PRIVATE BETA · METHODOLOGY V0.9
Liquidity Architecture Assessment
Assess whether credible mechanisms exist for capital to be realised, recycled and, where applicable, repatriated. The assessment evaluates the architecture of liquidity. It does not predict a particular exit, valuation or investment return.
Price the weakest credible pathway—not the best imaginable outcome.
View methodology
- 01 Assess 20 evidence-led questions Test five pathways through which capital could be realised, recycled and repatriated.
- 02 Evidence Record what is known Separate demonstrated precedent from assumptions and identify where evidence is incomplete.
- 03 Interpret Receive a liquidity profile See which pathways are credible, concentrated, developing or constrained by capital mobility.
Approximately 5–7 minutes · Immediate indicative result · No overall market ranking
Private Beta · Methodology v0.9
Methodology, scoring and limitations
Status
The Liquidity Architecture Framework™ is currently being tested with investors, fund managers, boards and advisers. Participation helps TM Alpha refine the questions, the evidence standards and the usefulness of the output before wider release.
What is assessed
Twenty evidence-led questions across the five liquidity pathways: strategic buyers, secondary private capital, deep public markets, domestic institutional capital and cross-border capital mobility.
How responses are interpreted
Each pathway is assessed independently as Weak, Developing or Established. Evidence coverage is shown separately. The result is a profile, not an aggregate score, market ranking, valuation or prediction of a specific exit.
How evidence gaps are treated
Evidence coverage is reported separately from pathway strength, so a confident reading and a thin one are never presented alike. Pathways without sufficient evidence are shown as such rather than scored.
Limitations
- Indicative and based on self-reported information that has not been independently verified.
- It assesses the architecture of liquidity in a market, not the timing, price or certainty of any specific transaction.
- Conditions vary materially by market, sector and jurisdiction.
Indicative and based on self-reported information. The market context and evidence notes you enter stay in this browser and are never sent to TM Alpha. If you request a readout, only the pathway levels and evidence-coverage labels are shared, in line with our privacy notice. The diagnostic evaluates the credibility and diversity of liquidity pathways, not opportunity quality, valuation or the likelihood of a specific exit.
Before the questions
Market and position
A short context so the profile can be read against the right market and position. Held in this browser only.
Review your answers
Select any answer to revisit it. Every question needs a response, including an explicit "Not known".
Liquidity Architecture Profile
Price the weakest credible pathway—not the best imaginable outcome.
Reading the profile
- Regulatory permission is not the same as deployed capital.
- A listing is not liquidity unless the market can absorb selling.
- A theoretical buyer is not an exit pathway without capacity and precedent.
- Local realisation is not investor liquidity if proceeds cannot be converted and repatriated.
- Unknown evidence is itself a diligence finding.
Methodology
A pathway's level is the mean of its answered, scored questions: 0—0.99 Weak, 1.00—1.99 Developing, 2.00—3.00 Established.
Evidence coverage counts “Not known” responses within the pathway: none is High, one is Moderate, two or more is Low.
A pathway with low evidence coverage is labelled Provisional regardless of its calculated level. The level describes what the evidence shows; the coverage label describes how much evidence there was.
Each pathway is calculated independently from its answered, scored questions. There is no overall score, no percentage, no decimal precision on display and no league table.
Interpretation rules
- Evidence insufficient — three or more pathways at low evidence coverage, or eight or more “Not known” responses.
- Diversified architecture — at least three pathways Established, no more than one Weak, and Cross-Border Capital Mobility at least Developing.
- Concentrated liquidity — exactly one pathway Established and at least three Weak.
- Structurally thin architecture — three or more pathways Weak.
- Mixed or developing architecture — any other combination.
- Binding mobility constraint — shown in addition whenever Cross-Border Capital Mobility is Weak.
What this profile is not
- a market score
- a percentile or a probability
- a prediction of a specific exit, price or timing
- an assurance opinion
- investment advice
- a league table of markets
Limitations
- Assessments are indicative and based on user-supplied information.
- Conditions vary by market, sector, asset, transaction and jurisdiction.
- Conditions can change rapidly with regulation, currency policy and market cycles.
- The diagnostic evaluates the infrastructure through which liquidity may become possible.
- It does not predict whether a specific exit will occur, at what price or on what timing.
- Established liquidity architecture does not make an otherwise unsuitable investment attractive.
- TM Alpha does not publish comparative market league tables from this framework.
Structuring implications are practical considerations, not legal advice. No structure eliminates liquidity risk.