Asset Impairment Governance Board Examiner — Commercial Real Estate

The mandate

Vacancy, refinancing costs and tenant incentives have worsened across parts of the portfolio, yet impairment indicators and valuation assumptions are considered through separate Asset Management and Finance forums. Cash-generating-unit boundaries have not changed despite shared leasing and redevelopment decisions, while board scenarios omit disposal costs and funding constraints. Directors want independent challenge before year-end conclusions and covenant communication.

The adviser will examine impairment indicator completeness, cash-generating-unit composition, corporate-asset allocation, carrying amount, value-in-use and fair-value evidence, forecast consistency, discount rates, terminal assumptions, sensitivity and reversals. Particular scrutiny belongs on internally inconsistent leasing, refurbishment, financing and disposal plans and on valuations whose market evidence does not match asset-specific cash flows.

The appointment runs for ten months with two evidence reviews monthly through annual reporting, then monthly monitoring across the next forecast and covenant cycle. A portfolio challenge heatmap will precede each joint committee meeting. Renewal is limited to one month if a lender-triggered asset sale creates a new impairment unit before the original term ends.

The role carries no line authority, executive responsibility, accounting authority, investment authority, valuation authority, audit authority or approval authority. Management identifies indicators and selects estimates; valuers issue their work; committees oversee decisions; auditors conclude independently. The adviser may challenge scope and assumptions but cannot set rents, direct disposals, choose valuations or book impairment.

Property, lender, shareholder, broker, valuer, developer, tenant, adviser and auditor relationships must be disclosed. Compensation linked to avoiding impairment, completing a sale or refinancing debt is prohibited. The appointment excludes valuation opinion, transaction advice, leasing strategy, debt negotiation, legal advice, forecast preparation, audit procedures and investor communications.

Why the board wants this voice

Asset teams and valuers possess detailed market knowledge, but they also operate within approved strategies whose optimism may shape impairment evidence. Joint committee challenge needs someone able to connect cash-generating units, carrying amounts and forecast uncertainty without becoming another valuer, asset manager or management accountant.

What you will own

• Challenge impairment indicators across vacancy, yields, rents, tenant credit, costs, planning, funding and strategic decisions.
• Test cash-generating-unit boundaries and corporate-asset allocation against independent cash inflows and actual management monitoring.
• Reconcile carrying amounts with valuation perimeter, lease incentives, capital commitments, liabilities and shared assets.
• Examine forecast, discount rate, terminal value, disposal cost and market evidence for internal and external consistency.
• Compare impairment sensitivities with covenant, liquidity, asset-sale and public risk scenarios seen by directors.
• Maintain a joint committee ledger of challenged assumptions, valuer responses, management decisions and residual headroom.
• Stress-test conclusions using a major tenant failure, refinancing shock and cancelled redevelopment.

Candidate qualifications

• Advised boards on impairment governance across large office, retail, hospitality or mixed-use property portfolios.
• Challenged cash-generating units, carrying amounts, value-in-use models and fair-value evidence under audit scrutiny.
• Connected leasing, refurbishment, funding, disposal and tenant-credit facts to impairment indicators and sensitivities.
• Identified inconsistency between valuation assumptions, management forecasts, covenant scenarios and board strategy.
• Preserved boundaries among asset management, valuation opinion, accounting decisions, lender dialogue and audit.
• Produced durable committee challenge records that remained useful through subsequent market and portfolio deterioration.

Non-negotiables

• Available for Milan joint committee sessions and secure review of asset-level cash flows and valuation evidence.
• Direct board-level property impairment challenge is required; transaction valuation experience alone is insufficient.
• Will disclose property, lender, tenant, broker, valuer, developer, shareholder and audit relationships before appointment.
• Accepts that management owns estimates and valuers own opinions; this role supplies independent challenge only.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe an impairment indicator that portfolio-level reporting concealed.
2. 49 words maximum. How did you challenge a cash-generating-unit boundary without providing a valuation opinion?
3. 49 words maximum. Which combined tenant-and-refinancing shock would you put before the joint committee?