GIB OTD — All Workstreams

STEP 1

As-Is Position

SAR 500m · 100% RW · RAROC 7%

LEVER 1

Collateral Uplift

Risk weight 100% → 75%

LEVER 2

Syndication 50%

SAR 250m off balance sheet

LEVER 3

SRT First 12.5%

Risk weight → 20% on senior

OUTCOME

All Levers Combined

RWA −90% · RAROC ~28%

Illustrative Asset

Saudi RE Developer
Bilateral Term Loan

SAR 500m · 5 years · BB+ internal · No collateral · 100% risk weight (unrated, unsecured under Basel III SA) · SAIBOR +175bps

Our Activity — Step 1

Reconcile exposure, RWA, rating and collateral data across entities

Confirm in-scope perimeter with Risk & Finance

Map full exposure by obligor, product and tenor

Identify hotspots and concentrations

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS Position

Lever 1

Lever 2

Lever 3

Optimised

What we measure

What we do to unlock each lever

Loan as held — no action

Retrofit security → RW 100%→75%

Sell 50% → off balance sheet

Transfer first-loss risk → RW 20%

All three levers combined

Exposure (SAR m)

Reconcile facility data · confirm perimeter with Risk & Finance

500

250 (50% sold)

500 (retained)

250

Risk Weight

Assess collateral eligibility · identify qualifying real estate or guarantees · engage Legal on security docs

100% unrated unsecured

75% collateral secured

100% on retained 50%

20% senior post-SRT

20% on retained book

RWA (SAR m)

Build RWA model · size relief per lever · prepare value case for Risk & Finance sign-off

500

375 (−125)

125 (−250)

100 (−150)

50 combined

Capital @ 12% CET1

Translate RWA changes into CET1 impact · confirm redeployment headroom with CFO & Treasury

SAR 60m

SAR 45m

SAR 15m

SAR 12m

SAR 6m

Capital Released

Quantify freed capital · build redeployment case · embed in capital steering dashboard

—

SAR 15m

SAR 45m

SAR 48m

SAR 54m

RAROC (illus.)

Run client-level RAROC model · flag sub-hurdle exposures to RM for repricing or distribution

7% below hurdle

14%

23%

~28% above hurdle ✓

Revenue Model

Map NII, fee and SRT income streams · design distribution revenue waterfall · confirm GIB UK role

NII only · hold to maturity

NII + lower drag

Fee + NII on 50%

NII + SRT release

Fees + NII + SRT diversified

Illustrative lever impact: SAR 54m capital opportunity identified

RAROC potential 7% → ~28%

Revenue NII-only → fees + NII + SRT

Subject to GIB approvals & execution

Lever 1 — What It Is

Collateral Uplift

Retrofit security (real estate, guarantee) on the existing facility via deed of amendment at next annual review. CBB-recognised collateral reduces the Basel SA risk weight from 100% to 75% on the secured portion. No new loan required.

Our Activities

Assess collateral eligibility under Basel SA

Identify qualifying real estate or guarantees in borrower's assets

Engage Risk & Legal on deed of amendment and CBB recognition

Build value case: CET1 impact and RAROC improvement

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

▶ LEVER 1 APPLIED

Lever 2

Lever 3

Optimised

Risk Weight

Collateral eligibility assessment + security documentation

100%

75% ↓

100% retained

20% post-SRT

20%

RWA (SAR m)

RWA model · value case for Risk & Finance

500

375 (−125 saved) ↓

125

100

Capital Released

CET1 impact · redeployment case

—

SAR 15m freed ↑

SAR 45m

SAR 48m

SAR 54m

RAROC

RAROC model update

7% below hurdle

9% ↑

14%

23%

~28%

⚑ Gate: Lever shortlist approval by Risk & Finance

Lever 2 — What It Is

Syndication (50% Sell-Down)

Sell a 50% participation to a regional bank or institutional investor via GIB UK. GIB retains the relationship and earns an arrangement fee. The sold portion exits the balance sheet entirely — no more RWA, no more capital against it.

Our Activities

Screen eligible portion against investor heatmap (3.2.E)

Prepare LMA-standard documentation and investor credit pack

Execute via GIB UK as distribution hub

Book arrangement fee; update capital and RWA position

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

Lever 1

▶ LEVER 2 APPLIED

Lever 3

Optimised

Exposure on book

Investor heatmap match · LMA docs · GIB UK execution

SAR 500m

SAR 250m (50% sold) ↓

SAR 500m retained

SAR 250m

RWA (SAR m)

RWA update after sell-down

500

375

125 (−375 vs as-is) ↓

100

Capital Released

Freed capital calculation · redeployment case

—

SAR 15m

SAR 45m ↑

SAR 48m

SAR 54m

Revenue

Fee income design · revenue waterfall

NII only

NII + lower drag

Arrangement fee + NII on 50% ↑

NII + SRT

Fees+NII+SRT

RAROC

RAROC model update

14% ↑

23%

~28%

Lever 3 — What It Is

Synthetic Risk Transfer (SRT)

Issue credit-linked notes to investors (CLO managers, credit funds via GIB UK) who absorb the first 12.5% of losses. The loan stays on book — but the risk weight on the senior retained tranche drops from 100% to 20% under Basel SA. No sale required.

