Canonical definitions of core terms in blended finance, capital architecture, and structured development finance.

Cite as: Temmen, T. (2026). Blended Finance Glossary. Capital Architecture Institute. capital-architecture.institute/glossary

This glossary provides precise, practitioner-grade definitions of the core terms used in blended finance, capital architecture, and layered capital structure design. Definitions are grounded in CAI Working Paper 001 (The Capital Architecture Framework), OECD DAC (2025), IFC/World Bank (2025), and the Convergence transaction database. Where CAI usage extends or departs from standard institutional definitions, the distinction is made explicit.

A

Additionality

Additionality is the property of a concessional or catalytic capital intervention whereby it enables outcomes that would not have occurred without that intervention.

Additionality has three analytically distinct components. Market Failure Additionality establishes that the mandate cannot attract private capital without intervention, due to risk mispricing, structural market failure, or information asymmetry. Minimum Intervention tests that the concessional tranche has been reduced to the smallest size consistent with achieving private participation — iterative reduction until the threshold is identified. Crowding-Out tests that the concessional capital does not occupy risk space that a private investor would accept at market-adjacent returns.

The OECD DAC (2025) identifies the absence of operationalised additionality testing as the primary gap in existing blended finance frameworks. The CAI Additionality Framework converts these three tests into a scored design procedure (0–9 points), producing a documented output that conditions capital stack design.

→ See also: Minimum Concessionality, First-Loss Tranche, Catalytic Capital

→ Primary source: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Appendix A

B

Blended Finance

Blended finance is the strategic use of concessional or catalytic capital to mobilise private capital flows into mandates that commercial capital alone cannot support, while maintaining viable returns for private investors.

The standard institutional definition (OECD DAC) limits blended finance to development objectives in emerging markets and developing economies. The CAI extends this definition on one structural dimension: blended finance is treated as a structural logic rather than a geographic category. The analytical apparatus — catalytic capital absorbing specific risks that prevent private participation, enabling private capital to enter at market-rate returns — applies wherever that market-failure structure exists. This includes energy transition, defense and dual-use technology, social infrastructure, and deep tech venture lending in developed markets.

The Convergence State of Blended Finance (2025) tracks over 1,000 transactions since 2010. Despite this volume, blended finance has not scaled. The OECD characterises it as a “cottage industry with largely bespoke and fragmented interventions.” The CAI diagnosis is structural: the absence of a replicable design methodology, not the absence of capital or instruments.

→ See also: Capital Architecture, Catalytic Capital, Structural Equivalence Proposition

→ Primary source: OECD DAC (2025); Convergence (2025); CAI WP-001, Section I

C

Capital Architecture

Capital Architecture is the systematic design of layered capital structures — optimising the type, sequencing, and pricing of capital sources to make a mandate bankable, replicable, and scalable.

Capital Architecture is distinct from three adjacent disciplines. Structured finance begins from a portfolio of assets and designs distribution instruments. Blended finance as conventionally defined is constrained to development objectives in emerging markets. Fund management begins from an existing vehicle and manages its portfolio.

Capital Architecture begins upstream of all three: with the mandate topology, before any instrument or structure is assumed. The value is created at this upstream position — and the methodological gap lies there. The Capital Architecture Framework (CAF), introduced in CAI WP-001, is a seven-stage lifecycle methodology for this discipline.

→ See also: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section III.A

Capital Architecture Framework (CAF)

The Capital Architecture Framework (CAF) is a seven-stage lifecycle methodology for the systematic design, deployment, and scaling of layered capital structures, introduced by the Capital Architecture Institute in CAI WP-001 (March 2026).

The seven stages are: (Pre) Mandate Readiness Assessment; (1) Mandate Cartography; (2) Tranche and Intercreditor Design; (3) Risk Allocation Engineering; (4) Return Engineering; (5) Replication Testing and Cycle-Aware Stress; (Post) Lifecycle Governance and ILPA Alignment. Every stage produces a documented output that conditions the next. No stage may be skipped.

The CAF is instrument-agnostic and mandate-driven. It begins with the topology of the financing need and derives the optimal capital stack from first principles. It is domain-portable: it applies to blended finance, private credit, special situations, and deep tech mandates in both emerging and developed markets.

The framework fills six documented gaps in existing practice: no end-to-end design methodology; additionality not operationalised; no intercreditor design standard for blended structures; valuation governance absent; EM-only framing; and no quantitative governance standard.

→ See also: Capital Architecture, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture, Replication Readiness Score

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV

Capital-Coupling Coefficient (κ)

The Capital-Coupling Coefficient (κ) is a diagnostic introduced in CAI Working Paper 002 that measures the structural fit between deployed capital and the transformation it finances, defined as the ratio of the capital horizon to the transformation horizon: κ = τC ÷ τS.

A value of κ < 1 indicates capital with a horizon shorter than the transformation requires (too-short coupling); κ > 1 indicates capital held longer than the transformation can productively use (too-long coupling); κ ≈ 1 is an aligned coupling state. The transformation horizon τS is not estimated internally but anchored to exogenous roadmap data through a six-tier confidence system (R1 international scientific consensus through R6 peer-reviewed domain literature). κ is the central explanatory variable in the Capital-Mediated Systems Transitions framework.

→ See also: Capital-Mediated Systems Transitions, Tranche Architecture, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Primary source: CAI WP-002, Section 3

Capital-Mediated Systems Transitions (CMST)

Capital-Mediated Systems Transitions (CMST) is the framework introduced in CAI Working Paper 002 that theorises capital as time-coupled energy directed at a system state, rather than as a quantity to be mobilised.

CMST occupies the boundary between three literatures — sustainability transitions research, blended finance and mission-oriented innovation policy, and the systems-thinking leverage-points tradition — supplying the structural variable each treats as exogenous. Built around the Capital-Coupling Coefficient (κ), it derives two coupling-conditional outputs: system outcome (Ω) and capital-at-risk (R), connected through a constitutive cross-output mechanism. CMST re-reads securitisation as a positive coupling-design technology (κ-engineering) and introduces the sub-critical-opportunity construct for portfolio allocation. The framework is presented as a Lakatosian research programme with six falsifiable hypotheses.

→ See also: Capital-Coupling Coefficient, Capital Architecture, Structural Equivalence Proposition

→ Primary source: CAI WP-002

Catalytic Capital

Catalytic capital is capital deployed with the explicit purpose of attracting co-investment from investors who would not otherwise participate, by absorbing specific risks or improving risk-adjusted return profiles for private capital.

Catalytic capital is characterised by its position in the capital stack rather than its source. It occupies the tranche that absorbs the specific risk preventing private participation — typically the first-loss position or a subordinated debt tranche. Its return is priced at or below the minimum required by the provider, not at market rate.

OECD (2026) data confirms the structural logic: in Africa, junior tranche commitments representing a small fraction of total blended finance commitments generated the largest absolute private capital mobilisation. The mobilisation effect is determined by position in the capital stack, not volume.

→ See also: First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Mobilisation Multiplier, Minimum Concessionality

→ Primary source: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Section III.B

Concessional Capital

Concessional capital is finance provided on terms more favourable than market — typically below-market interest rates, extended tenor, subordinated position, or grace periods — with the explicit intent of enabling a transaction that market-rate capital alone cannot support.

Concessional capital is provided by development finance institutions, governments, multilateral development banks, and philanthropic investors. Its deployment is subject to the Minimum Concessionality Principle: concessional terms should be no more favourable than the minimum required to enable private capital participation.

Concessional capital is not necessarily first-loss capital, though the two frequently overlap. A concessional loan at below-market rate may occupy a senior or pari passu position; a first-loss tranche may carry an above-zero return. The distinction matters for capital stack design and regulatory classification.

→ See also: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Minimum Concessionality, Additionality

E

Execution Risk

Execution Risk is the CAF Stage 3 classification for risks arising from implementation quality — reducible through better covenant engineering, governance, and management. Execution Risk should be commercially priced: it belongs in commercial tranches, not the concessional layer.

Allocating Execution Risk to the first-loss tranche misuses catalytic capital and fails the additionality test. The distinction between Execution Risk, Mandate Risk, and Residual Risk is the foundational analytical step in risk allocation engineering.

→ See also: Mandate Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

F

First-Loss Tranche

The first-loss tranche is the most junior layer of a capital structure — the tranche that absorbs the first losses generated by the underlying asset portfolio, up to the size of that tranche, before any losses reach senior investors.

In blended finance structures, the first-loss tranche is typically provided by a development finance institution, government entity, or philanthropic investor at concessional returns. Its function is to absorb the specific risk that prevents commercial investors from participating at market-rate returns. Properly sized and positioned, it acts as a loss buffer that transforms an otherwise uninvestable mandate into a bankable structure for private capital.

The CAF operationalises first-loss sizing through the Mobilisation Multiplier Model: the first-loss tranche is iteratively reduced until the private capital participation threshold is identified, satisfying the Minimum Concessionality Principle. The Stage 3 Quantitative Governance Requirement specifies that the first-loss tranche’s expected loss must equal or exceed the total structure’s expected loss for the risk allocation to be architecturally valid.

