GREAP, structured to compound.
Most investment platforms are assembled rather than structured. Capital aggregates assets that pass a screen, a reporting layer goes on top, and the sustainability position is described after the fact by people who were not in the room when the terms were set. GREAP was built the other way round. The Group Real Estate and Assets Portfolio is a multi-billion diversified investment platform, and the discipline that holds it together sits in the structuring, not the reporting.
GREAP carries three pillars. Global real estate. Global green energy. A global mergers and acquisitions programme across engineering, technology, and ESG scale-ups. Multi-billion in sustainability-aligned assets sits inside the platform, with UN Sustainable Development Goal and COP26 principles embedded at portfolio level rather than bolted onto individual schemes.
The problem GREAP answers is access. Capital that wants sustainability-aligned real assets rarely gets a direct route. It gets funds of funds, screened indices, and a reporting pack. GREAP is the direct route, with the financial structures behind it and an operator on the other side of the table.
The M&A pillar follows the same logic. We acquire capability, not financial stakes. An acquisition earns capital when it fits inside the integrated model, and integration happens at operating depth rather than at the shareholder register. A platform that warehouses stakes is a holding company. One that integrates capability compounds.
Sustainability inside GREAP is a term, not a theme. One target runs through five stages, held by the same team throughout. At structuring, it is written into the financing terms. At design, into the brief. At build, into the contractor pack. At commissioning, proved before handover. At operation, measured against what it was financed to deliver.
Verification is external by design. Completion is tested against BREEAM, NABERS, or LEED, with the standard chosen by jurisdiction and asset type. We do not publish our own ESG ratings. Auditors price the returns and the buildings prove the performance.
The public-market test came with a nine-figure sustainability-linked bond, its proceeds tied to sustainability performance indicators across the operating portfolio. Marketed against the credit curve for comparable vanilla debt of the same tenor and rating, it priced inside vanilla debt. The market treated the indicators as a value contributor, not a cost. That is the difference between a reporting overlay and a structuring discipline. One is described. The other is priced.
In February 2022, JMS Financial and Technical Methods Limited signed a memorandum of understanding to form a strategic team for the GREAP portfolio. JMS Financial is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 708271. The agreement was short. Its purpose was to put regulated financial structuring and end-to-end delivery in the same room before a deal is committed, so capital is never handed a finished brief to price as risk.
The Heights Programme is what that alliance produced. 1,070 apartments and 194,000 square feet of commercial floor space across Birmingham, Cambridge, and Oxford, completed in 2024 inside a nine-figure programme, with JMS Financial and JMS Capital as strategic partners. Birmingham led the sequence and set the operating template. Oxford, the most planning-constrained, was underwritten on the operating data Birmingham and Cambridge produced.
Third parties have marked the work twice. SME News named Technical Methods Limited Best Real Estate Development and Management Company in the 2023 Greater London Enterprise Awards, and Most Dedicated Real Estate Development and Investment Consultancy in the eighth UK Enterprise Awards in 2025. An award is a read on standing, not proof that an asset performed. The bond pricing and the completed schemes carry that.
The trade-off is real. Structuring to this standard is slower than screening. Targets written into financing terms are harder to renegotiate when a site turns awkward, and a scheme that cannot carry its target to completion does not get funded, even where the return looks acceptable. We have passed on schemes for that reason. The compensation is that nothing has to be defended at handover, because it was underwritten at the start.
The test for GREAP is not the size of the portfolio. It is whether the terms agreed at structuring are the terms the assets still meet at completion. That is what we intend to report on as the platform grows, outcomes rather than intentions.
The next partners will be assessed the way the first was, on whether they can carry a sustainability outcome through to delivery with their own accountability attached. Nineteen years in, the discipline is what compounds. The portfolio is only the record of it.
Rami Saadi
CEO