Good fit
A post-close funding request, a board budget discussion, or an evidence gap that could change the preferred investment. The company can name a budget approver and provide permissioned evidence.
Cyber risk quantification for private equity
Decide what to fund in one portfolio company.
Compare competing cyber actions against the company's budget and loss objective. Explore the supported workflow in a free 30-minute platform demo. Agree evaluation scope and commercial terms before access.
Prepared by ValtyUpdated
Start with the decision
A funding brief your sponsor and company can use.
Cyber risk quantification for private equity is useful when an operating partner and a portfolio company need to choose what to fund, what to defer, and what to investigate. Define the company, budget, and loss objective before comparing controls.
Agree the scope first
Which business service and loss scenario matter? What is the first-year cap? Is the objective lower average annual loss or a lower tail-loss threshold? Which actions are required regardless of the model?
Bring existing evidence
Current findings and control records, incident and recovery history, operational loss assumptions, cost quotes, implementation capacity, and an evidence owner. A tool connection alone does not establish an effective control.
Know when to hold
A broad portfolio rating alone cannot support an internal loss model. Unpriced work or untested effectiveness may need validation before a funding recommendation is credible.
Scroll sideways for all columns.
| Option | First-year spend | Modeled mean annual loss | Modeled P95 annual loss |
|---|---|---|---|
| No optional action (mandatory tabletop only) | $15,000 | $791,066 | $3,512,449 |
| Mandatory tabletop + access hardening | $70,000 | $402,566 | $2,092,283 |
| Mandatory tabletop + recovery capability · Proposed for P95 | $90,000 | $513,439 | $1,908,058 |
| Mandatory tabletop + both optional actions · Over budget | $145,000 | $257,921 | $1,285,222 |
Fictional assumptions, modeled outcomes. Annual gross loss before insurance. P95 is the annual loss threshold exceeded in about 5% of simulated years; it is not expected loss or a worst-case ceiling. The required $15,000 tabletop receives no modeled loss-reduction credit. Figures are rounded from the reproducible sample.
Recovery is proposed for the sample’s P95 objective at $90,000. Access hardening has the lowest modeled average annual loss within budget at $70,000. Neither choice is universally best. The investment-prioritization guide explains the comparison and sensitivity test.
The decision artifact
Compare the actions competing for your budget.
For each option, review cost, modeled annual loss, assumptions, time horizon, and evidence gaps. In the fictional sample, the preferred action changes with the chosen loss objective.
Who needs to be in the room
Keep decision authority with the company.
The sponsor, budget approver, and evidence owner agree the scope:
- Sponsor: the deal or operating partner raising the funding question for this company.
- Budget approver: authorizes the company's spend and may differ from the fund sponsor.
- Evidence owner: approves exports of the company's existing controls, findings, and continuity records.
The recommendation must respect:
- Mandatory actions the company already owes a regulator, auditor, or insurer
- The budget the company has available for this decision, not a fund-wide allocation
- The company's implementation capacity to execute whatever is funded
- Permission to use the company's evidence for this engagement
Quantify loss
Agree one company, its loss objective, the evidence pathway, and the assumptions that the modeled annual-loss range will use.
Fund next
Compare supported actions against the company's budget and chosen loss objective. Missing evidence can hold an option for validation.
Authorize change
The company's budget approver reviews the recommendation, deferred options, named owner, and required approval before spend is authorized.
Prove reduction
At the scheduled next review, compare current evidence with the decision baseline and label any movement as modeled or observed. Unsupported reduction claims stay blocked.
Start with the funding question.
Adil reviews platform demo requests personally and replies within two business days, with a private booking link if there is a fit.
Recurring reviews and additional companies are agreed only when the supported scope, access, and evidence pathway are confirmed after evaluation.