→ See also: Catalytic Capital, Concessional Capital, Minimum Concessionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Sections III.B, III.C, IV.B, VI.B

I

Intercreditor Architecture

Intercreditor architecture is the set of contractual and structural arrangements governing the rights, priorities, and obligations of different capital providers in a layered structure — particularly in stress, enforcement, and liquidation scenarios.

The CAF identifies five mandatory intercreditor design decisions that must be resolved before legal documentation begins: payment waterfall design; enforcement rights; cure rights; PIK toggle governance; and liability management controls. Intercreditor design is a Stage 2 output — not a legal formality. Structures that reach legal documentation without a pre-agreed intercreditor framework require renegotiation and consistently delay first close.

→ See also: Tranche Architecture, Payment Waterfall, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.C

M

Mandate Cartography

Mandate Cartography is Stage 1 of the Capital Architecture Framework. It maps the precise topology of a financing need across four dimensions before any structural design begins: Capital Need Type; Risk Topology; Investor Universe; and Replication Potential.

The sequencing is deliberate: the investor universe is established as a design input, not an output. Most structural failures arise from designing a capital stack and then discovering that the investor universe cannot absorb one or more tranches. Mandate Cartography prevents this by establishing the investor universe constraint before design begins.

→ See also: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Readiness Assessment, Tranche Architecture

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.B

Mandate Risk

Mandate Risk is the CAF Stage 3 classification for risks that are structural to the asset class — risks that cannot be eliminated by better execution, governance, or documentation. Mandate Risk is the primary determinant of whether a blended structure is justified: if a mandate has no Mandate Risk, it does not require concessional capital.

Examples include: construction risk in a greenfield infrastructure project in a frontier market; technology risk in a first-commercial-deployment deep tech venture; political risk in a jurisdiction without treaty coverage; currency risk where no hedging instrument is available at commercially viable cost.

→ See also: Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

Minimum Concessionality

Minimum concessionality is the principle that concessional capital should be deployed only to the extent required to enable private capital participation — no more.

Established as a normative constraint in OECD DAC (2025), minimum concessionality prevents over-subsidisation of mandates that private capital could partially support without intervention. Excess concessionality distorts commercial incentives, crowds out private capital rather than mobilising it, and misallocates limited public development finance resources.

The CAF operationalises minimum concessionality as a quantitative design constraint: the first-loss or concessional tranche is sized then reduced in increments until the threshold at which private participation is no longer commercially viable is identified. This produces a documented design output rather than relying on practitioner judgment.

→ See also: Additionality, Concessional Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier

→ Primary source: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Section III.C

Mobilisation Multiplier (MMM Ratio)

The Mobilisation Multiplier, or MMM ratio, measures the volume of private capital mobilised per unit of concessional or catalytic capital deployed.

The MMM ratio is the primary quantitative efficiency metric for blended finance structures. A structure with a 4x MMM ratio mobilises EUR 4 of private capital for every EUR 1 of concessional capital deployed. OECD (2026) confirms that junior tranche positioning — not concessional volume — is the primary driver of mobilisation efficiency.

The CAF uses the MMM ratio as the central output of the Mobilisation Multiplier Model in Stage 2 Tranche Architecture, and as a pass/fail threshold in the Stage 5 Quantitative Governance Requirements.

→ See also: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Primary source: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Sections III.B, IV.B, VI.B

Q

Quantitative Gate Requirement (QGR)

A Quantitative Gate Requirement (QGR) is a binary pass / remediate / fail test that closes each stage of the Capital Architecture Framework, preventing a structure from advancing until the prior stage’s output meets a defined quantitative threshold.

QGRs convert the CAF from a descriptive sequence into a gated methodology: no stage may proceed on judgment alone. QGR-5, at the Replication Testing stage, applies stress scenarios — late-cycle default rates, liability-management exercises, regulatory reclassification — with pass thresholds calibrated against Bank of England private-credit stress-testing guidance (BoE FSR, 2024). Each gate produces a documented verdict that becomes part of the structure’s governance record.

→ See also: Capital Architecture Framework, Replication Readiness Score, Risk Allocation Engineering

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Sections IV, VI.B

R

Replication Corridor

The replication corridor is the set of future mandates that share enough structural characteristics with a given transaction to be financed from the same capital-stack template.

The corridor is mapped at CAF Stage 1 (Mandate Cartography), not discovered after the fact. A structure with a wide replication corridor — many comparable mandates by sponsor, geography, risk topology, and ticket size — is a candidate for a repeatable platform; a structure with a narrow corridor is a one-off. The corridor concept operationalises the CAF principle that replicability must be designed from Stage 1 rather than retrofitted at Stage 5, and it is the denominator the Replication Readiness Score evaluates against.

→ See also: Replication Readiness Score, Mandate Cartography, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Sections III.D, IV.B

Replication Readiness Score (RRS)

The Replication Readiness Score (RRS) is a 20-point instrument in the CAF that evaluates whether a capital structure can be standardised and deployed across multiple future mandates, rather than remaining a bespoke transaction.

The RRS evaluates five dimensions: documentation standardisability; risk-allocation transferability; investor-base scalability; regulatory portability; and secondary-market viability. Structures scoring below 10 are classified as bespoke transactions; 10–15 require modification for template deployment; 16–20 are template-ready.

The RRS operationalises the Replication Imperative — the CAF principle that every design decision from Stage 2 onwards is evaluated not only for its fitness for the current mandate, but for its replicability. This responds directly to the OECD diagnosis that blended finance has remained a cottage industry due to the absence of standardisation.

→ See also: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Intercreditor Architecture

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Sections III.D, IV.F

Residual Risk

Residual Risk is the CAF Stage 3 classification for risks genuinely unallocatable to any tranche at market rate. No commercial capital class will accept Residual Risk at any premium that keeps the structure bankable. This is the precise test for whether concessional capital is warranted: only Residual Risk justifies a concessional or catalytic tranche.

The test: would a commercial LP accept this risk at some price? If yes — it is Execution Risk or Mandate Risk, commercially allocatable. If no — it is Residual Risk, and concessional capital may be warranted. The test is not whether the commercial price is attractive; it is whether any commercial price exists.

→ See also: Execution Risk, Mandate Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

Risk Allocation Engineering

Risk Allocation Engineering is Stage 3 of the Capital Architecture Framework. It assigns each risk identified in the Stage 1 Risk Topology to the tranche best positioned to hold it, using the three-category classification: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk, and Residual Risk.

The Risk Attribution Matrix is the Stage 3 output: every identified risk is assigned to a category and to a specific tranche. No risk may appear without a tranche assignment. No tranche may hold risks from all three categories simultaneously without documented justification.

→ See also: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Tranche Architecture

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

S

Structural Equivalence Proposition

The Structural Equivalence Proposition is the theoretical foundation for the CAF Global North Application Framework. It holds that the blended finance mechanism — catalytic capital absorbing risks to enable private participation at market-rate returns — applies identically wherever the market-failure structure is equivalent, regardless of geography.

Griffith-Jones and Kraemer-Mbula (2022) demonstrate that industrial policy risk absorption is structurally identical to the development finance mechanism. Mazzucato (2021) extends this to deep tech and energy transition: government grants and innovation loans function as catalytic first-loss capital in exactly the structural sense that blended finance theory defines. The CAF is the first published practitioner methodology to make this structural equivalence explicit and provide domain-specific application guidance.

→ See also: Capital Architecture Framework, Blended Finance

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section V

T

Tranche Architecture

Tranche architecture is the design of a capital structure’s layered composition — specifying the number, size, seniority, return profile, and investor universe of each capital class.

The CAF conducts tranche architecture in Stage 2 using three tools: the Capital Stack Spectrum (mapping all available capital classes from concessional to senior secured, with their natural investor universes); the Mobilisation Multiplier Model (iterative sizing of the first-loss/concessional tranche to identify the minimum concessionality threshold); and the intercreditor design framework (resolving five mandatory intercreditor decisions before legal documentation).

Tranche architecture is conditioned by Mandate Cartography: the investor universe is established before design begins. A tranche that the investor universe cannot absorb is not a viable design output.

→ See also: Intercreditor Architecture, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier, Mandate Cartography

→ Primary source: CAI WP-001, Section IV.C

Published by the Capital Architecture Institute, Zürich. All definitions subject to revision as the CAF methodology develops. For feedback and corrections: hello@capital-architecture.institute

Zitierform: Temmen, T. (2026). Capital Architecture Glossar. Capital Architecture Institute. capital-architecture.institute/de/glossary

Capital Architecture (CA)

Das systematische Design geschichteter Kapitalstrukturen. Die Disziplin formalisiert das Konstruieren von Kapital-Stacks, die Risiko an die Kapitalklasse allozieren, die am besten positioniert ist, es zu tragen, und die replizierbar sind.

Capital Architecture Framework (CAF)

Die siebenstufige Praktiker-Methodologie des CAI. Sequentielle Strenge, quantitative Gates, Replizierbarkeit ab Stufe 1.

Blended Finance

Strukturen, in denen katalytisches Kapital ein spezifisches Risiko absorbiert, das privatem Kapital den Zugang zu marktüblichen Renditen verbaut. Der Mechanismus ist strukturell, nicht geografisch.

Katalytisches Kapital

Kapital — typischerweise konzessionär oder First-Loss — das positioniert ist, ein Risiko zu absorbieren, das andere Kapitalklassen nicht zu kommerziell tragfähigen Konditionen tragen können.

