"საქართველოს განვითარების ფონდი" ღვინის ბიზნესს - "გლობალ ბრენდს" 7.5 მილიონ ლარად ყიდის(bm.ge). 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual or quantitative information that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article notes that the fund invested 7.5 million GEL and is selling the company for 7.5 million GEL, but does not provide any information on: - Whether the company has generated profits or losses over the years; - Whether there were additional costs (marketing, management, subsidies, guarantees) beyond the initial investment; - Why the sale is happening now (strategic decision, underperformance, policy change, etc.); - Any independent evaluation of the project’s success or failure. It also states: "თავად "გლობალ ბრენდის" ფინანსური ანგარიშგება საჯაროდ ხელმისაწვდომი არაა, შესაბამისად უცნობია თუ რა ღირებულების ღვინის რეალიზაცია მოახდინა კომპანიამ." This is transparent about what is unknown, but the article does not explore whether this lack of transparency itself is an issue, or whether attempts were made to obtain more data or comment from the fund or oversight bodies.

5 suggestions

Add quantitative performance data if available: revenues by year, profit/loss, export volumes, market share, etc., or explicitly state that such data was requested but not provided.

Clarify whether there were any additional public expenditures related to the project (e.g., marketing budgets, consulting fees, tax incentives) beyond the 7.5 million GEL equity investment.

Include explanation from the fund or relevant ministry on the rationale for selling now (e.g., change in strategy, completion of project goals, underperformance, or political decision).

Seek and include comments from independent experts (e.g., economists, wine industry analysts, public finance experts) on whether selling at the initial investment price represents a good or poor outcome for the state.

Clarify whether the lack of publicly available financial statements complies with legal requirements for such entities and whether any oversight institutions (e.g., audit office) have evaluated the project.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting more detail or perspective from some actors while not providing comparable space or scrutiny for others.

The article includes relatively detailed quotations and background related to the fund’s internal decision-making and to Levan Gachechiladze’s role and statements (e.g., his claim that the project would bring great benefit to the country if successful). However, it does not include: - Any critical or alternative perspectives (e.g., from opposition politicians, civil society, or independent experts) on the project’s design, risk allocation, or outcome; - Any assessment of whether the promise of "დიდი სარგებელი" materialized or not; - Any comment from potential buyers or market participants on how they view the asset and the auction conditions. This does not make the article overtly biased, but it does tilt the narrative toward the official and initiator’s perspective without balancing it with external evaluation.

4 suggestions

Include at least one independent expert opinion on whether the state assuming 100% of the business risk for this project was justified and whether the outcome appears satisfactory.

Add comments from watchdog organizations or opposition figures, if available, regarding transparency, governance, and risk management in this and similar projects.

If possible, include reactions or assessments from potential buyers or industry participants about the auction terms (e.g., AS IS standard, lack of guarantees) and starting price.

Explicitly contrast Gachechiladze’s earlier claim about potential large benefits with current observable results (e.g., export volumes, brand recognition, financial performance), even if only to say that data is insufficient to verify the claim.

Appeal to authority (mild, mostly neutral)

Relying on statements from officials or authoritative figures as if they settle the issue, without additional verification or critical context.

The article quotes former executive director David Saganelidze: "ამ პროექტზე ჩვენ გვიდევს ასევე 11%-იანი IRR, თუ ის ამ ვალდებულებას წლის ბოლომდე ვერ შეასრულებს მაშინ ჩვენ გვაქვს უფლება, რომ ეს კომპანია გამოვიტანოთ აუქციონზე და გავყიდოთ." The 11% IRR target and the conditional sale are presented solely through his statement, without: - Clarifying whether the 11% IRR was ever achieved or measured; - Providing independent confirmation or documentation of this performance criterion; - Explaining how IRR was calculated and over what time horizon. While this is not a strong manipulative appeal to authority, the article implicitly relies on the official’s framing without further scrutiny.

4 suggestions

Add information on whether the 11% IRR target was met, partially met, or missed, based on actual financial data or official reports.

Clarify the time period and assumptions behind the 11% IRR figure (e.g., projected vs. realized, pre- or post-tax, including or excluding certain costs).

If documentation exists (e.g., board decisions, investment memoranda), reference or link to it, or state that such documents were requested but not provided.

Include an independent expert’s brief explanation of what 11% IRR means in this context and whether it is a high, low, or typical target for such a project.

Oversimplification (mild)

Presenting a complex financial or policy situation in a way that may lead readers to draw simplistic conclusions.

The article notes that the fund invested 7.5 million GEL and is now selling the company for 7.5 million GEL, which may implicitly suggest a break-even outcome. However, without discussing: - Time value of money (investment made in 2017 vs. sale in 2025); - Operating results (profits/losses) during the period; - Opportunity costs and risk-adjusted returns; readers may be left with an oversimplified impression that the state neither lost nor gained, which may not be accurate in economic terms.

3 suggestions

Explicitly note that selling at the same nominal amount as the initial investment does not necessarily mean no loss or gain, due to time value of money and operating results.

Provide at least a brief explanation or expert comment on how such investments are usually evaluated (e.g., net present value, IRR, comparison to alternative uses of public funds).

Clarify that, in the absence of full financial data, it is not possible to definitively assess whether the project was financially successful or not.