Are you approving or materially revising a SAA?
A new strategic allocation, material redesign or mandate change creates a natural point for a bounded independent review.
For Family Offices, SCF Firms and Wealth Advisors
What must remain true for this allocation to remain viable?
KRS SAA Decision Review is activated by a consequential allocation, liquidity or mandate decision, or by a specific trigger that can change what the strategic allocation may need to absorb.
KRS independently reconstructs and challenges the assumptions behind the decision, compares the current SAA and relevant strategic alternatives where in scope, and makes trade-offs, evidence gaps and governance implications explicit.
KRS tests how strategic allocations behave when market conditions and client-specific wealth assumptions change together, whether through common drivers or independent concurrent events. It is a specialist independent second layer, while investment responsibility remains with the advisor, CIO, Family Office or governing body.
Trigger-Based Review
Is one of these situations forcing you to reopen the assumptions behind the SAA?
KRS is not a replacement for your existing risk process. It becomes relevant when a specific trigger can change the risks the portfolio must absorb, or when a consequential decision needs a documented independent challenge before it is endorsed.
Has a business, leverage or refinancing assumption changed?
A change in business cash generation, debt capacity or access to credit can alter the risk the financial portfolio must absorb.
Could the portfolio be called upon for liquidity?
A delayed liquidity event, new capital need or reduced external funding can make liquidity resilience economically material.
Are illiquid exposures or commitments becoming material?
Private-asset allocations, capital calls or reduced exit liquidity can change the practical resilience of an otherwise sound allocation.
Has a family, succession or timing assumption changed?
A family liquidity requirement, succession event or timing shift can arise during market stress and change the decision frame.
Does a committee need an independent challenge?
Before endorsing a consequential decision, a CIO, advisor or committee may need a clear record of assumptions, trade-offs and review triggers.
Why Portfolio Analysis May Be Incomplete
Static client context is not always enough.
Business value, liquidity needs, leverage, refinancing, succession timing, capital calls and other client-specific variables should not always be treated as fixed inputs. Their deterioration can itself become a source of portfolio fragility.
Liquidity needs
Family business valuation
Refinancing conditions
Leverage
Succession timing
Illiquid commitments
Concentrated family exposures
Unforeseen capital requirements
KRS tests how the strategic allocation behaves when selected assumptions move adversely during market stress, whether they share a common economic driver with the market or arise from a separate event.
Contextual Stress
The relevant question is not only whether risks share a market driver.
A combined stress can arise because the same economic pressure affects markets, business conditions and credit. It can also arise when an independent client event occurs during a drawdown. In both cases, the strategic allocation must absorb the joint consequence rather than the market loss alone.
Market stress and tighter credit
Market stress and weaker business cash flow
Market stress and impaired private-asset liquidity
A capital commitment due during a drawdown
A family liquidity requirement changing during a drawdown
A succession or liquidity event changing while markets are weak
How the Framework Works
From wealth context to portfolio assessment.
The framework is used for a specific decision or trigger. Depending on the case, the work may stay focused on portfolio robustness within a defined mandate or extend into a deeper review of how market conditions and wealth assumptions may change together through common drivers or independent concurrent events.
Identify the assumptions and exposures that materially affect portfolio risk and client risk capacity.
Define the relevant market scenarios and strategic regime structure.
Test how liquidity, business value, leverage, refinancing, succession and asset liquidity may change under stress.
Construct decision-relevant scenarios by combining market conditions and wealth-specific stresses, including common stress drivers and independent concurrent events.
Assess the current portfolio, proposed allocation or alternatives within that same scenario frame.
Translate the analysis into vulnerabilities, trade-offs, alternatives, review priorities and governance triggers.
Product Scope
KRS SAA Decision Review, with a selective Assumption Risk Extension.
The core product is KRS SAA Decision Review. The Assumption Risk Extension is considered only when the materiality screen and available evidence support a defensible deeper analysis.
KRS SAA Decision Review
When it is used
- Consequential SAA or mandate decision
- Specific liquidity, concentration or refinancing trigger
- Second-layer challenge before endorsement
Inputs
- Current portfolio
- Active House View
- Key wealth assumptions
- Relevant liquidity, concentration and commitment information
Central question
Is the current portfolio coherent across the contextual scenarios that matter for this wealth system?
Analysis
- Portfolio vulnerabilities
- Hidden dependencies
- Liquidity and exit risk
- Downside proximity
- Robustness across scenarios
- Sensitivity to key assumptions
Outputs
- Portfolio Assessment
- Risk Alerts and Vulnerability Map
- House View and Scenario Map
- Risk-management options where material vulnerabilities are identified
- Decision and governance triggers
- Governance-ready summary
Extended review after materiality screening
When it is used
- Documented exposure or dependency
- Credible economic transmission path
- Potentially material effect on liquidity, risk capacity or portfolio role
- Concurrent stress window
- Decision that can be prepared or governed differently today
Inputs
- Current portfolio
- Proposed allocation
- Relevant alternatives
- Active House View
- Key wealth assumptions
Central question
Do the evidence and materiality screen justify extending the decision review into assumption risk?