Tranche

Eine Schicht im Kapital-Stack mit definierten Rechten, Renditeprofil und Risikoposition. Tranchen werden über die Loss-Coverage-Hierarchie und die Distribution-Waterfall geordnet.

Quantitative Gate Requirement (QGR)

Ein binärer Pass/Fail-Test am Ende einer Stufe. Strukturen, die ein Gate nicht passieren, kehren in den Designraum zurück.

ILPA DDQ 2.0

Der institutionelle Standard für die Due-Diligence-Dokumentation, die LPs von Fund Managern erwarten. Das CAF Stage POST mappt explizit auf die sieben Due-Diligence-Bereiche.

Replikationskorridor

Die Menge an Mandaten, die genug Struktur teilen, um vom selben Template finanziert zu werden. Stufe 1 produziert die Erstdefinition, Stufe 5 testet sie.

Dieses Glossar wird mit jeder neuen Working-Paper-Veröffentlichung erweitert. Vorschläge für Begriffe an hello@capital-architecture.institute.

Definiciones canónicas de los términos clave en blended finance, capital architecture y structured development finance.

Cita como: Temmen, T. (2026). Blended Finance Glossary. Capital Architecture Institute. capital-architecture.institute/glossary

Este glosario ofrece definiciones precisas, de grado practitioner, de los términos clave utilizados en blended finance, capital architecture y diseño de estructuras de capital por capas. Las definiciones se sustentan en CAI Working Paper 001 (The Capital Architecture Framework), OECD DAC (2025), IFC/World Bank (2025) y la base de datos transaccional de Convergence. Cuando el uso del CAI extiende o se aparta de las definiciones institucionales estándar, se hace explícita la distinción.

A

Additionality

La additionality es la propiedad de una intervención de capital concesional o catalítico por la cual permite resultados que no se habrían producido sin esa intervención.

La additionality tiene tres componentes analíticamente distintos. Market Failure Additionality establece que el mandato no puede atraer capital privado sin intervención debido a mispricing del riesgo, fallo estructural de mercado o asimetría de información. Minimum Intervention comprueba que la tranche concesional se ha reducido al menor tamaño compatible con la participación privada — reducción iterativa hasta identificar el umbral. Crowding-Out comprueba que el capital concesional no ocupa un espacio de riesgo que un inversor privado aceptaría a retornos cercanos al mercado.

La OECD DAC (2025) identifica la ausencia de un test operativo de additionality como la principal carencia de los frameworks de blended finance existentes. El CAI Additionality Framework convierte estos tres tests en un procedimiento de diseño puntuado (0–9 puntos), produciendo un output documentado que condiciona el diseño del capital stack.

→ Véase también: Minimum Concessionality, First-Loss Tranche, Catalytic Capital

→ Fuente primaria: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Apéndice A

B

Blended Finance

El blended finance es el uso estratégico de capital concesional o catalítico para movilizar flujos de capital privado hacia mandatos que el capital comercial por sí solo no puede sostener, manteniendo retornos viables para los inversores privados.

La definición institucional estándar (OECD DAC) limita el blended finance a objetivos de desarrollo en mercados emergentes y economías en desarrollo. El CAI extiende esta definición en una dimensión estructural: el blended finance se trata como una lógica estructural y no como categoría geográfica. El aparato analítico — capital catalítico que absorbe riesgos específicos que impiden la participación privada, permitiendo la entrada de capital privado a tasas de mercado — se aplica allí donde existe esa estructura de fallo de mercado. Esto incluye transición energética, defensa y tecnología dual-use, infraestructura social y deep tech venture lending en mercados desarrollados.

El Convergence State of Blended Finance (2025) registra más de 1,000 transacciones desde 2010. Pese a este volumen, el blended finance no ha escalado. La OECD lo caracteriza como una “industria artesanal con intervenciones en gran medida a medida y fragmentadas”. El diagnóstico del CAI es estructural: la ausencia de una metodología de diseño replicable, no la ausencia de capital o instrumentos.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture, Catalytic Capital, Structural Equivalence Proposition

→ Fuente primaria: OECD DAC (2025); Convergence (2025); CAI WP-001, Sección I

C

Capital Architecture

La Capital Architecture es el diseño sistemático de estructuras de capital por capas — optimizando el tipo, la secuencia y el pricing de las fuentes de capital para hacer un mandato bancarizable, replicable y escalable.

La Capital Architecture es distinta de tres disciplinas adyacentes. La structured finance parte de un portfolio de activos y diseña instrumentos de distribución. El blended finance, en su definición convencional, está restringido a objetivos de desarrollo en mercados emergentes. La fund management parte de un vehículo existente y gestiona su cartera.

La Capital Architecture comienza upstream de las tres: en la topología del mandato, antes de que se asuma cualquier instrumento o estructura. El valor se crea en esa posición upstream — y la brecha metodológica reside ahí. El Capital Architecture Framework (CAF), introducido en CAI WP-001, es una metodología de ciclo de vida de siete etapas para esta disciplina.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección III.A

Capital Architecture Framework (CAF)

El Capital Architecture Framework (CAF) es una metodología de ciclo de vida de siete etapas para el diseño, despliegue y escalado sistemático de estructuras de capital por capas, introducida por el Capital Architecture Institute en CAI WP-001 (marzo de 2026).

Las siete etapas son: (Pre) Mandate Readiness Assessment; (1) Mandate Cartography; (2) Tranche and Intercreditor Design; (3) Risk Allocation Engineering; (4) Return Engineering; (5) Replication Testing and Cycle-Aware Stress; (Post) Lifecycle Governance and ILPA Alignment. Cada etapa produce un output documentado que condiciona la siguiente. Ninguna etapa puede saltarse.

El CAF es agnóstico al instrumento y dirigido por mandato. Comienza por la topología de la necesidad de financiación y deriva el capital stack óptimo a partir de primeros principios. Es portable entre dominios: se aplica a blended finance, private credit, special situations y mandatos deep tech tanto en mercados emergentes como desarrollados.

El framework cubre seis brechas documentadas en la práctica existente: ausencia de metodología end-to-end de diseño; additionality no operacionalizada; ausencia de un estándar de diseño intercreditor para estructuras blended; ausencia de governance de valoración; framing solo EM; y ausencia de un estándar cuantitativo de governance.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture, Replication Readiness Score

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV

Catalytic Capital

El catalytic capital es capital desplegado con el propósito explícito de atraer co-inversión de inversores que no participarían de otro modo, absorbiendo riesgos específicos o mejorando los perfiles de retorno ajustados al riesgo del capital privado.

El catalytic capital se caracteriza por su posición en el capital stack más que por su origen. Ocupa la tranche que absorbe el riesgo específico que impide la participación privada — habitualmente la posición first-loss o una tranche de deuda subordinada. Su retorno se fija en el mínimo exigido por el proveedor o por debajo, no a tasa de mercado.

Datos OECD (2026) confirman la lógica estructural: en África, los compromisos de junior tranche que representaban una fracción reducida del total de compromisos blended generaron la mayor movilización absoluta de capital privado. El efecto de movilización viene determinado por la posición en el capital stack, no por el volumen.

→ Véase también: First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Mobilisation Multiplier, Minimum Concessionality

→ Fuente primaria: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Sección III.B

Concessional Capital

El concessional capital es financiación proporcionada en condiciones más favorables que el mercado — habitualmente tasas de interés por debajo de mercado, plazos extendidos, posición subordinada o periodos de gracia — con la intención explícita de hacer posible una transacción que el capital a tasa de mercado por sí solo no puede sostener.

El concessional capital lo proporcionan instituciones financieras de desarrollo, gobiernos, bancos multilaterales de desarrollo e inversores filantrópicos. Su despliegue está sujeto al Minimum Concessionality Principle: las condiciones concesionales no deben ser más favorables que el mínimo requerido para hacer posible la participación de capital privado.

El concessional capital no es necesariamente first-loss capital, aunque ambos a menudo coinciden. Un préstamo concesional a tasa por debajo de mercado puede ocupar una posición senior o pari passu; una tranche first-loss puede tener un retorno superior a cero. La distinción importa para el diseño del capital stack y la clasificación regulatoria.

→ Véase también: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Minimum Concessionality, Additionality

E

Execution Risk

El Execution Risk es la clasificación CAF de la Stage 3 para riesgos derivados de la calidad de implementación — reducibles mediante mejor ingeniería de covenants, governance y management. El Execution Risk debe ser comercialmente fijado en precio: pertenece a las tranches comerciales, no a la capa concesional.

Asignar Execution Risk a la tranche first-loss desperdicia el capital catalítico y suspende el test de additionality. La distinción entre Execution Risk, Mandate Risk y Residual Risk es el paso analítico fundacional en risk allocation engineering.

→ Véase también: Mandate Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.D

F

First-Loss Tranche

La first-loss tranche es la capa más junior de una estructura de capital — la tranche que absorbe las primeras pérdidas generadas por la cartera de activos subyacente, hasta el tamaño de esa tranche, antes de que pérdida alguna alcance a los inversores senior.

