What Makes a Good Submission
How We Evaluate Projects
Viable Revenue Model
We look for projects with a clear and credible revenue model, whether contracted revenues, demonstrated market demand, or a regulated tariff structure. Projects with predictable cash flows are significantly easier to finance than those relying on speculative revenue assumptions.
Experienced Sponsor
The quality of the project sponsor, their sector experience, their financial standing, and their track record with similar projects, is one of the most important factors in our assessment. We give significant weight to sponsors who can demonstrate that they have delivered comparable projects successfully.
Complete Documentation
A submission that includes a business plan, financial projections, and, where relevant, a feasibility study moves through our review process significantly faster than one lacking these documents. We recommend preparing these documents before submitting to avoid delays in the review process.
Submit Your Application
Complete the project application form below with as much detail as possible. The more information you provide, the faster and more accurately we can assess your project. Attach your business plan, financial projections, and any other supporting documents in the document upload section.
Initial Review (5 Business Days)
Our origination desk reviews every submission within five business days. We assess the project against our current facility appetite, sector focus, and minimum eligibility criteria. You will receive a response confirming whether your project has been progressed to the next stage or, if not, explaining the reasons and any recommendations.
Due Diligence (4-8 Weeks)
Projects that pass the initial screen enter our due diligence phase. We will request any additional documentation required and may arrange calls with the project sponsor and key management. Our team prepares an internal investment recommendation which is reviewed by our facility approval committee.
Facility Offer and Close
Projects approved by our committee receive a formal facility offer setting out the proposed terms. Once terms are agreed, we move to documentation and, where applicable, begin the lender syndication process. Drawdown typically occurs within four to twelve weeks of term sheet execution, depending on the facility type and complexity.
FAQ
Common Questions
What sectors does Polinvest consider?
We consider projects in agriculture, infrastructure, energy, real estate, manufacturing, technology, healthcare, mining, and hospitality. We do not finance projects involving weapons, gambling, tobacco, or other excluded sectors as defined in our ESG policy.
Can I submit a project that is already partially funded?
Yes. We regularly structure facilities for projects that already have some committed capital, from equity investors, government grants, or other lenders. Indeed, projects with existing committed capital are often stronger candidates because the sponsor has already demonstrated the ability to attract funding.
What happens if my project is not approved?
We provide feedback to all applicants whose projects are not approved, explaining the key reasons and, where possible, making recommendations for how the project might be improved or where alternative financing sources might be found. We want every interaction with Polinvest to be valuable, even when we are not able to proceed.
Is there a fee to submit a project?
There is no fee to submit a project for review. Our arrangement fee is only payable if a facility is successfully closed, and is agreed as part of the facility terms prior to close.
From Application to Disbursement
A structured, transparent process, from your first submission to the moment funds reach your account.
Submit Your Application
Apply online in minutes, new, existing, or stalled projects all considered. Our team acknowledges every submission within 5 business days.
Review & Due Diligence
We assess your project against active facilities, sector fit, and eligibility. Additional documents may be requested to complete our review.
Structuring & Approval
Our team designs the optimal facility structure, amount, rate, tenor, and security, then presents it to our institutional syndicate for approval.
Documentation & Close
Facility agreements and security documents are executed. All conditions precedent are satisfied before the facility is formally closed.
Disbursement
Funds are disbursed per the agreed drawdown schedule. We remain your facility agent throughout the full tenor, providing ongoing support.
The Review Process
What Happens After You Submit
Submitting a project to Polinvest starts a process that is designed to be both efficient and thorough. We know that project sponsors are often working against timelines, whether a funding deadline, a construction schedule, or a competitive acquisition process, and we structure our review process to move quickly without cutting corners. Our origination desk reviews new submissions as they arrive, rather than batching them, and we maintain a five-business-day commitment to initial response that we take seriously.
The most common reason projects are returned without proceeding is insufficient documentation. We cannot assess the viability of a project without a business plan, financial projections, and at least some preliminary information about the proposed security or collateral. We understand that not all projects have all of this ready at the time of initial submission, but sponsors who can provide complete documentation will receive a faster and more detailed initial response than those who cannot. If your documentation is not yet complete, we recommend submitting what you have and indicating in the submission form what additional materials you are preparing.
Projects that pass our initial review are not guaranteed to receive a facility offer. Our full due diligence process may uncover issues that prevent us from proceeding, credit concerns, structural problems with the proposed security, questions about regulatory approvals, or simply a conclusion that the project is not currently suitable for the types of capital we can arrange. Where this happens, we provide honest feedback that explains our decision and, where possible, makes suggestions for what the sponsor might do differently. We would rather have that conversation directly and honestly than leave a sponsor without an answer.
Project Quality
What Strong Projects Look Like
After reviewing hundreds of project submissions, our team has developed a clear picture of what distinguishes the strongest applications from the rest. Strong projects have clear and credible revenue models supported by contracts, letters of intent, or demonstrated market demand, not speculative assumptions. They are promoted by sponsors with relevant track records who can point to comparable projects they have delivered successfully. They have realistic financial projections that acknowledge risk and still demonstrate serviceability under downside scenarios. And they have a well-organised documentation package that makes it easy for our team to conduct due diligence efficiently.
Weaker applications share common characteristics: overly optimistic revenue projections with no acknowledgement of risk; sponsors with no relevant experience in the sector or geography; missing documentation that creates uncertainty about the project's legal status or financial position; and requests for capital that exceed what the project's cash flows can credibly support. We see all of these characteristics regularly, and in most cases they are addressable, a weaker submission can become a stronger one with better preparation. We provide feedback to help sponsors understand what to improve.
The document quality of a submission signals the overall quality of the project team. Sponsors who present neatly formatted, well-organised business plans with consistent figures and clear explanations are signalling that they approach their projects with professionalism and attention to detail. Sponsors who submit unstructured documents with inconsistent numbers and unexplained assumptions are signalling the opposite. We know this correlation is not perfect, some outstanding projects are presented by technically strong but administratively weak teams, but it is a reliable starting signal.