← PHM Platform Business Cases Partner Programme Corpus & Pricing Diagnostic Discovery Session →
Also available For CEOs, CFOs, and direct-use executives reading the signal environment.
PHM Platform →
Europe  ·  Financial Services  ·  CFO

Compound correlation
The independent model
cannot see it.

European asset manager  ·  €2.1B AUM  ·  €840M lending book  ·  Frankfurt  ·  April 2026

€28.2M
PHM Provision
€16.4M
Standard
+€11.8M
Provision gap
6 wks
Window
01
Company & Signal Environment
Company profile · Live signal values · PHM parameter activation · Threshold status
Open
PHM situational read
A European asset manager runs independent sector stress tests and produces a total additional provision of €4.2M. CET1 14.0%. Forecast confidence 86%. CFO assessment: within capital buffer. PHM inherits Cases 01 and 02 and reads the same lending book through the compound correlation model. 68% of the book is simultaneously exposed to the same signal environment — industrial through COGS stress, consumer through demand compression, SaaS through the CFO freeze the industrial stress creates. Independent models produce independent stress results. PHM maps the correlation between them.
ParameterSourceValueSignal statusIntensity
Company Profile
Assets Under ManagementFY2025 Report€2.1BBaseline
Lending bookFY2025 Report€840MBaseline
Industrial exposure ★Segment breakdown28%Case 01 signal pattern↑↑ Crit.
Consumer exposureSegment breakdown22%Case 02 signal pattern↑ Elev.
Live Signal Environment · April 2026
Cross-sector correlationPHM precedent analysis1.8–2.6×Compound events↑↑ Crit.
Hormuz Day CountPHM auto-calcDay 55Cascade active↑↑ Crit.
ECB Deposit RateECB 17 Apr 20262.00%P[6] ActiveRepriced
DXY Dollar IndexICE · Live98.6EM obligor stress↑ Elev.
02
Standard Model vs PHM Compound
Line-by-line COGS breakdown · P&L impact · Covenant analysis · Highest delta flagged
Click to expand
PHM compound mechanism
The standard model stress tests each sector independently and sums the results. That approach systematically understates NPL risk when the stresses share a single source — as they do here, where industrial, consumer, and SaaS exposure all trace back to the same Hormuz signal environment. Cross-sector correlation in compound events produces outcomes that are not additive: when the same signal simultaneously activates multiple transmission paths, the interaction terms between them create provision gaps that independent models structurally cannot see. PHM calibrates the compound factor at 1.8–2.6× from three historical precedents where simultaneous multi-sector activation from a shared source was documented: the 1973 oil shock, the 1980 stagflation cycle, and the 2022 European energy crisis. When the same signal hits multiple sectors at once, losses multiply rather than add. The BIS documented this in 2023. PHM's 1.8–2.6× range is what that multiplication has looked like historically. PHM applies this compound model to the specific book structure and produces €28.2M in provision against the standard model's €16.4M. The €11.8M gap is not a conservative adjustment. It is the compound interaction factor applied to a specific book at a specific moment.
Line itemSource · BasisStandard modelPHM compoundDelta
Loan Loss Provision · Q2
Industrial provisionCase 01 cohort€5.4M€9.2M+€3.8M
Consumer provisionCase 02 cohort€4.8M€7.4M+€2.6M
SaaS / tech provisionCase 06 cohort€1.8M€2.8M+€1.0M
Correlation gap ★PHM compound modelNot modelled+€8.8MCompound missing
Total provisionPHM compound model€16.4M€28.2M+€11.8M
Capital & Performance Impact
CET1 ratioRegulatory14.0%12.2%−180 bps
ROEFY2026 guidance11.2%7.4%−380 bps
AUM under reviewClient retentionStable€1.82BReallocation risk
03
PHM Compound Model
Compound interaction coefficients · Scenario modelling · Function-specific preparation actions
Click to expand
The compound interaction
Three scenarios share the compound signal environment. What changes is whether industrial and consumer stress resolves before the provision is realised, and whether institutional clients act on the compound read before the CFO brief.
ScenarioSignal assumptionCOGS impactEBITDACovenant
Three Scenarios · Same Signal Environment
Current trajectorySignal env. active€28.2M12.2% CET16 weeks
Escalation (Day 56+)IEA bypass exhaustion€34.1M11.8% CET1 ⚠3 weeks
Resolution (pre-Day 56)Hormuz normalises€22.4M13.1% CET18 weeks
04
Outside-In Read
Institutional client base · Allocation cycle read · Compound provision brief · Preparation window
Click to expand
The outside-in read
Institutional clients — pension funds, sovereign wealth, family offices — are making Q2 allocation decisions against the same macro assumptions the IMF flagged as fragile this week. The CFO who briefs proactively with the compound read retains the allocation. The one who waits for Q3 to confirm it manages a redemption conversation instead. The preparation window is 6 weeks — not because the numbers change, but because the institutional allocation decision cycle runs on a 6-week lag from the macro signal to the reweighting meeting.
PHM compound calibration · Three historical precedents · Grounded in BIS 2023
When the same signal hits multiple sectors at once, losses multiply rather than add. The BIS documented this in 2023. PHM's 1.8–2.6× range is calibrated on three episodes where that multiplication was observed: the 1973 oil shock, the 1980 stagflation cycle, and the 2022 European energy crisis. In all three, independent sector models missed the compound. PHM applied the same model to the 2022 European energy crisis lending book and produced provision estimates directionally consistent with the ECB SREP-documented deterioration in European lending quality through Q4 2022 and Q1 2023. The mechanism is calibrated. The application to this specific book is PHM's contribution.
The Compound Question  ·  Europe  ·  Financial Services  ·  CFO
As 68% of your lending book faces simultaneous compound stress from the same signal environment — and your independent sector stress tests produce €16.4M in provision — does your model run the cross-sector correlation layer, or will the Q2 credit review be the moment your board discovers that CET1 is 0.2× from the regulatory threshold?
Preparation window 6 weeks  ·  Before Q2 credit review confirms the compound Run your compound diagnostic →
PHM Engine  ·  Deploy this methodology

The model has
a missing variable.
PHM Engine closes it.

One session  ·  No demos  ·  A number at the end
Request discovery session →
What this is
Why it matters
How it is measured
← Case 02 — FMCG CPL Signal Event→ Case 04 — Renewable Energy Beneficiary Read
90+ independent research sources indexed · Every conclusion traceable Track record: 8 calls · 0 incorrect →