En estructuras de blended finance, la first-loss tranche la proporciona habitualmente una institución financiera de desarrollo, una entidad gubernamental o un inversor filantrópico a retornos concesionales. Su función es absorber el riesgo específico que impide a los inversores comerciales participar a retornos de mercado. Adecuadamente dimensionada y posicionada, actúa como buffer de pérdidas que transforma un mandato de otro modo no invertible en una estructura bancarizable para el capital privado.

El CAF operacionaliza el dimensionamiento de la first-loss mediante el Mobilisation Multiplier Model: la first-loss tranche se reduce iterativamente hasta identificar el umbral de participación de capital privado, satisfaciendo el Minimum Concessionality Principle. El Quantitative Governance Requirement de la Stage 3 especifica que la pérdida esperada de la first-loss tranche debe igualar o superar la pérdida esperada total de la estructura para que la asignación de riesgo sea arquitectónicamente válida.

→ Véase también: Catalytic Capital, Concessional Capital, Minimum Concessionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Secciones III.B, III.C, IV.B, VI.B

I

Intercreditor Architecture

La intercreditor architecture es el conjunto de acuerdos contractuales y estructurales que rigen los derechos, prioridades y obligaciones de los distintos proveedores de capital en una estructura por capas — particularmente en escenarios de stress, enforcement y liquidación.

El CAF identifica cinco decisiones de diseño intercreditor obligatorias que deben resolverse antes de que comience la documentación legal: diseño del payment waterfall; derechos de enforcement; derechos de cure; governance del PIK toggle; y controles de liability management. El diseño intercreditor es un output de la Stage 2 — no un formalismo legal. Las estructuras que llegan a la documentación legal sin un framework intercreditor pre-acordado requieren renegociación y retrasan sistemáticamente el first close.

→ Véase también: Tranche Architecture, Payment Waterfall, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.C

M

Mandate Cartography

La Mandate Cartography es la Stage 1 del Capital Architecture Framework. Mapea la topología precisa de una necesidad de financiación a lo largo de cuatro dimensiones antes de iniciar cualquier diseño estructural: Capital Need Type; Risk Topology; Investor Universe; y Replication Potential.

La secuencia es deliberada: el investor universe se establece como input de diseño, no como output. La mayoría de los fallos estructurales surgen de diseñar un capital stack y descubrir después que el investor universe no puede absorber una o más tranches. La Mandate Cartography evita esto al establecer la restricción del investor universe antes de que comience el diseño.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Readiness Assessment, Tranche Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.B

Mandate Risk

El Mandate Risk es la clasificación CAF de la Stage 3 para riesgos estructurales a la clase de activo — riesgos que no pueden eliminarse mediante mejor ejecución, governance o documentación. El Mandate Risk es el determinante primario de si una estructura blended está justificada: si un mandato no tiene Mandate Risk, no requiere capital concesional.

Ejemplos: riesgo de construcción en un proyecto greenfield de infraestructura en un mercado frontier; riesgo tecnológico en una empresa deep tech en su primer despliegue comercial; riesgo político en una jurisdicción sin cobertura de tratados; riesgo de divisa cuando no hay instrumento de hedge disponible a un coste comercialmente viable.

→ Véase también: Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.D

Minimum Concessionality

La minimum concessionality es el principio según el cual el capital concesional debe desplegarse solo en la medida requerida para hacer posible la participación de capital privado — ni más.

Establecida como restricción normativa en OECD DAC (2025), la minimum concessionality previene la sobre-subsidiación de mandatos que el capital privado podría sostener parcialmente sin intervención. La concessionality excesiva distorsiona los incentivos comerciales, expulsa al capital privado en lugar de movilizarlo y mal asigna recursos limitados de development finance pública.

El CAF operacionaliza la minimum concessionality como restricción cuantitativa de diseño: la tranche first-loss o concesional se dimensiona y luego se reduce en incrementos hasta identificar el umbral en el que la participación privada deja de ser comercialmente viable. Esto produce un output de diseño documentado, en lugar de depender del juicio del practitioner.

→ Véase también: Additionality, Concessional Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier

→ Fuente primaria: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Sección III.C

Mobilisation Multiplier (MMM Ratio)

El Mobilisation Multiplier, o MMM ratio, mide el volumen de capital privado movilizado por unidad de capital concesional o catalítico desplegado.

El MMM ratio es la métrica cuantitativa primaria de eficiencia para estructuras de blended finance. Una estructura con un MMM ratio de 4x moviliza EUR 4 de capital privado por cada EUR 1 de capital concesional desplegado. OECD (2026) confirma que el posicionamiento en junior tranche — no el volumen concesional — es el motor primario de la eficiencia de movilización.

El CAF utiliza el MMM ratio como output central del Mobilisation Multiplier Model en la Stage 2 Tranche Architecture, y como umbral pass/fail en los Quantitative Governance Requirements de la Stage 5.

→ Véase también: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Secciones III.B, IV.B, VI.B

R

Replication Readiness Score (RRS)

El Replication Readiness Score (RRS) es un instrumento de 20 puntos del CAF que evalúa si una estructura de capital puede estandarizarse y desplegarse en múltiples mandatos futuros, en lugar de permanecer como una transacción a medida.

El RRS evalúa cinco dimensiones: estandarizabilidad de la documentación; transferibilidad de la asignación de riesgo; escalabilidad de la base de inversores; portabilidad regulatoria; y viabilidad en mercado secundario. Las estructuras con puntuación inferior a 10 se clasifican como transacciones a medida; 10–15 requieren modificación para despliegue como template; 16–20 están listas como template.

El RRS operacionaliza el Replication Imperative — el principio del CAF según el cual cada decisión de diseño desde la Stage 2 en adelante se evalúa no solo por su adecuación al mandato actual, sino por su replicabilidad. Responde directamente al diagnóstico de la OECD según el cual el blended finance ha permanecido como industria artesanal por la ausencia de estandarización.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Intercreditor Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Secciones III.D, IV.F

Residual Risk

El Residual Risk es la clasificación CAF de la Stage 3 para riesgos genuinamente no asignables a ninguna tranche a tasa de mercado. Ninguna clase de capital comercial aceptará Residual Risk a precio alguno que mantenga la estructura bancarizable. Este es el test preciso de si está justificado el capital concesional: solo el Residual Risk justifica una tranche concesional o catalítica.

El test: ¿aceptaría un LP comercial este riesgo a algún precio? Si sí — es Execution Risk o Mandate Risk, comercialmente asignable. Si no — es Residual Risk, y el capital concesional puede estar justificado. El test no es si el precio comercial es atractivo; es si existe algún precio comercial.

→ Véase también: Execution Risk, Mandate Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.D

Risk Allocation Engineering

El Risk Allocation Engineering es la Stage 3 del Capital Architecture Framework. Asigna cada riesgo identificado en la Risk Topology de la Stage 1 a la tranche mejor posicionada para soportarlo, mediante la clasificación en tres categorías: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk y Residual Risk.

La Risk Attribution Matrix es el output de la Stage 3: cada riesgo identificado se asigna a una categoría y a una tranche específica. Ningún riesgo puede aparecer sin asignación de tranche. Ninguna tranche puede sostener simultáneamente riesgos de las tres categorías sin justificación documentada.

→ Véase también: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Tranche Architecture

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.D

S

Structural Equivalence Proposition

La Structural Equivalence Proposition es la base teórica del CAF Global North Application Framework. Sostiene que el mecanismo de blended finance — capital catalítico absorbiendo riesgos para hacer posible la participación privada a retornos de mercado — se aplica de forma idéntica allí donde la estructura de fallo de mercado es equivalente, con independencia de la geografía.

Griffith-Jones y Kraemer-Mbula (2022) demuestran que la absorción de riesgo en política industrial es estructuralmente idéntica al mecanismo de development finance. Mazzucato (2021) lo extiende a deep tech y transición energética: los grants gubernamentales y los préstamos de innovación funcionan como capital catalítico first-loss exactamente en el sentido estructural que la teoría del blended finance define. El CAF es la primera metodología practitioner publicada que hace explícita esta equivalencia estructural y aporta orientación de aplicación específica por dominio.

→ Véase también: Capital Architecture Framework, Blended Finance

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección V

T

Tranche Architecture

La tranche architecture es el diseño de la composición por capas de una estructura de capital — especificando el número, tamaño, seniority, perfil de retorno e investor universe de cada clase de capital.

El CAF realiza la tranche architecture en la Stage 2 utilizando tres herramientas: el Capital Stack Spectrum (mapeando todas las clases de capital disponibles, de concesional a senior secured, con sus universos naturales de inversor); el Mobilisation Multiplier Model (dimensionamiento iterativo de la tranche first-loss/concesional para identificar el umbral de minimum concessionality); y el framework de diseño intercreditor (resolviendo cinco decisiones intercreditor obligatorias antes de la documentación legal).

La tranche architecture está condicionada por la Mandate Cartography: el investor universe se establece antes de que comience el diseño. Una tranche que el investor universe no puede absorber no es un output de diseño viable.

→ Véase también: Intercreditor Architecture, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier, Mandate Cartography

→ Fuente primaria: CAI WP-001, Sección IV.C

Publicado por el Capital Architecture Institute, Zúrich. Todas las definiciones están sujetas a revisión a medida que la metodología CAF se desarrolla. Para comentarios y correcciones: hello@capital-architecture.institute

Définitions canoniques des termes clés en blended finance, capital architecture et structured development finance.

