Are you approving or materially revising a SAA?
A new strategic allocation, material redesign or mandate change creates a natural point for independent challenge.
KRS SAA Decision Review
What must remain true for this allocation to remain viable?
A strategic allocation can become fragile when markets and the business, liquidity, leverage, illiquidity or family assumptions behind it deteriorate together — through a common market driver or an independent concurrent event.
What the client receives
A decision-ready record.
Decision map, scenario evidence, contextual constraints, comparison of the current SAA and relevant alternatives when in scope, and decision and governance triggers.
Trigger-based review
When should the assumptions behind the SAA be reopened?
A focused review before a material decision or when a specific wealth trigger changes what the portfolio may need to absorb.
SAA or mandate revision
Business, leverage or refinancing change
Potential liquidity need
Material illiquid exposure or commitment
Family, succession or timing change
Independent challenge for CIO or committee
One product, selective extension
Core Review with an Assumption Risk Extension only when justified.
The extension requires documented exposure or dependency, a credible economic transmission path, potential materiality, a concurrent stress window and a decision that can be prepared or governed differently today. Generic events without documented exposure and transmission are excluded.
KRS makes vulnerabilities, trade-offs, contextual constraints, evidence gaps and governance implications explicit. The responsible professional retains the decision and implementation; KRS does not select instruments, give trade instructions, perform suitability assessments, execute or manage portfolios.