To add, my background in macro S&T has equipped me with a deep understanding of global economic indicators and their impact on asset performance. On the txn side, I’ve managed complex digital infrastructure deals, which are increasingly relevant as technology integrates more with traditional infrastructure.

Specifically, the Bitcoin mining deal I worked on required complex merger modeling around capacity utilization on a per-site basis. This involved detailed financial projections, sensitivity analyses, and optimizing operational efficiency. My role was critical in assessing cost synergies and ensuring the scalability of operations.

In addition, the Ethereum staking deal involved financial modeling for a company running validator nodes on behalf of clients. They managed 100+ servers and used a proprietary method of capping roughly x servers per y “cluster” to distribute nodes efficiently. My role included projecting new CapEx under these capacity assumptions and forecasting the impact of growing Ethereum under management on server expenses.

Figured I provide more context. Looking forward to your thoughts!

My passion is macro / real assets – any thoughts on transitioning to infra PE?

The Heat Rate measures the amount of fuel required to produce a specific quantity of energy. It’s for measuring the Fuel Expense, not revenue. Also, these case examples are bad (reader submissions from a long time ago) and will soon be replaced with better ones from our PF / Infrastructure course.

This article is super helpful – thank you.

I have a slightly technical question regarding the practice model test you have above.

You mention a capacity payment and an energy payment, alongside a heat rate. But I am not sure how this heat rate is used in order to derive a metric that can be used to deliver a revenue component. After doing some searching, some models seem to use a fuel price with a unit of $/Btu instead. And this seems feasible here as I have been able to derive a “Fuel Used (Btu)” line.

So it would be great to get some clarity on the assumptions here.

Many thanks.

Thank you very much for your answer Brian! Really appreciate your perspective.

Thanks. Yes, I think your profile is good enough since PF/infrastructure is quite specialized and they want people who know the sector really well. Finance is easy to learn if you’re already an engineer – it’s much harder to find people who know the sector and everything that can happen on the ground with infrastructure projects.

I did my undergrad in Civil Engineering, from one of the top 5 unis in Asia (HKU) and graduated with a 2:1. I have since worked for about three years now, at a leading engineering and consulting firm within the infrastructure sector, in the capacity of both an engineer and a management consultant concurrently. I have worked on some really high profile infrastructure projects worth 3.5 Bill USD and have been involved in management consulting projects that have influenced the infrastructure sector at a national level within Asia. I am really passionate about working within the infrastructure finance space and thus I also ended up taking CFA on the sides. I have passed both Level 1 & 2 of the program with good scores. I am headed to UCL coming fall for their MSc program in Infrastructure Investment & Finance, it’s a specialized program focused specifically on infrastructure and is offered by their faculty of Built Environment which is currently ranked the world’s best department as per QS Subject Rankings.

I do really wanna switch over to the finance side of infrastructure, but I do lack direct work experience in the finance aspect of it. Do you think that my profile is decent to target the big investment banks/funds in London/Asia focused in the infra space? I am specifically interested in advisory or buyside roles. I will be applying for analyst roles in the coming intake and wanted someone’s independent perspective.

I think it should be doable because you use the same modeling techniques and analysis in all areas of infra PE. It’s just that the numbers and assumptions differ between different asset types. But it’s not like you’re moving from FIG to oil & gas, for example, where everything is different.

Thanks! Glad to hear it.