Citez comme : Temmen, T. (2026). Blended Finance Glossary. Capital Architecture Institute. capital-architecture.institute/glossary

Ce glossaire fournit des définitions précises, de niveau practitioner, des termes clés utilisés en blended finance, capital architecture et conception de structures de capital en couches. Les définitions s’appuient sur CAI Working Paper 001 (The Capital Architecture Framework), OECD DAC (2025), IFC/World Bank (2025) et la base de données transactionnelle Convergence. Lorsque l’usage du CAI étend ou s’écarte des définitions institutionnelles standard, la distinction est rendue explicite.

A

Additionality

L’additionality est la propriété d’une intervention de capital concessionnel ou catalytique selon laquelle elle permet des résultats qui n’auraient pas eu lieu sans cette intervention.

L’additionality comporte trois composantes analytiquement distinctes. Market Failure Additionality établit que le mandat ne peut attirer de capital privé sans intervention, en raison d’un mispricing du risque, d’une défaillance structurelle de marché ou d’une asymétrie d’information. Minimum Intervention vérifie que la tranche concessionnelle a été réduite à la taille la plus petite compatible avec la participation privée — réduction itérative jusqu’à identification du seuil. Crowding-Out vérifie que le capital concessionnel n’occupe pas un espace de risque qu’un investisseur privé accepterait à des retours proches du marché.

L’OCDE DAC (2025) identifie l’absence de test d’additionality opérationnalisé comme la principale lacune des frameworks de blended finance existants. Le CAI Additionality Framework convertit ces trois tests en une procédure de conception notée (0–9 points), produisant un output documenté qui conditionne la conception du capital stack.

→ Voir aussi : Minimum Concessionality, First-Loss Tranche, Catalytic Capital

→ Source primaire : OECD DAC (2025) ; CAI WP-001, Annexe A

B

Blended Finance

Le blended finance est l’usage stratégique de capital concessionnel ou catalytique pour mobiliser des flux de capital privé vers des mandats que le capital commercial seul ne peut soutenir, tout en maintenant des retours viables pour les investisseurs privés.

La définition institutionnelle standard (OECD DAC) limite le blended finance aux objectifs de développement dans les marchés émergents et économies en développement. Le CAI étend cette définition sur une dimension structurelle : le blended finance est traité comme une logique structurelle plutôt que comme une catégorie géographique. L’appareil analytique — capital catalytique absorbant des risques spécifiques empêchant la participation privée, permettant l’entrée de capital privé à des retours de marché — s’applique partout où cette structure de défaillance de marché existe. Cela inclut la transition énergétique, la défense et la technologie dual-use, l’infrastructure sociale et le deep tech venture lending dans les marchés développés.

Le Convergence State of Blended Finance (2025) recense plus de 1,000 transactions depuis 2010. Malgré ce volume, le blended finance n’a pas changé d’échelle. L’OCDE le caractérise comme une « industrie artisanale composée d’interventions largement sur mesure et fragmentées ». Le diagnostic du CAI est structurel : l’absence d’une méthodologie de conception réplicable, et non l’absence de capital ou d’instruments.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture, Catalytic Capital, Structural Equivalence Proposition

→ Source primaire : OECD DAC (2025) ; Convergence (2025) ; CAI WP-001, Section I

C

Capital Architecture

La Capital Architecture est la conception systématique de structures de capital en couches — optimisant le type, le séquençage et le pricing des sources de capital pour rendre un mandat bancable, réplicable et scalable.

La Capital Architecture se distingue de trois disciplines voisines. La structured finance part d’un portefeuille d’actifs et conçoit des instruments de distribution. Le blended finance, dans sa définition conventionnelle, est restreint aux objectifs de développement dans les marchés émergents. La fund management part d’un véhicule existant et gère son portefeuille.

La Capital Architecture commence en amont des trois : par la topologie du mandat, avant qu’aucun instrument ou structure ne soit posé. La valeur est créée à cette position amont — et c’est là que se trouve la lacune méthodologique. Le Capital Architecture Framework (CAF), introduit dans CAI WP-001, est une méthodologie de cycle de vie en sept étapes pour cette discipline.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section III.A

Capital Architecture Framework (CAF)

Le Capital Architecture Framework (CAF) est une méthodologie de cycle de vie en sept étapes pour la conception, le déploiement et la mise à l’échelle systématiques de structures de capital en couches, introduite par le Capital Architecture Institute dans CAI WP-001 (mars 2026).

Les sept étapes sont : (Pre) Mandate Readiness Assessment ; (1) Mandate Cartography ; (2) Tranche and Intercreditor Design ; (3) Risk Allocation Engineering ; (4) Return Engineering ; (5) Replication Testing and Cycle-Aware Stress ; (Post) Lifecycle Governance and ILPA Alignment. Chaque étape produit un output documenté qui conditionne la suivante. Aucune étape ne peut être sautée.

Le CAF est instrument-agnostique et piloté par le mandat. Il commence par la topologie du besoin de financement et dérive le capital stack optimal à partir de premiers principes. Il est portable entre domaines : il s’applique au blended finance, au private credit, aux special situations et aux mandats deep tech, dans les marchés émergents comme développés.

Le framework comble six lacunes documentées dans la pratique existante : pas de méthodologie de conception end-to-end ; additionality non opérationnalisée ; pas de standard de conception intercreditor pour les structures blended ; gouvernance de valorisation absente ; cadrage EM-only ; et pas de standard quantitatif de gouvernance.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture, Replication Readiness Score

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV

Catalytic Capital

Le catalytic capital est du capital déployé dans le but explicite d’attirer des co-investissements de la part d’investisseurs qui ne participeraient pas autrement, en absorbant des risques spécifiques ou en améliorant les profils de retour ajustés au risque pour le capital privé.

Le catalytic capital se caractérise par sa position dans le capital stack plutôt que par son origine. Il occupe la tranche qui absorbe le risque spécifique empêchant la participation privée — typiquement la position first-loss ou une tranche de dette subordonnée. Son retour est fixé au minimum requis par le fournisseur, ou en deçà, et non au taux de marché.

Les données OCDE (2026) confirment la logique structurelle : en Afrique, les engagements en junior tranche représentant une fraction réduite des engagements blended ont généré la plus grande mobilisation absolue de capital privé. L’effet de mobilisation est déterminé par la position dans le capital stack, et non par le volume.

→ Voir aussi : First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Mobilisation Multiplier, Minimum Concessionality

→ Source primaire : OECD (2026) ; CAI WP-001, Section III.B

Concessional Capital

Le concessional capital est un financement fourni à des conditions plus favorables que le marché — typiquement taux d’intérêt en deçà du marché, maturité étendue, position subordonnée ou périodes de grâce — avec l’intention explicite de rendre possible une transaction que le capital à taux de marché seul ne peut soutenir.

Le concessional capital est fourni par des institutions financières de développement, des gouvernements, des banques multilatérales de développement et des investisseurs philanthropiques. Son déploiement est soumis au Minimum Concessionality Principle : les conditions concessionnelles ne devraient pas être plus favorables que le minimum requis pour permettre la participation de capital privé.

Le concessional capital n’est pas nécessairement du first-loss capital, bien que les deux se recoupent fréquemment. Un prêt concessionnel à taux en deçà du marché peut occuper une position senior ou pari passu ; une tranche first-loss peut porter un retour positif. La distinction importe pour la conception du capital stack et la classification réglementaire.

→ Voir aussi : Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Minimum Concessionality, Additionality

E

Execution Risk

L’Execution Risk est la classification CAF Stage 3 pour les risques liés à la qualité d’exécution — réductibles par une meilleure ingénierie de covenants, gouvernance et management. L’Execution Risk doit être pricé commercialement : il appartient aux tranches commerciales, non à la couche concessionnelle.

Allouer de l’Execution Risk à la tranche first-loss détourne le capital catalytique et fait échouer le test d’additionality. La distinction entre Execution Risk, Mandate Risk et Residual Risk est l’étape analytique fondatrice du risk allocation engineering.

→ Voir aussi : Mandate Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

F

First-Loss Tranche

La first-loss tranche est la couche la plus junior d’une structure de capital — la tranche qui absorbe les premières pertes générées par le portefeuille d’actifs sous-jacent, jusqu’à concurrence de la taille de cette tranche, avant que toute perte n’atteigne les investisseurs senior.

Dans les structures de blended finance, la first-loss tranche est typiquement fournie par une institution financière de développement, une entité gouvernementale ou un investisseur philanthropique à des retours concessionnels. Sa fonction est d’absorber le risque spécifique qui empêche les investisseurs commerciaux de participer à des retours de marché. Correctement dimensionnée et positionnée, elle agit comme un buffer de pertes qui transforme un mandat autrement non investissable en une structure bancable pour le capital privé.

Le CAF opérationnalise le dimensionnement de la first-loss via le Mobilisation Multiplier Model : la first-loss tranche est réduite itérativement jusqu’à identification du seuil de participation du capital privé, satisfaisant le Minimum Concessionality Principle. Le Quantitative Governance Requirement de la Stage 3 spécifie que la perte attendue de la first-loss tranche doit égaler ou dépasser la perte attendue totale de la structure pour que l’allocation de risque soit architecturalement valide.

