firm’s secure client portal: a project hub holding the quarterly memoranda, refreshed linked models, and the running variance record, with email delivery each quarter.
Fixed quarterly retainers per asset, quoted in advance and never contingent on the findings. Multi-asset portfolios are quoted as a portfolio. Available for assets the firm originally studied and, after an onboarding model rebuild, for assets it did not.