Our Activities

Structure SRT — define reference portfolio and attachment points

Engage CLO managers and credit funds via GIB UK

Confirm CBB/PRA regulatory recognition for capital relief

Book SRT premium income; update RW and CET1 position

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

Lever 1

Lever 2

▶ LEVER 3 APPLIED

Optimised

Risk Weight (senior)

SRT structure · CBB/PRA regulatory recognition

100%

75%

100% retained

20% senior tranche ↓

20%

RWA (SAR m)

RWA model update · capital benefit sizing

500

375

125

100 (−400 vs as-is) ↓

Capital Released

CET1 freed · redeployment plan

—

SAR 15m

SAR 45m

SAR 48m ↑

SAR 54m

New Revenue Line

SRT premium income design · investor engagement

None

Arrangement fee

SRT premium income ↑

Fees+NII+SRT

RAROC

Full RAROC model with SRT

14%

23% ↑

~28%

⚑ Gate: Pilot go/no-go — CBB/PRA confirmation required

Combined Outcome

Capital Working Harder

All three levers applied in sequence. Same client, same relationship, same loan. Three structural interventions — and the capital economics are transformed. Subject to GIB approvals, data quality and internal execution.

Deliverables We Leave GIB

RWA baseline & hotspot diagnostic

Prioritised lever library with value case

Portfolio-level implementation roadmap

Pilot action tracker & governance cadence

Live RWA steering dashboard

Metric

What we did

AS-IS

After Lever 1

After Lever 2

After Lever 3

Optimised

RWA (SAR m)

Baseline → lever library → pilot tracker → dashboard

500

375

125

100

50 (−90%)

Capital Released

Value case approved · pilots mobilised · benefit tracked

—

SAR 15m

SAR 45m

SAR 48m

SAR 54m opportunity

RAROC

Client RAROC model · hurdle rate applied

7% below hurdle

14%

23%

~28% above hurdle

Revenue

Distribution waterfall · GIB UK hub confirmed

NII only

NII + lower drag

Fee + NII

NII + SRT

Fees + NII + SRT

STEP 1

As-Is Problem

SAR 300m misbooked · capital trapped

LEVER 1

Rebook to GIB KSA

SAR 66m buffer freed

LEVER 2

FTP Repricing

−55bps funding drag

LEVER 3

AT1 at HoldCo

SAR 8m CET1 replaced

OUTCOME

Capital Optimised

Return on CET1: 9% → ~17%

Illustrative Scenario

Vision 2030 Infra Co
SAR 300m Bilateral Loan

Booked in GIB Bahrain HQ · should be in GIB Saudi Arabia · 220bps CET1 buffer trapped in Bahrain · FTP +40bps excess over market · Return on CET1 artificially depressed at ~9%

Our Activity — Step 1

Map all bilateral exposures against correct booking entity

Identify trapped capital buffers by entity

Assess FTP rates vs market benchmarks

Review AT1 and capital stack across all four entities

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

Lever 1: Rebook

Lever 2: FTP Fix

Lever 3: AT1

Optimised

What we measure

What we do to unlock lever

Current state — loan misbooked

Move to GIB KSA — right domicile

Reset FTP to SAIBOR-linked rate

Issue AT1 at HoldCo — replace CET1

All three combined

Booking Entity

Map exposures against relationship domicile · identify mismatches

GIB Bahrain (wrong)

GIB Saudi Arabia ✓

GIB Saudi Arabia

GIB KSA — right entity

Trapped Buffer

Quantify excess CET1 buffer in Bahrain entity · design redeployment plan

220bps trapped

SAR 66m freed ↑

SAR 66m

SAR 66m redeployable

FTP / Funding Cost

Review FTP vs benchmarks · negotiate SAIBOR-linked rate with Treasury

Bahrain rate +40bps excess

SAIBOR-linked (market)

SAIBOR −15bps ↓

SAIBOR −15bps

−55bps vs as-is

CET1 Requirement

Model CET1 impact · confirm AT1 recognition with CBB/PRA

SAR 36m (12% of RWA)

SAR 36m (same RWA)

SAR 36m

SAR 28m (AT1 absorbs 8m) ↓

SAR 28m

NII (ann.)

Recalculate NII under corrected FTP and booking model

SAR 8.1m (FTP drag)

SAR 9.3m

SAR 9.8m ↑

SAR 9.8m

+SAR 1.7m p.a.