→ Voir aussi : Catalytic Capital, Concessional Capital, Minimum Concessionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Sections III.B, III.C, IV.B, VI.B

I

Intercreditor Architecture

L’intercreditor architecture est l’ensemble des arrangements contractuels et structurels qui régissent les droits, priorités et obligations des différents fournisseurs de capital dans une structure en couches — particulièrement dans les scénarios de stress, d’enforcement et de liquidation.

Le CAF identifie cinq décisions de conception intercreditor obligatoires qui doivent être résolues avant le début de la documentation légale : conception du payment waterfall ; droits d’enforcement ; droits de cure ; gouvernance du PIK toggle ; et contrôles de liability management. La conception intercreditor est un output de la Stage 2 — pas une formalité juridique. Les structures qui atteignent la documentation légale sans framework intercreditor pré-convenu nécessitent renégociation et retardent systématiquement le first close.

→ Voir aussi : Tranche Architecture, Payment Waterfall, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.C

M

Mandate Cartography

La Mandate Cartography est la Stage 1 du Capital Architecture Framework. Elle cartographie la topologie précise d’un besoin de financement à travers quatre dimensions avant que toute conception structurelle ne commence : Capital Need Type ; Risk Topology ; Investor Universe ; et Replication Potential.

Le séquençage est délibéré : l’investor universe est établi comme input de conception, non comme output. La plupart des échecs structurels surviennent en concevant un capital stack puis en découvrant que l’investor universe ne peut absorber une ou plusieurs tranches. La Mandate Cartography prévient cela en établissant la contrainte d’investor universe avant le début de la conception.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Readiness Assessment, Tranche Architecture

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.B

Mandate Risk

Le Mandate Risk est la classification CAF Stage 3 pour les risques structurels à la classe d’actifs — risques qui ne peuvent être éliminés par une meilleure exécution, gouvernance ou documentation. Le Mandate Risk est le déterminant primaire du fait qu’une structure blended est justifiée : si un mandat n’a pas de Mandate Risk, il n’a pas besoin de capital concessionnel.

Exemples : risque de construction sur un projet d’infrastructure greenfield dans un marché frontier ; risque technologique dans une entreprise deep tech au stade du premier déploiement commercial ; risque politique dans une juridiction sans couverture par traité ; risque de change où aucun instrument de couverture n’est disponible à un coût commercialement viable.

→ Voir aussi : Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

Minimum Concessionality

La minimum concessionality est le principe selon lequel le capital concessionnel ne devrait être déployé qu’à hauteur du nécessaire pour permettre la participation du capital privé — ni plus.

Établie comme contrainte normative dans OECD DAC (2025), la minimum concessionality prévient la sur-subvention de mandats que le capital privé pourrait soutenir partiellement sans intervention. Une concessionality excessive distord les incitations commerciales, évince le capital privé au lieu de le mobiliser, et alloue mal les ressources limitées de development finance publique.

Le CAF opérationnalise la minimum concessionality comme contrainte quantitative de conception : la tranche first-loss ou concessionnelle est dimensionnée puis réduite par incréments jusqu’à identification du seuil au-delà duquel la participation privée n’est plus commercialement viable. Cela produit un output de conception documenté plutôt que de reposer sur le jugement du practitioner.

→ Voir aussi : Additionality, Concessional Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier

→ Source primaire : OECD DAC (2025) ; CAI WP-001, Section III.C

Mobilisation Multiplier (MMM Ratio)

Le Mobilisation Multiplier, ou MMM ratio, mesure le volume de capital privé mobilisé par unité de capital concessionnel ou catalytique déployée.

Le MMM ratio est la métrique quantitative primaire d’efficacité pour les structures de blended finance. Une structure avec un MMM ratio de 4x mobilise EUR 4 de capital privé pour chaque EUR 1 de capital concessionnel déployé. OECD (2026) confirme que le positionnement en junior tranche — et non le volume concessionnel — est le moteur primaire de l’efficacité de mobilisation.

Le CAF utilise le MMM ratio comme output central du Mobilisation Multiplier Model en Stage 2 Tranche Architecture, et comme seuil pass/fail dans les Quantitative Governance Requirements de la Stage 5.

→ Voir aussi : Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Source primaire : OECD (2026) ; CAI WP-001, Sections III.B, IV.B, VI.B

R

Replication Readiness Score (RRS)

Le Replication Readiness Score (RRS) est un instrument de 20 points du CAF qui évalue si une structure de capital peut être standardisée et déployée sur de multiples mandats futurs, plutôt que de rester une transaction sur mesure.

Le RRS évalue cinq dimensions : standardisabilité de la documentation ; transférabilité de l’allocation de risque ; scalabilité de la base d’investisseurs ; portabilité réglementaire ; et viabilité en marché secondaire. Les structures notées en deçà de 10 sont classées comme transactions sur mesure ; 10–15 nécessitent une modification pour un déploiement template ; 16–20 sont template-ready.

Le RRS opérationnalise le Replication Imperative — le principe du CAF selon lequel chaque décision de conception à partir de la Stage 2 est évaluée non seulement pour son adéquation au mandat actuel, mais pour sa réplicabilité. Cela répond directement au diagnostic de l’OCDE selon lequel le blended finance est resté une industrie artisanale en raison de l’absence de standardisation.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Intercreditor Architecture

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Sections III.D, IV.F

Residual Risk

Le Residual Risk est la classification CAF Stage 3 pour les risques véritablement non allouables à aucune tranche au taux de marché. Aucune classe de capital commercial n’acceptera de Residual Risk à aucun premium qui maintienne la structure bancable. C’est le test précis pour savoir si le capital concessionnel est justifié : seul le Residual Risk justifie une tranche concessionnelle ou catalytique.

Le test : un LP commercial accepterait-il ce risque à un certain prix ? Si oui — c’est de l’Execution Risk ou du Mandate Risk, allouable commercialement. Si non — c’est du Residual Risk, et le capital concessionnel peut être justifié. Le test ne porte pas sur l’attractivité du prix commercial ; il porte sur l’existence d’un quelconque prix commercial.

→ Voir aussi : Execution Risk, Mandate Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

Risk Allocation Engineering

Le Risk Allocation Engineering est la Stage 3 du Capital Architecture Framework. Elle assigne chaque risque identifié dans la Risk Topology de la Stage 1 à la tranche la mieux placée pour le porter, en utilisant la classification à trois catégories : Mandate Risk, Execution Risk et Residual Risk.

La Risk Attribution Matrix est l’output de la Stage 3 : chaque risque identifié est assigné à une catégorie et à une tranche spécifique. Aucun risque ne peut figurer sans assignation de tranche. Aucune tranche ne peut porter simultanément des risques des trois catégories sans justification documentée.

→ Voir aussi : Mandate Risk, Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Tranche Architecture

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.D

S

Structural Equivalence Proposition

La Structural Equivalence Proposition est le fondement théorique du CAF Global North Application Framework. Elle pose que le mécanisme de blended finance — capital catalytique absorbant des risques pour permettre la participation privée à des retours de marché — s’applique de manière identique partout où la structure de défaillance de marché est équivalente, quelle que soit la géographie.

Griffith-Jones et Kraemer-Mbula (2022) démontrent que l’absorption de risque en politique industrielle est structurellement identique au mécanisme de development finance. Mazzucato (2021) étend cela à la deep tech et à la transition énergétique : les grants gouvernementaux et les prêts d’innovation fonctionnent comme du capital catalytique first-loss exactement au sens structurel défini par la théorie du blended finance. Le CAF est la première méthodologie practitioner publiée à expliciter cette équivalence structurelle et à fournir un guidage d’application spécifique au domaine.

→ Voir aussi : Capital Architecture Framework, Blended Finance

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section V

T

Tranche Architecture

La tranche architecture est la conception de la composition en couches d’une structure de capital — spécifiant le nombre, la taille, la seniority, le profil de retour et l’investor universe de chaque classe de capital.

Le CAF conduit la tranche architecture en Stage 2 à l’aide de trois outils : le Capital Stack Spectrum (cartographiant toutes les classes de capital disponibles, du concessionnel au senior secured, avec leurs investor universes naturels) ; le Mobilisation Multiplier Model (dimensionnement itératif de la tranche first-loss/concessionnelle pour identifier le seuil de minimum concessionality) ; et le framework de conception intercreditor (résolvant cinq décisions intercreditor obligatoires avant la documentation légale).

La tranche architecture est conditionnée par la Mandate Cartography : l’investor universe est établi avant le début de la conception. Une tranche que l’investor universe ne peut absorber n’est pas un output de conception viable.

→ Voir aussi : Intercreditor Architecture, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier, Mandate Cartography

→ Source primaire : CAI WP-001, Section IV.C

Publié par le Capital Architecture Institute, Zurich. Toutes les définitions sont susceptibles d’être révisées à mesure que la méthodologie CAF se développe. Pour vos retours et corrections : hello@capital-architecture.institute

Definizioni canoniche dei termini chiave in blended finance, capital architecture e structured development finance.

