The world of private equity has been fertile ground for the adoption of alternative data, including AI-driven insights from firms like SESAMm, an expert in Natural Language Processing (NLP).

Could SESAMm’s technology provide Carlyle with the tools to identify a better class of investment opportunity?

When SESAMm’s CEO Sylvain Forté met the man in charge of data at The Carlyle Group, at an industry conference, the opportunity arose to put SESAMm’s data to the test.

“I remember the first day I met Sylvain and he said, I can tell you if your company is trending positively or negatively on the internet,” recounts Matt Anderson, Chief Data Officer of Carlyle, at a recent PE Insights webinar, in which EQT and Apollo were also speaking. Sensing potential in the data, he decided to give it a go.

SESAMm’s NLP platform generates quantitative and qualitative analytics on a wide array of entities – from public and private companies, to brands, products and individuals, by running cutting edge algorithms across billions of web-based articles.

Their data lake is not limited to news stories from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but spans a whole variety of global sources – social media, blog posts, professional forums, customer reviews and more, in over 100 languages.

Using this ability to interpret unstructured text from a huge slice of the internet, SESAMm’s team created insights designed to help Matt’s deal teams evaluate target companies.

The challenge was getting investment professionals to buy into the value of alternative data for private companies, so SESAMm condensed everything into easily-digestible reports. They included time-series and charts measuring companies on a variety of key metrics versus their peers, including ESG risk, e-reputation, competitive positioning, sentiment, positive and negative themes and other critical KPIs.

By regularly presenting SESAMm’s analytics reports to investment committees, Sylvain and Matt hoped to gradually convince deal teams that alternative data could have a positive impact on the investment process.

“It was about sharing the data in the form of slides directly with deal teams in a way that was automated on our side but easily consumable as part of the pre-deal decision process”, said Forté.

“We saw the need to convince people and show, time after time, that it really works, that this data is really valuable and can give an edge”, added Forté.

“In some instances it helped us to not make investments or avoid allocating resources to things that were marginal or moving in the wrong direction, and that was really valuable”, said Anderson.

To further prove the value of the data, Matt asked Sylvain to create analytics reports on a selection of Carlyle’s historical target companies. The idea was to see if SESAMm’s scores and analytics were predictive of the deal outcome, whether positive or negative.

“If we put a number on how positive SESAMm feels about some of these deals between one and ten, with one being, ‘avoid at all costs’ , and ten, ‘go for it’, what would it have told us?”, said Anderson.

After running the back test, the results showed a clear correlation between SESAMm’s analysis, and the deals that performed well and those that fell through.

“Looking at the results, I think that people would have really paused an investment committee around some of the conclusions”, commented Anderson.

“Having a view of the themes being surfaced, the plateaus in certain trends, and the sentiment charts heading in a negative direction was eye-opening for our leaders and deal teams – because they had to actually live through those deals. So seeing that kind of data, and what it can help you avoid was really insightful.” Says Anderson.

Ultimately, the integration of SESAMm’s analytics reports into Carlyle’s investment process was so successful that they were rolled out across all global investment teams. The two companies have developed a strong partnership based on the proven value of alternative data in the private equity investment process.

To find out how SESAMm can support your investment decision-making, to request a demo or for any other questions regarding our data do not hesitate to contact info@sesamm.com.

November 11, 2022, FTX, a $32 billion cryptocurrency exchange company that many believed would “change the world,” filed for bankruptcy. This news shook the crypto and financial communities, compelling many to debate the future of the crypto market and its platforms.

How did FTX collapse?

You could say that FTX’s collapse began before the news broke, but here’s a summary of events as The New York Times and ABC News details:

Breaking news

In early November, CoinDesk, a crypto publication, broke the news on a leaked document from FTX. The balance sheet showed that the hedge fund run by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), Alameda Research, held a substantial amount of FTT tokens. In short, SBF had set up Alameda (his trading firm) and FTX (his exchange firm) in such a way that if one unit experienced trouble, such as dropping cryptocurrency prices, the other experienced it, too.

First domino falls

By the way, FTT is used for various functions, including traders’ payment of operation fees. Also, by the way, Changpeng Zhao, Binance’s Chief Executive, sold his stake in FTX to SBF in 2021, partially with FTT. So, “due to recent revelations,” Binance (Zhao) announced on November 6, 2022, that it would sell its FTT tokens.

Other dominos follow

Traders responded; they hurried to pull funds out of FTX out of fear, and FTT’s price fell. Meanwhile, FTX processed withdrawal requests over three days, amounting to an estimated $6 billion. The liquidity crunch was upon it.

Then, on November 8, Binance said it would bail out FTX. But on November 9, Binance backtracked and announced in a Tweet that it would not “as a result of corporate due diligence,” while also citing regulatory investigations and reports of mishandled funds.