Return on CET1

Return-on-CET1 model · present to CFO for sign-off

~9% capital drag

~11%

~13%

~17% ↑

~17% above hurdle ✓

Lever 1

Entity Rebooking

Move the SAR 300m loan to GIB Saudi Arabia via deed of assignment. Releases the excess CET1 buffer trapped in Bahrain and corrects the regulatory and tax treatment.

Our Activities

Map all bilateral exposures against correct booking entity

Work with Legal to execute deed of assignment

Confirm SAMA/CBB regulatory treatment

Update capital and RWA reporting · confirm headroom for redeployment

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

▶ LEVER 1

Lever 2

Lever 3

Optimised

Booking Entity

Exposure mapping · deed of assignment

GIB Bahrain (wrong)

GIB Saudi Arabia ✓

GIB KSA

GIB KSA ✓

Buffer Released

Trapped capital quantification · redeployment plan

220bps trapped

SAR 66m freed ↑

SAR 66m

Return on CET1

Return model update

~9%

~11% ↑

~13%

~17%

⚑ Gate: Baseline sign-off — entity rebooking principles agreed with CFO/Treasury

Lever 2

FTP Repricing

Reset internal funding transfer price from Bahrain LIBOR-linked (+40bps excess) to SAIBOR-linked market rate. Adds SAR 1.7m annually to NII on this exposure alone.

Our Activities

Review all internal FTP rates vs market benchmarks by entity

Negotiate SAIBOR-linked rate with Treasury

Embed corrected FTP in RAROC model and MI reporting

Set quarterly FTP review cadence per entity

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

Lever 1

▶ LEVER 2

Lever 3

Optimised

FTP Rate

FTP benchmark review · Treasury negotiation

Bahrain +40bps excess

SAIBOR-linked

SAIBOR −15bps ↓

SAIBOR −15bps

−55bps vs as-is

NII p.a.

NII recalculation · RAROC model update

SAR 8.1m

SAR 9.3m

SAR 9.8m (+1.7m) ↑

SAR 9.8m

+SAR 1.7m p.a.

Return on CET1

Return model update · CFO sign-off

~9%

~11%

~13% ↑

~17%

Lever 3

AT1 Issuance at HoldCo

Issue Additional Tier 1 capital at GIB UK HoldCo level. AT1 replaces expensive CET1 in the capital stack — costs ~6–7% but if freed CET1 earns 15%+ RAROC on redeployment, the net benefit is strongly positive.

Our Activities

Size AT1 issuance needed with Treasury and CFO

Confirm GIB UK as issuance vehicle · engage PRA and CBB

Engage GCC and international AT1 investors via GIB UK

Confirm tax deductibility of AT1 coupons at HoldCo level

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

Lever 1

Lever 2

▶ LEVER 3

Optimised

CET1 Required

AT1 sizing · CBB/PRA recognition

SAR 36m

SAR 28m (AT1 absorbs 8m) ↓

SAR 28m

AT1 Cost

AT1 investor engagement via GIB UK

None issued

None

~6–7% coupon

Net positive vs CET1

Return on CET1

Full return model · CFO sign-off

~9%

~11%

~13%

~17% ↑

~17% above hurdle ✓

⚑ Gate: Target-state and owner confirmation · Legal, Tax, Regulatory approvals

Combined Outcome

Capital Working for GIB

Same loan, same borrower. Three structural interventions — entity, FTP and capital stack. SAR 66m freed, NII up SAR 1.7m annually, return on CET1 nearly doubled. Subject to GIB regulatory approvals and execution.

Deliverables We Leave GIB

Capital efficiency diagnostic by entity and portfolio

Lever set and quantified value case

Target capital allocation principles

Implementation roadmap with dependency map

Monthly capital steering pack

Metric

What we did

AS-IS

After Lever 1

After Lever 2

After Lever 3

Optimised

Capital Freed

Entity map · rebooking · redeployment case

—

SAR 66m

SAR 66m opportunity

NII uplift p.a.

FTP repricing · NII recalculation

—

+SAR 1.7m

+SAR 1.7m p.a.

Return on CET1

Full capital model · CFO sign-off

~9%

~11%

~13%

~17%

~17% above hurdle ✓

STEP 1

Harmonise Economics

Align RAROC methodology

STEP 2

Segment Portfolio

Review all ~120 clients

STEP 3

Define Actions

G/O/D/E classification

STEP 4

Embed Cadence

Governance into BAU

Illustrative Client

GCC Conglomerate
SAR 800m Exposure

Loan + LC + FX · 3yr revolving · 145bps gross NIM · RAROC never formally calculated · hurdle rate 15% · no action classification

Our Activity — Step 1

Align RAROC formula: (Rev−Cost−ECL) / Economic Capital

Confirm hurdle rate (15% WACC) with Finance

Resolve FTP methodology and ancillary revenue attribution

Produce RAROC baseline pack — all relationships scored

Metric

Our Activity

AS-IS

After Repricing

After Cross-Sell

After Distribution

Optimised

What we measure

How we get there

Client economics today

Lever 1: reprice at renewal

Lever 2: deepen wallet

Lever 3: partial sell-down

Hybrid action

RAROC (calculated)

Harmonise RAROC methodology · apply to all 120 clients

~7% below hurdle

~12%

~16%

~19%

~19% above hurdle ✓

NIM / Pricing

Pricing review vs credit cost · RM repricing case

145bps flat 3 years

190bps (market rate)

190bps

190bps retained 70%

190bps on retained

Ancillary Revenue

Full wallet map · cross-sell plan with RM and product teams

SAR 1.2m (FX only)

SAR 1.2m

SAR 3.8m (FX+trade+cash)

SAR 3.8m

+SAR 2.6m p.a.

