After the investment committee says yes

The investment paper receives approval. The team moves to completion, and attention turns to the next proposal. Who is now checking whether the assumptions behind the decision remain true?

That question deserves an answer while the approval is still fresh. The committee may have authorised an investment subject to conditions. Management may need to complete operational work before the expected return becomes possible. A signed agreement does not establish that either has happened.

Translate the approval into commitments

Record what was approved, the conditions attached and the authority for subsequent changes. Name the executive responsible for each condition and the evidence needed to close it. Keep unresolved points visible through completion.

An illustrative acquisition might depend on retaining a distribution agreement and securing key staff. If either assumption changes before completion, the responsible decision maker needs to know how that affects the case. A general update that the transaction remains on schedule would miss the issue.

Distinguish conditions that must be met before funds are committed from obligations to be monitored afterwards. The relevant legal and transaction specialists should confirm how the agreements implement those decisions.

Keep the original case available

The first post-investment report should connect performance to the assumptions used in approval. Keep the original baseline alongside the latest forecast. Explain changes in the business, the analysis or the scope separately.

Assign ownership of the expected benefits. An acquisition team may complete the transaction while an operating executive becomes responsible for integration. Make the handover explicit, including the resources required and the information the new owner receives.

Benefits also need a measurement method. Agree whether a reported improvement reflects additional cash, reduced spending, available capacity or a change in valuation assumptions. These are different results and should remain distinguishable.

Decide when the matter returns

The committee should know which developments require another decision. These might include a material change in cost, a failed condition or a revised operating assumption. Choose thresholds appropriate to the investment and the organisation's formal authorities.

Set review dates around meaningful evidence. A review immediately after completion may assess the handover; a later review may examine operating performance. Avoid demanding evidence before the business could reasonably produce it.

The G20/OECD Principles identify oversight of major capital expenditure, acquisitions and divestitures among board responsibilities. The internal division of work between a board, its committees and management needs to be clear. [1]

A useful approval minute tells the next person what must happen. Before closing an investment discussion, check that somebody can explain who will return with evidence and what would cause the decision to be reconsidered.

[1] G20 OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2023 responsibilities of the board Read the source

Nasaq Partners works with a network of experts on governance, strategy and execution. Explore our advisory services.