Citare come: Temmen, T. (2026). Blended Finance Glossary. Capital Architecture Institute. capital-architecture.institute/glossary

Questo glossario fornisce definizioni precise, di livello practitioner, dei termini chiave usati in blended finance, capital architecture e design di strutture di capitale stratificate. Le definizioni si fondano su CAI Working Paper 001 (The Capital Architecture Framework), OECD DAC (2025), IFC/World Bank (2025) e il database transazionale Convergence. Laddove l’uso CAI estende o si discosta dalle definizioni istituzionali standard, la distinzione è resa esplicita.

A

Additionality

L’additionality è la proprietà di un intervento di capitale concessionale o catalitico per cui l’intervento rende possibili esiti che non si sarebbero verificati in sua assenza.

L’additionality ha tre componenti analiticamente distinte. Market Failure Additionality stabilisce che il mandato non può attrarre capitale privato senza intervento, a causa di mispricing del rischio, fallimento strutturale di mercato o asimmetria informativa. Minimum Intervention verifica che la tranche concessionale sia stata ridotta alla dimensione minima compatibile con la partecipazione privata — riduzione iterativa fino all’identificazione della soglia. Crowding-Out verifica che il capitale concessionale non occupi spazio di rischio che un investitore privato accetterebbe a rendimenti vicini al mercato.

L’OCSE DAC (2025) identifica l’assenza di un test di additionality operativo come la principale lacuna nei framework di blended finance esistenti. Il CAI Additionality Framework converte questi tre test in una procedura di design con punteggio (0–9 punti), producendo un output documentato che condiziona il design del capital stack.

→ Vedere anche: Minimum Concessionality, First-Loss Tranche, Catalytic Capital

→ Fonte primaria: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Appendice A

B

Blended Finance

Il blended finance è l’uso strategico di capitale concessionale o catalitico per mobilitare flussi di capitale privato verso mandati che il capitale commerciale da solo non può sostenere, mantenendo rendimenti viable per gli investitori privati.

La definizione istituzionale standard (OCSE DAC) limita il blended finance a obiettivi di sviluppo nei mercati emergenti e nelle economie in via di sviluppo. Il CAI estende questa definizione su una dimensione strutturale: il blended finance è trattato come logica strutturale anziché come categoria geografica. L’apparato analitico — capitale catalitico che assorbe rischi specifici che impediscono la partecipazione privata, consentendo al capitale privato di entrare a rendimenti di mercato — si applica ovunque sussista quella struttura di fallimento di mercato. Ciò include transizione energetica, difesa e tecnologia dual-use, infrastruttura sociale e deep tech venture lending nei mercati sviluppati.

Il Convergence State of Blended Finance (2025) traccia oltre 1,000 transazioni dal 2010. Nonostante questo volume, il blended finance non è scalato. L’OCSE lo caratterizza come “industria artigianale, con interventi in larga parte su misura e frammentati”. La diagnosi del CAI è strutturale: l’assenza di una metodologia di design replicabile, non l’assenza di capitale o strumenti.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture, Catalytic Capital, Structural Equivalence Proposition

→ Fonte primaria: OECD DAC (2025); Convergence (2025); CAI WP-001, Sezione I

C

Capital Architecture

La Capital Architecture è il design sistematico di strutture di capitale stratificate — ottimizzando tipo, sequenziamento e pricing delle fonti di capitale per rendere un mandato bancabile, replicabile e scalabile.

La Capital Architecture si distingue da tre discipline contigue. La structured finance parte da un portafoglio di asset e progetta strumenti di distribuzione. Il blended finance, nella sua definizione convenzionale, è ristretto agli obiettivi di sviluppo nei mercati emergenti. La fund management parte da un veicolo esistente e ne gestisce il portafoglio.

La Capital Architecture inizia a monte di tutte e tre: dalla topologia del mandato, prima che venga assunto qualsiasi strumento o struttura. Il valore è creato in quella posizione a monte — ed è lì che risiede la lacuna metodologica. Il Capital Architecture Framework (CAF), introdotto in CAI WP-001, è una metodologia di ciclo di vita a sette stadi per questa disciplina.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione III.A

Capital Architecture Framework (CAF)

Il Capital Architecture Framework (CAF) è una metodologia di ciclo di vita a sette stadi per il design, il deployment e la scalatura sistematici di strutture di capitale stratificate, introdotta dal Capital Architecture Institute in CAI WP-001 (marzo 2026).

I sette stadi sono: (Pre) Mandate Readiness Assessment; (1) Mandate Cartography; (2) Tranche and Intercreditor Design; (3) Risk Allocation Engineering; (4) Return Engineering; (5) Replication Testing and Cycle-Aware Stress; (Post) Lifecycle Governance and ILPA Alignment. Ogni stadio produce un output documentato che condiziona il successivo. Nessuno stadio può essere saltato.

Il CAF è instrument-agnostic e mandate-driven. Inizia dalla topologia dell’esigenza di finanziamento e deriva il capital stack ottimale dai primi principi. È portabile tra domini: si applica a blended finance, private credit, special situations e mandati deep tech sia nei mercati emergenti sia in quelli sviluppati.

Il framework copre sei lacune documentate nella prassi esistente: nessuna metodologia di design end-to-end; additionality non operazionalizzata; nessuno standard di design intercreditor per strutture blended; valuation governance assente; framing solo EM; e nessuno standard quantitativo di governance.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture, Mandate Cartography, Tranche Architecture, Replication Readiness Score

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV

Catalytic Capital

Il catalytic capital è capitale impiegato con il proposito esplicito di attrarre co-investimento da investitori che non parteciperebbero altrimenti, assorbendo rischi specifici o migliorando i profili di rendimento risk-adjusted per il capitale privato.

Il catalytic capital si caratterizza per la propria posizione nel capital stack più che per la propria fonte. Occupa la tranche che assorbe il rischio specifico che impedisce la partecipazione privata — tipicamente la posizione first-loss o una tranche di debito subordinato. Il suo rendimento è prezzato al minimo richiesto dal fornitore o al di sotto, non a tasso di mercato.

I dati OCSE (2026) confermano la logica strutturale: in Africa, gli impegni in junior tranche, che rappresentavano una frazione ridotta del totale degli impegni blended, hanno generato la maggiore mobilitazione assoluta di capitale privato. L’effetto di mobilitazione è determinato dalla posizione nel capital stack, non dal volume.

→ Vedere anche: First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Mobilisation Multiplier, Minimum Concessionality

→ Fonte primaria: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Sezione III.B

Concessional Capital

Il concessional capital è finanziamento fornito a condizioni più favorevoli rispetto al mercato — tipicamente tassi di interesse sotto il mercato, scadenza estesa, posizione subordinata o periodi di grazia — con l’intento esplicito di rendere possibile una transazione che il capitale a tasso di mercato da solo non può sostenere.

Il concessional capital è fornito da istituzioni finanziarie di sviluppo, governi, banche multilaterali di sviluppo e investitori filantropici. Il suo deployment è soggetto al Minimum Concessionality Principle: le condizioni concessionali non dovrebbero essere più favorevoli del minimo richiesto per consentire la partecipazione di capitale privato.

Il concessional capital non è necessariamente first-loss capital, sebbene i due frequentemente si sovrappongano. Un prestito concessionale a tasso sotto mercato può occupare una posizione senior o pari passu; una tranche first-loss può portare un rendimento positivo. La distinzione conta per il design del capital stack e per la classificazione regolamentare.

→ Vedere anche: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Minimum Concessionality, Additionality

E

Execution Risk

L’Execution Risk è la classificazione CAF Stage 3 per i rischi derivanti dalla qualità di implementazione — riducibili tramite migliore ingegneria dei covenant, governance e management. L’Execution Risk dovrebbe essere prezzato commercialmente: appartiene alle tranche commerciali, non al layer concessionale.

Allocare Execution Risk alla tranche first-loss usa impropriamente il capitale catalitico e non supera il test di additionality. La distinzione tra Execution Risk, Mandate Risk e Residual Risk è il passo analitico fondante del risk allocation engineering.

→ Vedere anche: Mandate Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.D

F

First-Loss Tranche

La first-loss tranche è il layer più junior di una struttura di capitale — la tranche che assorbe le prime perdite generate dal portafoglio di asset sottostante, fino alla dimensione di quella tranche, prima che eventuali perdite raggiungano gli investitori senior.

Nelle strutture di blended finance, la first-loss tranche è tipicamente fornita da un’istituzione finanziaria di sviluppo, da un’entità governativa o da un investitore filantropico a rendimenti concessionali. La sua funzione è assorbire il rischio specifico che impedisce agli investitori commerciali di partecipare a rendimenti di mercato. Adeguatamente dimensionata e posizionata, agisce come buffer di perdita che trasforma un mandato altrimenti non investibile in una struttura bancabile per il capitale privato.

Il CAF operazionalizza il dimensionamento della first-loss tramite il Mobilisation Multiplier Model: la first-loss tranche viene ridotta iterativamente fino all’identificazione della soglia di partecipazione del capitale privato, soddisfacendo il Minimum Concessionality Principle. Il Quantitative Governance Requirement dello Stage 3 specifica che la perdita attesa della first-loss tranche debba eguagliare o superare la perdita attesa totale della struttura affinché l’allocazione del rischio sia architetturalmente valida.

