There are assets no accountant will ever put on your balance sheet.
One of them is a phone call that gets answered.
Professional services firms understand receivables.
Bankers understand collateral.
Investors understand optionality.
But relationship-driven businesses often carry another class of asset that is much harder to value:
access.
It matters particularly in African business and politics, where relationships frequently travel across industries and formal organizational boundaries.
A relationship created in one domain can open an entirely unrelated door somewhere else.
The question is:
What is that worth?
The Invoice May Not Be the Full Economics
Imagine a firm undertakes a government engagement.
The direct economics are mediocre.
Perhaps the assignment generates only ₦15 million of contribution.
Measured on its own, you might reject it.
But successful execution gives the firm a recognized government credential.
A commissioner now knows its work.
A permanent secretary trusts its judgment.
A banker involved with the project encounters the partners.
That banker introduces an industrialist.
The industrialist sits on an economic council somewhere else.
A second opportunity appears.
Then a third.
Three years later, the originating ₦15 million engagement has indirectly helped produce ₦200 million of profit.
What was the first mandate worth?
Certainly not merely ₦15 million.
Access Has Option Value
An option is valuable because it creates possibilities.
Access works similarly.
Knowing a powerful person does not guarantee another transaction.
But if the relationship changes the probability of future transactions, that probability has economic value.
We can therefore think about the economics of a strategic relationship as:
+ Credential Value
+ Network Value
+ Information Value
+ Option Value
− Credit Risk
− Political Risk
− Reputation Risk
This will never be an accounting-standard valuation.
It does not need to be.
Its purpose is to force clearer thinking.
African Networks Travel
This matters greatly in African markets because relationship capital can be unusually portable.
You enter through tax.
Tax introduces you to infrastructure.
Infrastructure introduces banking.
Banking introduces an industrial family.
The industrial family introduces another government.
That government requires technology.
Technology requires financing.
Suddenly a relationship that began with tax administration has produced an infrastructure-finance opportunity four nodes away.
If you only evaluate the first invoice, you miss the economics of the network.
This is why an apparently unattractive sovereign or blue-chip engagement can sometimes be rational.
The mandate is not merely revenue.
It can be an entry ticket into an ecosystem.
But "Strategic Relationship" Can Become a Lie
There is a danger.
Every terrible client eventually gets described as strategic.
They do not pay.
They demand unreasonable concessions.
They absorb senior management time.
Margins disappear.
And someone says:
"But the relationship is important. It will open doors."
Which doors?
To whom?
Worth how much?
With what probability?
By when?
If nobody can answer those questions, "strategic access" may simply be the story we tell ourselves about poor credit management.
Putting a shadow price on access therefore means putting a limit on what you are willing to pay for it.
Consider the Recalcitrant Client
Suppose a major client owes your firm ₦100 million.
Eventually they pay ₦20 million.
Then they offer another ₦50 million assignment, on credit.
You need the work.
You need the credential.
The client name opens doors.
And if you refuse, another competitor will happily accept.
So you continue.
Now they owe ₦130 million.
They pay another small amount.
Another project arrives.
A strange inversion begins.
The more they owe you, the less powerful you become.
You cannot afford to offend the debtor because too much of your own capital is trapped with him.
The creditor has become dependent upon the debtor.
This is where the shadow price becomes useful.
Perhaps the access genuinely is worth carrying some exposure.
Fine.
Then decide consciously:
"We are willing to invest ₦30 million of additional credit exposure in this relationship because we estimate the credential and downstream opportunity are worth significantly more."
But put a ceiling on it.
Otherwise you are not investing in access.
You are financing your client's business.
Controlled Continuation
The answer does not always have to be:
"Pay everything or we stop work."
Sometimes you cannot credibly say that.
Instead:
"We remain committed to the next engagement. Before mobilising, we require ₦30 million against the existing balance and 50 per cent mobilisation on the new assignment."
Now new work can continue without continually worsening your position.
A useful rule might be:
For a distressed strategic client, every new assignment should either reduce total exposure or materially increase recoverability or strategic value.
That preserves the relationship without surrendering financial discipline.
Extract the Asset While It Exists
If you are accepting poor economics partly because of credentials, convert that benefit early.
Get the completion certificate.
Get permission to name the institution.
Get the reference.
Secure the introduction.
Document the case study.
Build relationships beyond one principal.
Do not wait until the client relationship deteriorates to discover that the strategic credential was never properly captured.
And especially in politics, remember:
governors leave.
ministers are reshuffled.
CEOs are removed.
Chairmen retire.
If your entire asset is one man's mobile number, you have not yet built much.
The ideal progression is:
At first, the powerful person opens the door.
Eventually, people should open doors because they know what you can do.
That is when borrowed access has become enterprise value.
The objective of proximity to power should ultimately be to become less dependent on proximity to any one powerful person.
That is the real return on the investment.