Capital Consumed

Capital consumption recalculation · link to RWA diagnostic

SAR 96m (@12% CET1)

SAR 96m

SAR 67m (70% retained)

−SAR 29m freed

Client Action

Apply G/O/D/E framework · validate with RM and Risk

UNCLASSIFIED

OPTIMISE (reprice)

GROW (deepen wallet)

DISTRIBUTE (partial)

GROW + DISTRIBUTE

Step 2

Segment the Portfolio

Apply the RAROC methodology systematically to all ~120 relationships. Not 120 deep dives — a structured screen. Intensive work focuses on the 30–40% that fall below or near hurdle.

Our Activities

Review RAROC by client, facility, sector, cross-sell potential

Flag below-hurdle and near-hurdle exposures

Diagnose underperformance: pricing, tenor, security, wallet

Identify OTD distribution candidates (Distribute bucket)

Portfolio Segmentation Output

Every Relationship Gets a Label

▲ Grow (~30%)

RAROC 20%+ · high cross-sell · strategic anchor relationships · deepen and expand

◆ Optimise (~40%)

RAROC 10–15% · near hurdle · reprice at next renewal or add cross-sell products

→ Distribute (~20%)

RAROC below 10% · below hurdle · screen for syndication, SRT or sell-down

✕ Exit (~10%)

RAROC below 3% · value-destroying · managed wind-down with credit oversight

OutputClient segmentation pack — ~120 relationships classified · ~25 OTD candidates identified

Step 3

Define Actions

Classification without action is worthless. Every non-Grow client gets a named action, an RM owner, a timeline and a decision gate. Distribute-bucket clients feed directly into the 3.2.F pipeline.

Our Activities

Define action per client: reprice, restructure, distribute or exit

Assign RM owner and deadline for each action

Feed Distribute bucket into 3.2.F distribution pipeline

Validate action plans with sector heads and Risk

Action Plan Matrix

Named Actions — Named Owners — Named Deadlines

For every relationship below or near hurdle, the action plan matrix assigns a concrete action to a specific RM with a completion date. No classification without accountability.

For Optimise Clients

Reprice at next credit renewal · add cross-sell products · set trigger for re-review if no improvement by M+3

For Distribute Clients

Screen for LMA-readiness · add to 3.2.E investor heatmap · stage in 3.2.F distribution pipeline with investor match

OutputAction plan matrix by client segment · ~25 OTD candidates staged in distribution pipeline

⚑ Gate: Client action plan approval by RM leads and Risk

Step 4

Embed the Cadence

RAROC review embedded into credit approvals, account planning and quarterly portfolio forums — so it runs without a separate initiative after Month 6.

Deliverables We Leave GIB

Harmonised RAROC methodology and thresholds

Client and facility review report (~120 clients)

Action plan matrix by client segment (G/O/D/E)

Integration into account planning and credit approvals

Quarterly RAROC review cadence and tracker

Governance Integration

RAROC Becomes a Management Routine

The RAROC review is embedded into three management routines — so the discipline continues after the programme ends.

Credit Approval

RAROC screen added to all new origination approvals · below-hurdle deals require explicit sign-off or distribution plan

Account Planning

Annual account plan includes RAROC forecast and cross-sell target · RM accountable for closing gaps by next review

Quarterly Portfolio Review

RAROC re-run quarterly · bucket changes tracked · action plan closure rate measured · escalations to EXCO

Distribution Trigger

RAROC below hurdle for 2 consecutive quarters automatically triggers distribution screening via 3.2.F pipeline

GateGovernance integration confirmation · RAROC cadence live in management routines

STEP 1

Assess Current State

Gap analysis vs LMA

STEP 2

Design Standards

Distribution-first policy

STEP 3

Validate Controls

Risk · Legal · Compliance

STEP 4

Pilot & Roll Out

3 live deal archetypes

The Problem Today

Assets Can't Be Distributed

Bespoke non-LMA docs · no investor credit packs · restricted transferability · ad-hoc approvals · no hold-vs-distribute framework. A SAR 400m project finance loan originated today cannot be distributed tomorrow.

