Bankable Projects

#project #returns

A project becomes bankable long after it becomes interesting.

Bankability is about surviving distrust from investors, not impressing them with a PowerPoint. A bankable project assumes that nobody believes you, that many things will go wrong, and it is built accordingly. What I am posting here is largely obvious, yet we all suffer from bias when we evaluate our own projects.

The first filter is certainty of revenues. Returns matter only when they are defined, contracted, and enforceable. When there is an off-taker with proven demand, a legal obligation to pay, and a track record that survives scrutiny, revenues are real. If revenues depend on market optimism, regulatory goodwill, or future renegotiation, the project is not bankable.

Costs are the next illusion to die: bankable projects do not rely on “indicative CAPEX” or EPC trend assumptions. They are priced by people who will sign contracts, post guarantees, and take responsibility when things go wrong. Contingencies are explicit, not buried in a generic line; schedules reflect friction, real good transit times, and actual construction deliverable quantities, not ambition. In other words: if most similar projects are completed in a certain time, why do I believe mine will do much better than the average? 

Risk allocation is where most projects fail quietly, reporting on the heat map too often only comfortably managed risks. A bankable project assigns risks: someone carries fuel quality risk (not a generic fuel risk), someone central bank convertibility risk (not a generic FX risk), someone carries very specific construction and operational risks. Once risk owners are identified, it must be verified that they actually have the balance sheet to absorb them. Penalties in a contract have little value if the counterparty will never be able to pay them.

Many projects proudly present a checklist — a draft PPA, a reviewed model, a technical report with a reputable logo on the cover — and mistake compliance for credibility. Requirements are necessary, though they are meaningless unless they are consistent, mutually reinforcing, and still valid once assumptions are stressed.

Another confusion deserves to be addressed head-on: satisfying bank requirements does not make a project bankable, and even less guarantees  profitability. Banks and lenders protect (rightfully)  themselves. They transfer risk, dilute exposure, and structure downside away. Once a project is bankable, that does not automatically make it investable for shareholders. The harder and more honest conversation is not whether a project is bankable, but whether it remains profitable once risks are properly priced.

Bankability is anti-seductive: It strips away the story, the slides, until only what can be enforced remains. That is why many “great projects” should never have crossed the line: they were designed to be admired, not financed.

If you want applause, bring an idea. If you want lenders’ money, bring something that survives scepticism. If you want returns, bring a solid project.

If you think you have a project and want an honest discussion before the market has one for you, I am always open to a conversation.