Things get worse

The next day, November 10, the Securities Commission of the Bahamas froze FTX’s assets, citing the public statement about potentially “mishandled” and “mismanaged” customer funds. On November 11, FTX filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protections, and SBF resigned as CEO. John J. Ray III—famously known as the CEO who headed the infamously known energy company, Enron, through its collapse in the 2000s—replaced SBF on November 17.

Fallout

Today, FTX faces federal investigation for securities laws violations based on a report by The Wall Street Journal regarding FTX lending customer deposits to Alameda Research for liabilities, of which the company’s top executives were aware. Investors have suffered loss, traders have suffered loss, and the greater crypto community and regulators are asking questions.

FTX and SBF web data analysis

News about FTX’s collapse generated tons of web data for us to scour. With this data, here’s what we aimed to find out:

• How did the public web react to FTX’s collapse?
• Could we have seen red flags before the news broke?
• What was FTX’s collapse’s effect on the cryptocurrency market’s sentiment?
• Is it possible to evaluate cryptocurrency exchange companies’ ESG risks and opportunities?
• Was FTX’s collapse unprecedented? If not, what does web data tell us about that?

FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried mentions analysis

Web public sentiment for FTX and SBF was consistently positive until Q1 of 2022. As mentions volume increased, their sentiment polarity decreased (Figure 1). The mentions spike for both in November when CoinDesk broke the news. Likewise, polarity dips into the negative range for both.

Definition: Polarity represents the aggregate of positive and negative sentiments (opinions or reviews) on a company. A 0 score means there is as much positive as negative sentiment expressed. The dotted and dashed lines represent sentiment in the following charts.

Looking closer at Q1 (Figure 2), we find that mentions affecting sentiment increased for FTX and SBF during this period. What are the mentions about, and why did they affect polarity negatively?

It turns out that SBF is linked to other keywords—we call these co-mentions—and between January 2022 and November 2022, SBF/withdrawal co-mentions (Figure 3) spiked in July when SBF defended Terra Luna’s founder, who was accused of peddling a Ponzi scheme.

If withdrawal co-mentions brought up possible reasons why SBF and FTX experienced dips in sentiment, what other co-mentions could give us more insight? How about donations, SEC, and U.S. elections?

Bankman-Fried has exhibited patterns of making political statements, attempting to influence crypto regulations, and donating funds before elections. It should be no surprise that SBF’s co-mentions with C-level unethical practices yield additional data.

Note: To see the co-mentions with unethical practices chart, contact a SESAMm representative today.

Sam Bankman-Fried ESG risk analysis

Corporate governance stands out when evaluating SBF’s ESG risks, but his social risks are nothing to ignore either.

Two areas of governance risks to note are money laundering and board of directors (Figure 5). Money laundering as a co-mention has been an issue as early as February 2022, but it became a bigger issue in October. These risks may be popping up due to allegations of manipulating the price of the APT token and a securities violations probe.

Note: To see the social risks over time chart, contact a SESAMm representative today.

FTX and crypto market web data analysis

If you’ve read this far, you by now get an impression of FTX and SBF, from mention volume to sentiment analysis and ESG risk. But how did FTX’s collapse affect the overall cryptocurrency market? Let’s find out.

In comparing the sentiment polarities for FTX and the crypto market from January 2021 through November 2022 (Figure 6), the sentiment for crypto remains relatively steady despite FTX’s sentiment taking a hit.

When comparing other cryptocurrency exchanges to FTX (Figure 7), sentiment polarity for them is hardly affected, except Binance, because of its connection with FTX. Oddly enough, eToro experienced a boost in sentiment, possibly because of its core values around openness and transparency, the fact that they’ve been around since 2007, its early compliance with regulations (i.e., AMF, FCA, ASIC, BaFin, and ACPR), and that it also proposes investing in stocks and ETFs, a contrast to most other crypto market exchanges. Bitfinex has its own issues, so its dip in sentiment might not be correlated.

At this time, FTX’s ESG risks based on the mention volume are only surpassed by Bitfinex (Figure 8), which its risks are based on many other reasons we won’t get into in this article.

Note: To see a comparison chart of social and governance risks for each exchange, contact a SESAMm representative today.

Centralized vs. decentralized crypto exchange platforms

FTX’s collapse also affected sentiment around the centralized vs. decentralized debate. Since October 2022, sentiment for centralized exchange platforms, such as FTX and its competitors, has fallen (Figure 9).

Likewise, the mention volume for self-custody has more than doubled in the last couple of months (Figure 10). Although centralized platforms offer quicker and easier access to crypto trading, traders are considering complex but more secure options such as crypto wallets and keys because, like banks, centralized exchanges can do what they will with cryptocurrency while it’s in their possession. With self-custody, owners are in control.

Note: To see additional charts, such as competitive data share for crypto wallets, contact a SESAMm representative today.