Our Activity — Step 1

Review underwriting, distribution and approval frameworks

Diagnose documentation and transferability gaps vs LMA

Benchmark against investor expectations and market norms

Produce gap assessment with prioritised fix list

Current State vs Target State

From Bespoke to Investor-Ready

Today

Hold-to-maturity origination · bespoke docs per deal · ad-hoc approvals · no investor disclosure standard · transferability restricted

Target

Distribute-intended from day one · LMA-aligned templates · clear RACI · investor-grade credit packs · unrestricted transfer clauses

Key Gaps We Identify

Transferability clauses missing · no standard credit pack · approval authority unclear · no hold-vs-distribute trigger criteria

Fix Priority

LMA transfer certificate first · investor pack template second · RACI and approval matrix third · time-to-distribute KPI fourth

OutputPolicy and process gap assessment — prioritised fix list with effort and impact rating

Step 2

Design Distribution-First Standards

Define what distribution-intended origination looks like. Set the criteria, the templates and the minimum standards that every new deal must meet to be investor-ready from day one.

Our Activities

Define hold-vs-distribute criteria and target-hold principles

Specify diligence, disclosure and covenant requirements

Draft LMA-standard template pack with transfer certificates

Design minimum credit pack: financials, ratings, covenants, data room

Standards Package

Three Templates That Change Everything

LMA Facility Agreement

Transferability clause embedded as standard · LMA transfer certificate · broad consent provisions · intercreditor framework

Investor Credit Pack

Financial summary · ratings rationale · covenant summary · structure overview · data room index · takes 2 hours to populate not 2 weeks

Hold-vs-Distribute Policy

Clear criteria: asset type, ticket size, tenor, RAROC threshold trigger · who decides · when · what approvals needed

Approval RACI

Front office, Risk, Legal, Compliance roles defined · exception handling process · escalation path · no more ad-hoc decisions

OutputTarget underwriting and distribution policy pack · LMA template library · Approval RACI

⚑ Gate: Design principles approval — Risk, Legal, Compliance alignment

Step 3

Validate with Control Functions

Co-create with Risk, Legal, Compliance and Operations. Test on real deal archetypes — a bilateral loan, an RCF and a project finance deal. Log every friction point and resolve before rollout.

Our Activities

Run 3 pilot deals through new policy framework end-to-end

Secure Risk, Legal and Compliance sign-off on templates

Log friction points and update templates accordingly

Confirm GIB UK as distribution route · agree execution workflow

Validation Process

Test Before You Roll Out

Three deal archetypes run through the new framework. Any friction point becomes a template update — not a rollout blocker.

Archetype 1: Bilateral Term Loan

Standard GIB wholesale product · tests LMA docs and credit pack template · confirms approval workflow

Archetype 2: Revolving Credit Facility

Tests transferability in a revolving structure · confirms investor disclosure requirements · legal sign-off

Archetype 3: Project Finance

Most complex structure · tests data room, covenant summary and intercreditor provisions · confirms GIB UK route

Control Function Sign-Off

Risk · Legal · Compliance · Operations all sign off before broad rollout — no last-minute vetoes

⚑ Gate: Control-function sign-off · pilot launch approval

Deliverables We Leave GIB

Policy Framework Ready to Operate

Every new deal originated after Month 4 uses the new standards. Time to investor-ready: 4 weeks. Down from impossible.

Five Deliverables

Policy and process gap assessment

Target underwriting and distribution policy pack

LMA-standard documentation templates

Approval RACI, process maps and exception rules

Pilot-tested framework ready for adoption

Before vs After

4 Weeks From Origination to Investor-Ready

Before (Today)

Asset originated → held by default → no investor pack → bespoke docs → distribution impossible → capital trapped indefinitely

After (Month 4+)

Asset originated → LMA docs standard → credit pack populated in 2hrs → hold-vs-distribute decision at origination → GIB UK route confirmed

KPI: Time to Distribute

Baseline: impossible. Target: 4 weeks from origination to investor-ready asset. Measured from policy go-live.

Investor Readiness Score

0/5 today → 5/5 after rollout. Scored on: documentation, disclosure, covenant, structure, data room completeness.

TargetEvery new origination investor-ready from day one · GIB UK distribution route live · policy self-sustaining

STEP 1

Map the Universe

60+ investors segmented

STEP 2

Build the Heatmap

Asset-investor matching

STEP 3

Design Engagement

Revenue-sharing · ownership

STEP 4

Activate & Pilot

First outreach live

The Problem Today

No Buyer Coverage Model

GIB wants to distribute SAR 175m of a BBB-rated GCC infrastructure loan — 7 year tenor. But has no investor coverage model, no pricing benchmark, no clear distribution route, and no revenue-sharing framework.

Our Activity — Step 1

Compile GIB's existing investor relationships across entities

Layer Accenture market intelligence on GCC, EU and Asian appetite

Identify gaps, white spaces and relationship overlap across Group

Segment 60+ investors by geography, type, appetite and ticket

Investor Universe — 60+ Accounts Mapped

Who Buys GCC Wholesale Credit?

