Why CBG.
What separates CBG from the alternatives available to the independent board.
What separates CBG from the alternatives available to the independent board.
The decision before the decision
Before contracting a valuer, the independent board, the special committee and the fiduciary administrator face the same silent decision: choosing between an audit firm with a valuation practice, a specialized local boutique, or a global player without Brazilian regulatory presence. Each of these three options has its own merit and its own fragility. CBG exists to fill the space between them.
This page does not argue. It only shows, in three observable dimensions, what separates CBG from the available alternatives: and which questions the board should ask before signing the engagement letter.
Three tests
Every valuation firm answering yes to all three meets the minimum criterion of a demanding board. Every firm answering no to any of them carries risk that is not the board's to assume.
Test 01 · Independence
Does the valuer provide audit, advisory or structuring services to the same counterparty?
CBG does not provide audit, M&A advisory or corporate structuring services. The firm does one thing only: independent technical valuation. That mechanical restriction of scope is what gives the report independence that is defensible before auditor, regulator and counterparty. There is no contractual or commercial mechanism tying CBG's opinion to a client-desired outcome.
Test 02 · Technical depth
Does the valuer cover, with competence, the asset classes involved in the engagement?
CBG covers six technical valuation asset classes simultaneously under CPC and IFRS: Business Valuation, Real Estate, Fixed Assets, Credit & Structured Products, Intangible Assets and Derivatives. A PPA engagement, a Level 3 mark or a fairness opinion on a multi-asset holding does not require two firms stitched together by the client. It requires one firm with cross-review by a partner of a distinct asset class.
Test 03 · Regulatory fluency
Does the valuer master the Brazilian framework with the same depth as the international one?
CBG operates fluently in ABNT NBR 14653, CVM rules, Brazilian CPC standards, the Brazilian Corporations Law, and simultaneously in IFRS, IVS and the RICS Red Book. Cross-border engagements conducted through BOKS International benefit from a single firm that understands both the local auditor and the foreign investor, without loss of information in methodological translation.
The choice in a table
Four objective dimensions, compared without rhetoric. Each entry describes the typical position of each firm category in the Brazilian market, without judging which is better or worse. The choice depends on what is at stake in the engagement.
| Big Four with valuation practice | Specialized local boutique | Global player without BR presence | CBG Valuation Services | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Report independence | Subject to contractual restrictions with audit/advisory to the same counterparty. | Operational independence, but limited depth to defend before the Big Four. | Independence preserved, but distance from the Brazilian regulator reduces local strength. | Mechanical independence: single scope of valuation, no audit, no advisory. |
| Asset class coverage | Broad, but internal allocation across areas can fragment the report. | Typically one or two classes (BV, or RE, or FA). | Broad, with variable quality depending on the responsible office. | Six technical asset classes in one firm: BV, RE, FA, Credit & Structured Products, Intangibles, Derivatives. |
| Local regulatory fluency | High. Direct access to local auditors and regulators. | High in one class; variable in other standards. | Low. Frequently outsources local components. | Simultaneous fluency in CPC, ABNT 14653, CVM, Brazilian Corporations Law, IFRS, IVS and the RICS Red Book. |
| Cross-border coverage | High, via member firms of the network. | Low. Lacks a structured channel for international coordination. | High abroad; low at the Brazilian end. | BOKS International (Top 20 global, 95+ member firms, 70+ countries), with placement within 48 hours. |
How CBG delivers
The difference between valuation firms is not in declared method but in delivery discipline. These five commitments are part of the scope of any CBG engagement, at no additional cost.
Commitment 01
Engagement contracted, scope confirmed, team allocated within 48 hours. No internal prioritization queue, no allocation to unreviewed juniors. The responsible partner is at the kickoff.
Commitment 02
Each report goes through four independent reviews before issuance: construction, asset-class technical review, partner approval, and cross-review by a partner from a different class. The process is the same in every engagement, from the simplest to the most critical.
Commitment 03
A partner is the point of contact throughout the engagement's life. No hand-off to an intermediate manager, no need to repeat context with each interlocutor.
Commitment 04
Every premise, every calibration, every methodological choice is documented with a traceable source. Available for inspection by client, auditor and regulatory counterparty without additional work.
Commitment 05
The responsible partner defends the conclusion personally before auditor, advisory board, special committee, or as expert witness in arbitration. There is no CBG report delivered by mail without subsequent technical availability.
Four questions before signing
These four questions, asked explicitly at the outset, prevent late discovery of report fragilities. They work for any firm, not only CBG.
01.
Audit, advisory, structuring, tax, consulting. Any service that may create direct or indirect commercial dependence weakens the report's position of independence when the counterparty needs to contest it.
02.
The auditor may request clarifications six months later. The counterparty may contest two years later. The board may be called into arbitration three years later. The signing partner must be available, and that must be in scope, not outside it.
03.
A report without documented working papers is a number. A report with traceable working papers is a defensible conclusion. The difference appears when the auditor asks to reconstruct the calculation. Some firms treat working papers as confidential by default. Ask.
04.
A partner signs, but execution is often with an under-supervised analyst. In critical engagements this is the difference between a report that survives scrutiny and one that does not. Ask the name and seniority of whoever is actually in the model.
One-hour exploratory meeting, under NDA, with initial scenario diagnosis and mapping of critical premises.
Speak with the team →