AI & Structured Finance: The Risk of Confusing Automation with Expertise
Not a day goes by without artificial intelligence being proposed—or imposed—as a miraculous solution to optimize financial processes. From predictive analytics software to generative models that promise to draft contracts, pitch decks, business plans, and even term sheets, AI has forcefully entered one of the most technical, cautious, and highly regulated domains of finance: the structuring of complex transactions. It is precisely in this context that clarity is needed. Because while technology is undoubtedly a powerful ally in accelerating calculations, mappings, and simulations, the difference between a successful deal and a failed one rarely lies in how fast it was built. It lies in how it was conceived.
At CGPH Banque d’Affaires, in our experience, every SPV setup, debt advisory mandate, securitization, or NPL investment requires a multidisciplinary orchestration rooted in legal competence, financial expertise, and strategic negotiation skills. No automated tool can replace the human discernment needed to design a vehicle that is legally compliant, fiscally efficient, aligned with the investor's objectives, and structured to withstand both time and market stress. A piece of software might suggest a standard structure, but it cannot assess the tension between promoter interest and investor protection; it cannot grasp the trade-offs between tax and control, between governance and flexibility, between compliance and execution speed. And above all, it does not understand the context: it cannot read the strategic posture of the deal, nor the political tone of the negotiations.
Let it be clear: artificial intelligence is an excellent tool—and at CGPH Banque d’Affaires, like many others, we use it and it helps us to some extent—but we never delegate foundational decisions to machines. Every transaction carries its own asymmetries, latent conflicts, and unmodelable risks. Believing that a complex deal can be structured with a single click is like drafting a corporate charter by copying a template found online, rather than tailoring it to the client’s needs: possible, sure—but unwise and, often, legally and financially hazardous.
One of the most critical responsibilities in a structured transaction is architectural design. How is control retained? Where are sources and uses allocated? How is the exit protected? Which rights are reserved for whom? What is the most suitable jurisdiction—not only from a tax perspective but also regulatory and reputational? These are not decisions to be made with ChatGPT, but through strategic due diligence, clear-headed negotiation, and bespoke governance structures. That is our job—and that is what distinguishes a professional transaction from a risk disguised as innovation.
AI can assist, but it cannot assume responsibility. And in serious deals, it is responsibility that makes the difference.
