Klarphos and HCOB - Interview with Jens Thiele

The Originate to Share model is gaining traction among European institutional investors, offering access to bank-grade corporate and infrastructure lending without the complexity of traditional fund structures. We spoke with Jens Thiele, CIO, to find out what makes it different.

‍

The Originate to Share model you run with HCOB is still relatively new in Europe. How would you describe the core idea?

J.T. At its heart, the model gives institutional investors access to bank-grade corporate and infrastructure lending,  without needing to build a bank-level origination platform themselves. Unlike a traditional commingled fund, which operates independently from bank dealflow, our setup integrates directly with HCOB's sourcing engine. The bank originates, structures, and underwrites loans using its own risk standards; and crucially, retains the majority of every transaction on its own balance sheet. Only a portion is shared with investors through the managed account structure. This is not a distribution model; it is a co-investment model built on genuine alignment of interest. Klarphos then provides institutional-grade portfolio management, governance, reporting, and servicing within a ring-fenced managed account.

The difference is simple but powerful: investors co-invest alongside a regulated bank with deep sector expertise, with no blind pools, full transparency on every exposure, and bank-level discipline combined with the flexibility of a separately managed account.

‍

For a bank exploring this as an investor, what is the key appeal compared to a standard fund investment?

J.T. Three things stand out consistently. First, true alignment with a regulated lender, banks value investing alongside another bank that applies the similar underwriting discipline and risk governance they would expect internally. Second, customization and control: a managed account allows investors to shape sector limits, geography, hold sizes, return targets, ESG requirements, and concentration rules, so the portfolio integrates seamlessly into their internal ALM and capital planning frameworks. And third, capital efficiency, predictable cashflows, stable RWA treatment, limited NAV volatility but full IFRS9 compatibility, and no fund-level leverage surprises. The result is a cleaner, more capital-efficient route into corporate and infrastructure lending than most PE-style fund formats.

‍

There is a clear separation between HCOB as originator and Klarphos as asset manager. How does that work in practice and why is it a strength?

J.T. The separation is intentional, and it mirrors best-practice governance in sophisticated credit platforms. HCOB sources deals, runs financial and legal due diligence, structures the transaction, and retains the majority of each transaction on its own balance sheet, sharing only a portion with investors. This meaningful retained interest is not incidental; it is a core feature of the model and the foundation of the alignment investors value. Klarphos, on the other hand, operates with full independence: it maintains its own Investment Committee and control functions, approves or rejects deals solely based on mandate criteria, and is structurally separate from HCOB's origination process. This means investors benefit from genuinely independent asset management oversight.

We think of this as a clear division of roles by design: credit underwriting and origination on one side, portfolio construction and investor engagement on the other. This is a distinction that matters. Much of the non-bank lending market has become overfocused on deployment and asset gathering, which can blur exactly this line. Our model keeps it clear.

Investors consistently tell us this gives them the best of both worlds: proprietary origination, without losing control or transparency.

‍

Regulated institutions place a premium on compliance, risk transparency, and operational clarity. Why is this model particularly well suited to that audience?

J.T. Regulated investors such as banks, insurers, pension institutions need structures that are predictable, transparent, and governance-driven. This model delivers on all three. Every exposure, covenant, guarantee, and cashflow is visible. The entire chain from origination through to monitoring follows the standards of a German bank and a regulated asset manager. Each investor has its own SPV and its own portfolio, so there is no commingling risk. And the absence of fund-level leverage or volatile fair-value marks means the structure behaves the way internal risk committees expect external investments to behave. At the same time, investors avoid the operational burden of building credit underwriting desks or infrastructure teams in-house.

‍

Finally, if you were speaking directly to the CFO or CIO of another bank, what would your pitch be?

J.T. One sentence: You gain access to bank-quality corporate and infrastructure lending without adding headcount, without building new infrastructure, and without taking on blind pool risk.

The deeper pitch is that you invest alongside a bank with a long track record in corporate and infrastructure lending, with customisable and transparent exposure that integrates into your balance sheet strategy. You co-invest in transactions where HCOB itself holds the majority position, so the incentives are fully aligned from day one. You benefit from independent oversight and institutional governance through Klarphos's separate Investment Committee, you outsource origination and monitoring to specialists , yet you maintain full control over your mandate. And crucially, you gain access to assets that usually never leave a bank's balance sheet. For many institutions, that combination is difficult to replicate any other way.

‍