→ Vedere anche: Catalytic Capital, Concessional Capital, Minimum Concessionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezioni III.B, III.C, IV.B, VI.B

I

Intercreditor Architecture

L’intercreditor architecture è l’insieme degli accordi contrattuali e strutturali che disciplinano diritti, priorità e obblighi dei diversi fornitori di capitale in una struttura stratificata — in particolare in scenari di stress, enforcement e liquidazione.

Il CAF identifica cinque decisioni di design intercreditor obbligatorie da risolvere prima dell’inizio della documentazione legale: design del payment waterfall; diritti di enforcement; diritti di cure; governance del PIK toggle; e controlli di liability management. Il design intercreditor è un output dello Stage 2 — non una formalità legale. Le strutture che raggiungono la documentazione legale senza un framework intercreditor pre-concordato richiedono rinegoziazione e ritardano sistematicamente il first close.

→ Vedere anche: Tranche Architecture, Payment Waterfall, Capital Architecture Framework

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.C

M

Mandate Cartography

La Mandate Cartography è lo Stage 1 del Capital Architecture Framework. Mappa la topologia precisa di un’esigenza di finanziamento attraverso quattro dimensioni prima che inizi qualsiasi design strutturale: Capital Need Type; Risk Topology; Investor Universe; e Replication Potential.

Il sequenziamento è deliberato: l’investor universe è stabilito come input di design, non come output. La maggior parte dei fallimenti strutturali nasce dal progettare un capital stack e poi scoprire che l’investor universe non può assorbire una o più tranche. La Mandate Cartography previene questo stabilendo il vincolo di investor universe prima che il design abbia inizio.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Readiness Assessment, Tranche Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.B

Mandate Risk

Il Mandate Risk è la classificazione CAF Stage 3 per i rischi strutturali alla classe di asset — rischi che non possono essere eliminati con migliore esecuzione, governance o documentazione. Il Mandate Risk è il determinante primario del fatto che una struttura blended sia giustificata: se un mandato non ha Mandate Risk, non richiede capitale concessionale.

Esempi: rischio di costruzione in un progetto greenfield di infrastruttura in un mercato frontier; rischio tecnologico in una società deep tech al primo deployment commerciale; rischio politico in una giurisdizione priva di copertura da trattato; rischio valutario laddove non sia disponibile alcuno strumento di copertura a costo commercialmente viable.

→ Vedere anche: Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.D

Minimum Concessionality

La minimum concessionality è il principio per cui il capitale concessionale dovrebbe essere impiegato solo nella misura richiesta a consentire la partecipazione del capitale privato — nulla di più.

Stabilita come vincolo normativo in OECD DAC (2025), la minimum concessionality previene la sovra-sovvenzione di mandati che il capitale privato potrebbe sostenere parzialmente senza intervento. La concessionality eccessiva distorce gli incentivi commerciali, spiazza il capitale privato anziché mobilitarlo, e mal alloca le risorse limitate di development finance pubblica.

Il CAF operazionalizza la minimum concessionality come vincolo quantitativo di design: la tranche first-loss o concessionale viene dimensionata e poi ridotta in incrementi fino a identificare la soglia oltre la quale la partecipazione privata non è più commercialmente viable. Ciò produce un output di design documentato anziché affidarsi al giudizio del practitioner.

→ Vedere anche: Additionality, Concessional Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier

→ Fonte primaria: OECD DAC (2025); CAI WP-001, Sezione III.C

Mobilisation Multiplier (MMM Ratio)

Il Mobilisation Multiplier, o MMM ratio, misura il volume di capitale privato mobilitato per unità di capitale concessionale o catalitico impiegato.

Il MMM ratio è la metrica quantitativa primaria di efficienza per le strutture di blended finance. Una struttura con MMM ratio 4x mobilita EUR 4 di capitale privato per ogni EUR 1 di capitale concessionale impiegato. OECD (2026) conferma che il posizionamento in junior tranche — non il volume concessionale — è il driver primario dell’efficienza di mobilitazione.

Il CAF utilizza il MMM ratio come output centrale del Mobilisation Multiplier Model nello Stage 2 Tranche Architecture, e come soglia pass/fail nei Quantitative Governance Requirements dello Stage 5.

→ Vedere anche: Catalytic Capital, First-Loss Tranche, Additionality, Tranche Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: OECD (2026); CAI WP-001, Sezioni III.B, IV.B, VI.B

R

Replication Readiness Score (RRS)

Il Replication Readiness Score (RRS) è uno strumento da 20 punti del CAF che valuta se una struttura di capitale possa essere standardizzata e impiegata in molteplici mandati futuri, anziché restare una transazione su misura.

Il RRS valuta cinque dimensioni: standardizzabilità della documentazione; trasferibilità dell’allocazione del rischio; scalabilità della base di investitori; portabilità regolamentare; e viabilità sul mercato secondario. Le strutture con punteggio inferiore a 10 sono classificate come transazioni su misura; 10–15 richiedono modifica per il deployment template; 16–20 sono template-ready.

Il RRS operazionalizza il Replication Imperative — il principio del CAF per cui ogni decisione di design dallo Stage 2 in poi è valutata non solo per la sua adeguatezza al mandato corrente, ma per la sua replicabilità. Risponde direttamente alla diagnosi dell’OCSE secondo cui il blended finance è rimasto un’industria artigianale per assenza di standardizzazione.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture Framework, Mandate Cartography, Intercreditor Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezioni III.D, IV.F

Residual Risk

Il Residual Risk è la classificazione CAF Stage 3 per i rischi genuinamente non allocabili a nessuna tranche a tasso di mercato. Nessuna classe di capitale commerciale accetterà Residual Risk a un premio che mantenga la struttura bancabile. Questo è il test preciso per stabilire se il capitale concessionale è giustificato: solo il Residual Risk giustifica una tranche concessionale o catalitica.

Il test: un LP commerciale accetterebbe questo rischio a qualche prezzo? Se sì — è Execution Risk o Mandate Risk, allocabile commercialmente. Se no — è Residual Risk, e il capitale concessionale può essere giustificato. Il test non riguarda se il prezzo commerciale sia attraente; riguarda se esista un qualsiasi prezzo commerciale.

→ Vedere anche: Execution Risk, Mandate Risk, Risk Allocation Engineering, Additionality

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.D

Risk Allocation Engineering

Il Risk Allocation Engineering è lo Stage 3 del Capital Architecture Framework. Assegna ciascun rischio identificato nella Risk Topology dello Stage 1 alla tranche meglio posizionata per sostenerlo, utilizzando la classificazione a tre categorie: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk e Residual Risk.

La Risk Attribution Matrix è l’output dello Stage 3: ogni rischio identificato è assegnato a una categoria e a una tranche specifica. Nessun rischio può comparire senza assegnazione di tranche. Nessuna tranche può sostenere simultaneamente rischi delle tre categorie senza giustificazione documentata.

→ Vedere anche: Mandate Risk, Execution Risk, Residual Risk, Tranche Architecture

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.D

S

Structural Equivalence Proposition

La Structural Equivalence Proposition è la base teorica del CAF Global North Application Framework. Sostiene che il meccanismo di blended finance — capitale catalitico che assorbe rischi per consentire la partecipazione privata a rendimenti di mercato — si applica in modo identico ovunque la struttura di fallimento di mercato sia equivalente, indipendentemente dalla geografia.

Griffith-Jones e Kraemer-Mbula (2022) dimostrano che l’assorbimento del rischio in politica industriale è strutturalmente identico al meccanismo di development finance. Mazzucato (2021) lo estende al deep tech e alla transizione energetica: i grant governativi e i prestiti di innovazione operano come capitale catalitico first-loss esattamente nel senso strutturale che la teoria del blended finance definisce. Il CAF è la prima metodologia practitioner pubblicata che rende esplicita questa equivalenza strutturale e fornisce indicazioni di applicazione specifiche per dominio.

→ Vedere anche: Capital Architecture Framework, Blended Finance

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione V

T

Tranche Architecture

La tranche architecture è il design della composizione stratificata di una struttura di capitale — specificando numero, dimensione, seniority, profilo di rendimento e investor universe di ciascuna classe di capitale.

Il CAF conduce la tranche architecture nello Stage 2 utilizzando tre strumenti: il Capital Stack Spectrum (mappando tutte le classi di capitale disponibili, dalla concessionale al senior secured, con i loro investor universe naturali); il Mobilisation Multiplier Model (dimensionamento iterativo della tranche first-loss/concessionale per identificare la soglia di minimum concessionality); e il framework di design intercreditor (risolvendo cinque decisioni intercreditor obbligatorie prima della documentazione legale).

La tranche architecture è condizionata dalla Mandate Cartography: l’investor universe è stabilito prima che inizi il design. Una tranche che l’investor universe non può assorbire non è un output di design viable.

→ Vedere anche: Intercreditor Architecture, First-Loss Tranche, Mobilisation Multiplier, Mandate Cartography

→ Fonte primaria: CAI WP-001, Sezione IV.C

Pubblicato dal Capital Architecture Institute, Zurigo. Tutte le definizioni sono soggette a revisione man mano che la metodologia CAF si sviluppa. Per feedback e correzioni: hello@capital-architecture.institute