Tier 1 — GCC (Anchor)

GCC Sovereign Wealth Funds · GCC Pension Funds (Hassana, GOSI) · SAR denomination accepted · large ticket · BBB infra core appetite

Tier 2 — International

European Insurers & Pensions · Japanese/Korean Banks · actively investing in GCC infrastructure · senior syndicated preferred

Tier 3 — Selective

CLO/Credit Funds (SRT first-loss) · Multilateral Dev Banks (SRT) · Private Credit Funds (mezz) · asset-specific appetite

Coverage Gaps

Multiple GIB entities covering same investors without coordination · no ownership clarity · no revenue-sharing framework creating internal friction

OutputInvestor universe map — 60+ accounts segmented by type, geography, appetite, ticket size and tenor preference

Step 2

Build the Heatmap

Match this specific asset (BBB · 7yr · GCC infra · SAR denomination) against the investor universe. Produce a ranked target list with pricing guidance. Not a static map — live and refreshable per deal.

Our Activities

Apply heatmap logic: BBB rating · 7yr tenor · SAR · GCC infra

Identify Tier 1 anchor investors and Tier 2 strategic targets

Build pricing model using comparable GCC transactions

Benchmark against SAIBOR curve and regional credit spreads

Heatmap Match — This Asset

BBB GCC Infra · 7yr · SAR 175m to Place

Strong Match (Approach First)

GCC Pension Fund (Hassana) · SAR denomination preferred · BBB infra core mandate · 7yr ideal tenor · ticket: SAR 80–100m ✓

Good Match (Tier 2 Target)

Japanese Regional Bank · senior syndicated in GCC active · USD/SAR both accepted · ticket: SAR 50–75m ✓

Weak Fit (Not Primary)

CLO/Credit Funds — senior BBB too tight for yield target · Private Credit — below return threshold · not primary pocket for this asset

Pricing Benchmark

Comparable GCC infra transactions: SAIBOR +120–140bps · within GIB's target spread · market-tested before outreach

OutputHeatmap v1 · ranked target account shortlist · pricing benchmark range · priority engagement sequence

Step 3

Design the Engagement Model

The heatmap is only useful if coverage ownership is clear and internal friction is resolved. Revenue-sharing must be agreed before the first investor call — not after the deal is done.

Our Activities

Define coverage ownership: GIB UK leads international · GIB BH/KSA for GCC

Agree revenue-sharing: origination credit · arrangement fee · placement economics

Build target account plans and outreach sequencing

Establish investor appetite feedback loop into CRM

Group Engagement Model

One GIB — Clear Ownership — No Internal Friction

GIB UK (London)

Leads European and Asian investor outreach · primary distribution execution · PRA/FCA regulated platform

GIB Bahrain / KSA

GCC investor relationships (SWFs, pensions) · origination credit holder · relationship maintenance post-placement

GIB Capital

Structuring and credit pack preparation · deal pricing and terms negotiation · handoff to GIB UK for execution

Revenue-Sharing Framework

Arrangement fee: GIB Bahrain (origination credit) · placement fee: GIB UK (execution) · structuring: GIB Capital · agreed pre-launch

OutputGroup engagement model · revenue-sharing framework · coverage ownership map · target account plans

⚑ Gate: Revenue-sharing sign-off across all GIB entities before pilot outreach

Deliverables We Leave GIB

Heatmap Live in CRM

Every future deal has a pre-built investor matching process. Pricing is benchmarked before outreach. Coverage ownership is clear. Revenue-sharing is agreed. The placement cycle shortens with every deal.

Five Deliverables

Investor universe map and heatmap (60+ investors)

Priority investor list by product and corridor

Target investor coverage model

Group engagement and revenue-sharing framework

Heatmap governance and CRM requirements

Pilot Outcome

SAR 175m Placement Structured and Investor-Matched

Placement 1 — Committed

GCC Pension Fund (Hassana) · SAR 80m · SAIBOR +128bps · within benchmark ✓

Placement 2 — Committed

Japanese Regional Bank · SAR 95m · SAIBOR +135bps · within benchmark ✓

Key Result

SAR 175m fully placed · pricing within benchmark · GIB UK activated as distribution hub · revenue-sharing live Group-wide

What's Repeatable

Heatmap embedded in CRM · every future deal matched before outreach begins · placement cycle improves with each transaction

ImportantActual investor commitments depend on market conditions and GIB execution · we deliver the matching framework and pilot readiness

STEP 1

Baseline the Book

SAR 15bn segmented

STEP 2

Define Strategy

Hold limits · rules

STEP 3

Design Channels

Routes by asset class

STEP 4

Stand Up Steering

Weekly deal committee

The Problem Today

SAR 15bn Book — No Strategy

Hold-all default. No segmentation. No hold limits. No distribution pipeline. No capital velocity metric. Capital accumulates without a recycling mechanism.