Analysis
- Current / proposed / alternative comparison
- Independent challenge
- Change in vulnerabilities
- Market-related, conditionally linked or independent concurrent-event assessment
- Evidence gaps and governance implications
- Governance implications
Outputs
- Extension assessment
- Contextual scenario evidence
- Materiality-screen record
- Decision and governance triggers
What KRS Evaluates
What KRS evaluates.
The review assesses strategic allocation and total-portfolio robustness within the same frame used to construct the contextual scenarios.
Portfolio concentration and hidden dependencies
Identify visible and indirect exposures that may dominate outcomes when conditions change.
Liquidity and exit risk
Assess whether the structure remains workable under stress, client cash needs and implementation constraints.
Tail and scenario exposure
Evaluate downside asymmetries and fragility channels that standard reporting may understate.
Robustness across plausible regimes
Compare performance and resilience across materially different contextual scenarios.
Consistency with horizon and tolerable loss
Test whether the implementation remains coherent with horizon, acceptable loss and ability to absorb adverse outcomes.
Wealth-context risk layer
Assess the client-specific assumptions that determine what risks the portfolio must absorb and whether the strategic allocation remains robust when those assumptions deteriorate.
Decision Consequences
A review may confirm the allocation or support a change.
The review evaluates the current SAA and, where in scope, compares relevant strategic alternatives, liquidity structures and governance triggers. It makes trade-offs, contextual constraints, evidence gaps and governance implications explicit; the responsible professional retains the decision and any implementation.
Assessment of proposed allocation changes
Comparison of allocation, exposure-structure or portfolio-composition alternatives and their resilience trade-offs.
Downside-mitigation approaches
Assessment of situations in which alternative strategic approaches may reduce downside, concentration or liquidity pressure, without selecting or executing instruments.
Liquidity reinforcement
Assessment of liquidity buffers, commitment pacing, asset-liability alignment and contingency-reserve trade-offs.
Governance triggers
Identification of decision-relevant conditions, evidence gaps and events that should prompt reassessment by the responsible professional.
Governance reinforcement
Options for approval processes, decision rights, challenge mechanisms, reporting and review frequency.
Contingency planning
Response frameworks for adverse scenarios, liquidity events, refinancing pressure or deterioration in key assumptions.
KRS provides scenario analysis, resilience assessment and decision-governance support. It does not select financial instruments, formulate trade instructions, perform suitability assessments, approve policy, execute transactions or manage portfolios. SAA, policy, suitability and implementation decisions remain with the CIO, Family Office, advisor, SCF or competent governing body.
Outputs
What the CIO, family office or committee receives.
Deliverables are designed to make the decision frame, scenario evidence, contextual constraints, strategic comparisons where in scope, and governance triggers usable before a material decision.
Portfolio Assessment
Concise assessment of the current implementation, its vulnerabilities and its coherence within the relevant contextual scenarios.
Risk Alerts and Vulnerability Map
Identification of fragility points, hidden concentrations, liquidity pressure points, scenario sensitivities and evidence gaps.
House View and Scenario Map
Clear map of market scenarios, contextual assumptions and the scenario frame used in the review.
Decision Review Memo
Independent challenge of a proposed decision, setting out trade-offs, robustness gains, remaining weak points and governance implications.
Current / Proposed / Alternative Comparison
Structured comparison showing how the current implementation, the proposed change and relevant alternatives differ under the same analytical frame.
Governance-ready summary
Concise documentation recording the rationale, challenge, accepted residual risks and governance logic for committees, CIOs and client governance.
Value for Wealth Partners
How KRS strengthens the partner's client proposition.
KRS gives wealth professionals a specialist capability for testing whether a strategic allocation remains robust when both market conditions and wealth assumptions move adversely.
Stronger client conversations
Move the discussion beyond performance and generic risk metrics toward robustness under combined stress.
More defensible decisions
Make assumptions, interaction risks, vulnerabilities and trade-offs explicit.
Differentiated advisory capability
Add a specialist independent challenge of the strategic allocation without building the full analytical function internally.
Decision-ready governance
Create a structured basis for the decision at hand, its assumptions and the conditions that should prompt reassessment.
Independence from product providers is one dimension of independence. KRS adds an external challenge of the assumptions behind the strategic allocation itself. The relationship model remains defined by the partner, and investment responsibility remains with the responsible professional or governing body.
Role Boundaries
Independent challenge, not delegated responsibility.
KRS provides scenario analysis, risk diagnostics and decision-governance support. It does not select financial instruments, provide trade instructions, receive orders or client assets, perform suitability assessments, approve policy, execute or manage portfolios. SAA, policy, suitability and implementation decisions remain with the CIO, Family Office, advisor, SCF or competent governing body.
Looking for KRS support directly as an entrepreneur or business owner? Explore KRS for Entrepreneurs.
Selective Contact
Discuss an allocation decision or a trigger for review.
The first conversation focuses on the decision context, the relevant wealth assumptions, the available portfolio information and whether an independent review would add material value.