FTX not the first exchange collapse

Believe it or not, FTX was not the first crypto exchange to collapse. In 2014, Mt. Gox—the biggest crypto exchange at the time—lost half a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin due to a hack. How did Mt. Gox’s collapse affect sentiment for the crypto market then? The short answer is: It didn’t.

Figure 11 shows that while Mt. Gox’s sentiment polarity fluctuated, even reaching negative territories, the sentiment for the crypto market remained relatively stable and positive.

Is FTX’s collapse a warning for investors?

Our analysis is that investors should treat cryptocurrency exchanges like any investment opportunity. Do your due diligence and monitor your portfolio with tools like SESAMm’s TextReveal®.

As for the cryptocurrency market, data shows that sentiment for it remains level and positive. We speculate that cryptocurrency and centralized exchanges are here to stay. However, based on historical data and current news, we suspect conversations about crypto regulations to increase.

Reach out to SESAMm

For a deeper analysis of FTX’s collapse and access to all charts and supportive-article links, reach out to a representative today.

In theory, a portfolio with no ESG controversies signals low risk. In practice, experienced analysts treat it as a warning sign. The absence of alerts often reflects not resilience, but limited coverage, fragmented data, or incomplete aggregation. What looks like reassurance may instead point to a gap in visibility.

This dynamic came up repeatedly during our recent webinar, Private Markets in 2026: Macro Trends, ESG Shifts, AI Innovation and What It Means for Deal-Flow. The discussion highlighted how gaps in coverage and aggregation can shape investor perception, particularly when portfolios appear “quiet,” not because risks are absent, but because relevant information is not being captured.

This dynamic matters more than ever as private market due diligence intensifies. With fewer deals, longer holding periods, and higher selectivity, investors are spending more time scrutinizing assets before acquisition and monitoring them for longer after entry. Yet the informational foundation behind many ESG assessments has not caught up with these expectations.

When "No Data" Becomes "No Risk"

Private assets operate under persistent disclosure constraints. Unlike public companies, most private firms do not produce standardized, recurring ESG disclosures, nor do they benefit from consistent analyst coverage. These gaps are structural and unlikely to disappear in the near term.

In this context, silence is ambiguous. A clean ESG screen may indicate the absence of material issues, but it may just as easily signal that no relevant information was captured. Language limitations, fragmented sources, and uneven coverage across geographies and asset types all contribute to this uncertainty.

This dynamic is particularly visible in secondary transactions. Deal teams often need to assess large portfolios under tight time pressure, with limited access to management and incomplete identifiers. In such cases, relying on the absence of signals can create false confidence rather than reduce risk.

How Weak Coverage and Duplicated Signals Create Blind Spots

Even when information exists, it is not always immediately actionable. Adverse media has become a valuable substitute where structured ESG data is limited, offering outside-in visibility into private assets. However, it is not without challenges. Without robust aggregation and cross-language consolidation, the same issue can appear repeatedly across multiple articles, jurisdictions, and languages, creating duplication rather than clarity. At the same time, gaps in coverage or weak filtering can allow other material risks to go undetected.

At the same time, some portfolios appear unusually quiet simply because the underlying assets fall outside the scope of traditional datasets. ESG and reputational expectations in private markets remain fragmented, with bespoke workflows driven by LP-specific requirements. This lack of convergence makes it difficult to distinguish between genuinely low exposure and analytical gaps.

More data does not automatically resolve this problem. Without traceability, source quality, and a way to assess financial, legal, or operational materiality, increased volume can add noise without improving decisions. In that environment, silence can be just as misleading as signal overload.

What Meaningful ESG Visibility Looks Like Under Disclosure Constraints

A core takeaway from the webinar was that point-in-time ESG assessments are no longer fit for purpose in private markets. A single diligence exercise conducted at entry cannot capture emerging governance failures, litigation, reputational issues, or supply chain risks over multi-year holding periods.

Instead, meaningful ESG visibility combines three elements:

• Broad coverage, to avoid portfolios appearing "low risk" simply because assets are not captured.
• Aggregation and severity assessment, to separate isolated news from controversies with real financial or operational implications.
• Continuous monitoring, so the original risk thesis evolves as new information emerges rather than remaining static.

This approach reframes ESG from a compliance exercise into a source of informational advantage. Rather than concluding that no alerts mean no risk, investors use ESG signals to guide follow-up questions, prioritize deeper diligence, and identify issues that were not visible at entry.

Replacing False Comfort with Informed Uncertainty

Private markets will continue to operate with imperfect information. Disclosure gaps, opaque supply chains, and bespoke reporting demands are inherent to the asset class.

Treating “no issues detected” as a conclusion creates false comfort. Treating it as a hypothesis, contingent on coverage quality and monitoring depth, aligns ESG analysis with how risk actually emerges in private assets.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.