Our Activity — Step 1

Analyse SAR 15bn book by RAROC, concentration, tenor, sector

Apply Hold/Optimise/Distribute/Watchlist framework

Identify first-wave distribution candidates from 3.2.C

Produce portfolio baseline pack — signed off by CFO and Risk

Portfolio Segmentation

SAR 15bn Book — First-Ever Segmentation

Hold — SAR 9bn (60%)

RAROC 18%+ · strategic anchor · high cross-sell · retain and grow · no action needed beyond quarterly review

Optimise — SAR 2bn (13%)

RAROC 10–15% · near hurdle · reprice at next renewal · add cross-sell · re-review in 2 quarters

Distribute — SAR 2.5bn (17%)

RAROC below hurdle · investor-suitable · screen for syndication, SRT or sell-down · first-wave: SAR 600m

Watchlist — SAR 1.5bn (10%)

Concentration risk or credit concerns · active monitoring · weekly review · potential exit candidates

OutputPortfolio baseline pack · 4-quadrant segmentation map · SAR 600m wave-1 distribution pipeline identified

Step 2

Define Hold Limits & Rules

Segmentation without rules is a one-off exercise. Rules make it a managed process. Single-name limits, automatic breach alerts, and clear hold-vs-distribute triggers at origination.

Our Activities

Define single-name, sector and product hold limits

Set automatic review triggers for breach alerts

Embed limits in credit approval process and portfolio MI

Set capital velocity KPI target (1.5x) — track monthly

Portfolio Rules Framework

Active Management — Not Passive Accumulation

Single-Name Hold Limits

Maximum exposure per obligor defined · automatic review trigger when 80% of limit reached · distribution screening activated at breach

Sector Concentration Caps

Real estate · infrastructure · financial institutions capped as % of total book · breach triggers distribution committee review

Capital Velocity KPI

Target: 1.5x (up from 1.0x today) · measure: origination volume / capital deployed · tracked monthly in EXCO pack

Hold-vs-Distribute Trigger

RAROC below hurdle for 2 quarters → automatic distribution screening · new originations above SAR 200m → distribution review at approval

OutputPortfolio management strategy · hold limits live in credit approval · capital velocity tracked · breach alerts operational

⚑ Gate: Hold principles approval — management alignment on hold-distribute rules

Step 3

Design Distribution Channels

Not all assets distribute the same way. A SAR 500m bilateral loan to a GCC corporate goes via primary syndication. A concentrated sector exposure goes via SRT. A granular portfolio goes via CLO. Each needs a different channel.

Our Activities

Map distribution routes by asset type, size and complexity

Match each route to investor heatmap (from 3.2.E)

Define deal origination-to-execution workflow per channel

Build wave-1 pipeline: SAR 600m with investor matches

Distribution Channels

Right Route for Each Asset Type

Primary Syndication

Large bilateral loans SAR 200m+ · LMA-standard docs · GIB UK as bookrunner · GCC and Asian bank market · arrangement fee income

Secondary Sell-Down

Back-book positions · participation certificates · GCC pension and SWF buyers · immediate balance sheet relief · no new origination needed

Synthetic Risk Transfer

Portfolio-level risk transfer · credit-linked notes via GIB UK · CLO/credit fund buyers · asset stays on book · RW reduction

Wave 1 Pipeline

SAR 600m of Distribute-quadrant assets staged · investor-matched via heatmap · packaging underway · deal committee review pending

OutputDistribution strategy by asset class · SAR 600m wave-1 pipeline · channel-to-investor mapping · deal playbook

Deliverables We Leave GIB

Portfolio Machine — Self-Running

Weekly deal committee. Monthly EXCO pack. Capital velocity tracked. Hold limits enforced. Distribution pipeline active. GIB manages the book — we build the tools and governance to do it.

Five Deliverables

Portfolio segmentation and opportunity map

Portfolio management and distribution strategy

Distribution channels by asset class and channel

Pipeline governance and decision framework

KPI dashboard and monthly EXCO steering pack

Steering Model

Three Governance Layers — Always Running

Weekly Deal Committee

Pipeline screening · investor matching decisions · execution sign-offs · issue resolution · chaired by Portfolio Head with Risk and Coverage

Monthly EXCO Portfolio Pack

RAROC by quadrant · capital velocity · distribution pipeline status · fee income tracker · hold limit breaches · escalation decisions

Capital Velocity KPI

Today: 1.0x (no recycling) → Target: 1.5x · measured monthly · improvement tracked quarter-on-quarter

Fee Income — New Line

Arrangement + placement + SRT fees reported in management accounts alongside NII · target SAR 18m+ p.a. from wave-1 pipeline

GateSteering forum go-live · deal committee operational · KPI dashboard in EXCO reporting

STEP 1

Define the TOM

End-to-end model

STEP 2

Architect Platform

Tech · org · controls

STEP 3

Resolve Dependencies

Legal · tax · PRA/FCA

STEP 4

Mobilise Launch

Readiness gate · pilot deal

Starting Point

GIB UK — Asset Not Activated

GIB UK has a $14.5bn balance sheet, PRA/FCA permissions and SEC registration in London. It is the most valuable distribution asset GIB has. Today it sits in passive holding mode. By Month 6 it has a complete TOM, org design and launch path.

