I keep having our PE counterparties (just this one firm) make ridiculous requests for things they should be able to do on their own ("can you sort these columns for me", "can you tell me which files are new"). It makes me ask myself things like "do you want me to wipe your own ass for you too?". They somehow exhibit this basic computer illiteracy while simultaneously maintaining an air of superiority and speaking condescendingly, the dissonance is incredible.
Monkeys, how you do push back against stupid requests that gunk up the workflow and only serve to get in the way of real things getting done?
What has been the most ridiculous or frustrating buyside, or client, request you've ever received?
For sponsors and most clients in general, bankers fall in the spectrum somewhere between "advisor" and "vendor". Where your firm/group falls depends on how good and/or how much of a spine your senior bankers have. The more towards vendor you fall, the more of the btch work gets outsourced to your group.
This is so true. My MD is a chronic “yes man” with no self respect or sack and complies with any external request. Of course he is also the type to project his insecurities on us and barrages the team with constant “where are we on this?” requests
Is this a buyer or your client. From a client standpoint, they're paying you millions in fee so it's your job to do what's asked for broadly within the scope of your engagement. If this is a buyer then oh well... But, being able to highlight what files are new (Assuming your VDR doesn't let you sort) or updating a DD tracker is very fair game.
I've been there and likely anyone involved in a sponsor heavy process has been there. I'll caveat my advice as it being largely self-preservation based and maybe not something to absolutely publicize, but whatever...
If it is a competitive process, don't be afraid to let them know (or imply) as much. My experience has been that buyers will continue to push until they get the sense that what they're doing is alienating themselves. To be clear, they don't care about annoying IB analysts but if their requests start to get back to the seller and informs the seller's view of the buyer, they'll likely back off.
You don't actually need to drop everything and address every little request from potential buyers. It took me a while to learn this and, up to that point, I would stress over the need to perfectly respond to every buyer request. Over time (reference my caveat) you just stop giving as much of a shit and leave some of those requests on read, or force them to follow up, or delay. Every single time I've ever opened a data room, no matter how comprehensive it was, I always received at least one additional 100 line list from a buyer requesting more and more, in many cases illogical or irrelevant requests. Whether all 100 of those requests were completely satisfied never actually impacted the results of the auction (so I tell myself).
Especially when you're dealing with counterparties on your level at the PE firm (e.g. IB analyst/associate conversing with PE associate), don't be afraid to pick up the phone and have a conversation. Remember that you're both low on the totem pole and that your work is likely being dictated by your respective bosses. Sometimes a quick conversation to cut through the BS can be mutually beneficial and productive.
Notwithstanding the above, which is more geared towards requests involving additional detail/analysis, if I was ever asked to sort columns for 1 buyer in a competitive process, I'm simply not responding.
On average, what would you say the # of requests is based on deal size? Id imagine it is less at the LMM level when contrasted with say a $20 bn take-private. Didn't come from banking but our firm usually has pretty exhaustive request lists. I am curious if we are hurting ourselves but reaching out with a very high number of requests. The one caveat I would add is this is typically when the data rooms are sparsely populated
I think it's fair to approximate based on deal size but my experience was more case by case, with a few consistent themes. Buyers that have, or had, an asset in the industry tend to be more understanding of what is relevant and what is realistic to produce which makes their follow up list more concise vs. a buyer that doesn't understand the industry as well. I don't think buyers hurt themselves simply by asking for more information but if the additional requests highlight a severe lack of understanding about the business/industry, it could be interpreted negatively by some sellers.
In fairness to buyers, the more direct correlation to expanded request lists is the quality of VDR to begin with. I've worked on some deals where the sellers were highly organized or sophisticated such that they produce many of the key DD deliverables as part of their firm operations. Other sellers are less organized and have to create much of the requests from scratch, which means less data upfront and more of a reactionary approach to responding to requests. Interestingly, some of largest and most expensive deals I've been part of have involved the latter.
The other observation I had is that certain requests from PE teams are generated with their IC in mind, not so much that the deal team needs this detail to form their bid. This was common with the firms that were new to the industry or the deal team was a smaller vertical within the firm. In other words, they needed as much ammo as they could get to push the bid through internally. When that happens there is a fun shift in the tone of the requests, instead of picking apart the business to justify their valuation, they now look for guidance on how to best position the investment is so they can tout it to their IC. That goes back to my initial point about how a base level of transparency/communication becomes mutually beneficial for the sellside/buyside.
Lol may be what it is, but ultimately behaviors that just gunk up the process and make things drag on because you want to satisfy your ego signal to me that despite the fact that you're 10yrs older than I am you're not emotionally more mature. Its just childish if its intentional, and incompetence if not.
I mean it is literally the bankers’ job to organize VDR files and make sure files names either correspond to buyer requests or appropriately mark location of the response. It’s not the buyer’s job to comb through 1000 random uploads to see which one answers question #678. If it isn’t your job to facilitate the sale process and information flow, what is your value add? Telling xyz company that the list of target PE firms include Bain, BX, KKR, TPG and Carlyle? A freshman in college that has spent 1 week on WSO can tell you that. Obviously senior bankers have good intel and relationships, but as an analyst or associate on the sell side, your job is to make sure process is smooth and everyone has the information they need quickly to make a decision on the investment. Agree that they shouldn’t be asking you to sort columns or organize data, but the very least is making sure VDR is clean and all requests are accounted for in a tracker.
I don't think you read the post. A data room that is a mess is in fact bad but that is not what the requests are the requests are more of them asking us to do stuff to the information. They should be using the info we tee'd up for them to do their own analysis, not have us alphabetize their columns. We have a tracker of our own showing what is in the data room and where it is, it appears they don't have their own tracker with regards to what they have seen, checked off, analyzed etc. They have the info they need
This is such a beta b**** response
This is a counterparty and not your client?
If so, offer to show them how to do it over zoom in the most condescending way you can think of an CC their partner. There's zero need to do the grunt work for buyers yourself if they have access to the relevant information. If they drop out, they were never really that interested.
Do you know how much your firm is being paid? It's not like margin isn't super healthy. You should be doing summersaults if sponsor asks for it.
Let's not glorify helplessness.
I think when a sponsor is basically asking me to chew their food for them that is entirely a 'them' problem.
What I found helpful is, if its not clear why some things were asked, feel free to clarify with the buyer on what the importance or purpose of it is, especially if the buyer is another person around your age. Hopefully their intention is not to waste your time, and sometimes the buyer may tell you to disregard requests if it's not meaningful. Ultimately, it is better to have an easier deal process and work well together, and it's good to have your interests aligned for efficiency.
This is why I hate sponsor buyside mandates. I've been lucky as I've generated sone credibility in my group to destaff myself on any buysides for shitty sponsors.
There is nothing worse than PE associates who think they know something because they did two years at GS doing footnotes and moving logos about. The vast majority of PE Associates I seem to encounter couldn't manage a M&A process to save their hides.
Key ones I see in London as repeat offenders are Bridgepoint, Astorg, PAI to name three bad ones in particular. ICG are pretty bad as well but more because the vast majority of their PE investment team are dickheads.