WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Singapore SFO — Adversarial Manager / Co-Investment Due Diligence · static illustrative data (Pinnacle Global Opportunities Fund)
Single Family Office · Manager due diligence · proposed co-investment

Pinnacle Global Opportunities Fund

Proposed S$22.0M commitment · manager pitch reviewed by DiligenceWorks · adversarial IDD + ODD
18score
Manager-integrity score. DO NOT PROCEED — operational controls absent.
S$340M
Claimed AUM · 14.2% p.a. since 2016
Six adversarial checks · IDD then ODD
Performance Flag
14.2% p.a., ~6% down months — internally consistent but not independently verified (no GIPS / administrator)
IDD “looks real”
Valuation Reject
S$256M private book marked-to-model; no third-party administrator strikes NAV
S$256M self-marked
Custody Reject
No independent qualified custodian; assets held in the manager's own name
Who holds the assets?
Providers Reject
Auditor a two-partner firm affiliated with the principal; no recognised administrator
Madoff pattern
Documents Reject
Subscription signatures inconsistent across pages; side-letter term absent from the LPA
JES pattern
Screening Reject
Principal: undisclosed prior regulatory action + adverse media; circular related-party inflow
Escalate
Cards reveal in sequence during the demo. Green = pass · Amber = flag · Red = reject. IDD (Performance) says the returns look real; every ODD control says no — the Madoff lesson. Each finding is traceable (see audit drawer).
Exception report
CheckFindingClaimedSupportedDeltaSource
Performance14.2% p.a. since 2016, ~6% down months — internally smooth, but not independently verified14.2% p.a.listed sleeveS$256MManager NAVs · no admin
ValuationPrivate / structured book marked-to-model; no third-party administratorS$256M$0S$256MNo administrator
CustodyNo independent qualified custodian; assets in the manager's own nameS$256M$0S$256MDDQ · custody confirms
ProvidersAuditor a two-partner affiliate of the principal; no recognised administrator———Audit registry
DocumentsSubscription-agreement signatures inconsistent across pages; side-letter term absent from LPAS$22M——Sub-doc · LPA
ScreeningPrincipal: undisclosed prior regulatory action + adverse media; circular related-party inflow, no source-of-funds———Reg · adverse-media · COSMIC
S$256M of S$340M claimed AUM cannot be independently verified · recommended commitment $0 of S$22M proposedS$256MDO NOT PROCEED
Recommended position
S$84M
Verified
S$256M
Unverified
$0
Commit · of S$22M
Export DD memo (PDF) Send to ManCo / fund admin (stub) Accept / override flags
Audit drawer (on click): Source = fund DDQ / custody confirms — no independent qualified custodian; assets held in the manager's own name; NAV self-reported (no third-party administrator); auditor a two-partner affiliate. The Madoff question: who actually holds the assets? Recommendation: DO NOT PROCEED until independent custody, third-party-struck NAV, a recognised auditor and clean re-executed subscription docs are in place.
13O/13U note: had the family committed S$22M and carried it at the manager's mark, that unverifiable value would have inflated its qualifying AUM and put its 13O/13U incentive at risk (failed-condition / clawback). The same catch protects the capital and the tax status. Decision support — not tax advice.

Pipeline trend — this family office

S$140M
proposed commitments screened YTD · 4 of 11 managers flagged on operational controls (custody / NAV / audit). ~85% of LPs reject a manager on operational concerns alone.
Bars = $ screened per month · amber = a manager flagged on operational controls.
Anchor — Madoff: IDD said the returns were real; ODD asks who holds the assets. JES Capital: ~US$95M of forged subscription signatures. The same two patterns, caught here before commitment.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Decision support, not investment or tax advice. Final figures come from the six-check engine per DESIGN-singapore-sfo-manager-dd-verification.md.