Our Activity — Step 1

Design end-to-end TOM: originate → structure → distribute

Set roles, handoffs and decision rights across all entities

Confirm GIB UK mandate: product perimeter, investor segments

Engage PRA/FCA on distribution scope — M1 not M5

Target Operating Model

Originate → Structure → Distribute

The OTD model connects three nodes across the GIB Group into one end-to-end pipeline.

Node 1: Originate (KSA / Bahrain)

GIB Saudi Arabia and GIB Bahrain originate bilateral loans · RAROC screen at origination · distribution flag set at approval · LMA-standard docs from day one

Node 2: Structure (GIB Capital)

GIB Capital prepares credit packs · prices deals · structures syndications and SRT · handoff to GIB UK with full investor-ready package

Node 3: Distribute (GIB UK)

PRA/FCA regulated platform · executes placements with European and Asian investors · handles participation agreements · reports to Group

Decision Rights

Origination decision: GIB BH/KSA · Distribution approval: Joint (Coverage + Risk + GIB UK) · Pricing: GIB Capital · Execution: GIB UK

OutputTOM baseline and dependency log · roles and decision rights defined across all Group entities

⚑ Gate: TOM sign-off — Group-wide alignment on operating model

Step 2

Architect the Platform

Minimum viable capability for day-1 distribution. Not a full transformation — a focused build that gives GIB UK what it needs to execute its first deals.

Our Activities

Define tech requirements: CRM · deal tracking · investor MI · data room

Confirm existing systems vs new build — minimum viable approach

Design front-to-back controls and KYC/AML framework

Design org structure for GIB UK distribution team

Platform Architecture

Minimum Viable — Maximum Impact

Technology Stack

CRM for investor coverage · deal tracking system · MI dashboards · data room capability · confirm existing systems vs new build to minimise cost

Team Structure

Distribution Head · Coverage Leads (international) · Operations and Controls · cross-entity reporting lines confirmed · hiring plan defined

Controls Framework

Front-to-back control framework · KYC/AML for investors · risk retention rules (EU, PRA) · reporting obligations mapped · audit-ready

Data Architecture

Investor data model · deal flow tracking · portfolio MI feeds from GIB BH/KSA origination · performance reporting to Group EXCO

OutputDraft TOM and platform architecture · org design · technology and data requirements · control framework design

⚑ Gate: Launch architecture approval — platform design signed off

Step 3

Resolve Every Dependency

No open items at go-live. Legal, regulatory, tax and technology dependencies identified in Sprint 1 and closed by Sprint 3. This is how Month 6 remains a launch window — not a design window.

Our Activities

Assess legal, regulatory, tax and booking model implications

Confirm PRA/FCA permissions — engaged M1 not M5

Resolve Zakat/transfer-pricing implications of entity model

Build resourcing, hiring and capability plan for GIB UK team

Dependency Resolution

Close Everything Before Month 5

Regulatory (PRA/FCA)

Distribution permissions confirmed · notification submitted M1 · variation of permission if needed · no regulatory surprises at go-live

Legal & Tax

Booking model legal structure confirmed · Zakat treatment for KSA-originated assets · inter-company agreements · transfer pricing clean

Technology

CRM configured · deal tracking live · MI feeds from origination entities confirmed · data room operational · no systems gap at go-live

Resourcing

Distribution Head in seat by M4 · Coverage Leads hired or assigned by M5 · full team operational for pilot deal in M5–M6

OutputApproved design and launch roadmap · all dependencies closed · readiness checklist 100% complete

Deliverables We Leave GIB

GIB UK — Launch Path Delivered

By Month 6: complete TOM, approved org design, confirmed regulatory permissions, full platform operational, pilot deal structured and ready to execute. GIB UK can go live. The decision to do so sits with GIB.

Five Deliverables

Target OTD operating model — Group-wide

Org design, RACI and governance forums

GIB UK launch roadmap and readiness checklist

Technology and data architecture requirements

Pilot playbook — first transaction structured

Readiness Assessment

6 Pillars — All Green at Month 6

Operating Model

TOM designed · signed off Group-wide · roles and handoffs operational ✓

Regulatory

PRA/FCA permissions confirmed · all distribution scope cleared ✓

Team

Distribution Head and Coverage Leads in seat · trained and operational ✓

Technology

CRM · deal tracking · MI · data room all live · day-1 capable ✓

Controls

Full framework operational · KYC/AML live · audit-ready ✓

Pilot Deal

First transaction structured · investor-matched · ready to execute ✓

GateReadiness go/no-go · EXCO sign-off · GIB UK distribution hub launch path confirmed