Why are PE people treating bankers so much worse than consultants?

One generates fees and the other is focused on returns and it leads to the divergence in behaviour.

Two reasons: marginal hour of a CDD team won’t add as much as the marginal hour of the banking team, and CDD is typically a flat fee. I’ve done a lot of CDDs and 90% of the time the fee is basically to get the senior partner sign off - they know the asset and have typically diligenced it if it’s been in the market before. So sure we can clean up p. 143 but it’s not going to change the story.

Fee structure also means senior consultants want to push back on extraneous work. VDD can sometimes be a different story as that’s more often charged as weekly fees. 

The few times I have had to work weekends on a CDD team were when the above conditions were not met - new asset to us, deal team was not confident in our story, and we didn’t care about the profitability of the engagement on our side. 

Because bankers are their client's bitch as they should be. I sure as hell don't want to do all that work ;)

Transactions are also much more time-sensitive (deal needs to be signed by X date, firm looking to preempt and needs XYZ right now, etc.) while CDD is looser (i.e., typically CDD doesn't make/break a deal and if it does, usually there were updates along the way with red flags rather than some drop-dead date that absolutely must be hit to complete the transaction (because CDD is never the last workstream standing)). 

I didn't really notice until you said it, but I'm realizing the same is true for me.  In my case it's simply timing.  What we need the bank to do is usually some high-urgency thing . . need the model/data room updated for this new view and need it now so we can move forward with our own workflow.  

Meanwhile our consultants are just bullshitters who who present lots of grand plans to impress some constituent who isn't me (maybe my boss, maybe a capital partner, depends on the situation).  So there's no urgency on those.  If anything the consultants are pestering me to get on calls with them so they can keep their parade of bullshit running on schedule.

I push consultants too but ultimately a consulting engagement is much lowest cost 

You choose banks for its MD or MDs who can make something happen because of their creds and bring reasonably useful insight either on the way in or out. 

The relationship is probably very warm between the fund's deal lead and the MD (and sometimes the number twos on each side know this so they make 'friends' over time). But everybody else is viewed as disposable resource. 

If I talk about bankers openly like a bunch of total fuckups worth nothing than the pyramid under me are going to have that same mindset too. When I was more junior myself, the deal QB would say fuck em and back me up to go very hard on the bank, including on reasonably senior bankers which would create some funny situations for sure.

BTW sometimes we'd have the relationship with the global/ regional head, in which case even the MD assigned to the deal would not be spared from harsh treatment. This wouldn't be overt and openly hostile (I'm talking about those classic bigger calls with a lot of people), but even I sometimes flinched at how senior partners can behave. Oh boy it brings me some memories. 

The most serious dressing downs happen when it's a 1:1 or a very small crew. Some of the most brutal stuff I've seen was just the likes of having 2 mds and my partner in a call.

It is just the culture of banking vs MBB. The core driver of the cultural difference I think is the nature of the work.

A bank says, we will convince two groups (the client and the counterparty) to exchange a highly meaningful quantum of assets in the shortest time frame possible. This requires several things that kill quality of life of the banking team, such as immense deliverable prep on short timelines, accommodating everyone else’s schedule, etc.

A consultancy says, “we are and will continue to be the brain of our F500 clients.” Yes the PE groups within MBB are on more deal based timelines but the overall culture of the firm that tells people how to interact with them is different.

Being a PE aso was harder than being a banking analyst by a lot but I was treated worse by the world as an analyst.

Because I got mine. Simple as that.

I think it is because the work streams of the Bankers in the deal process is more pressing, and time sensitive. The commercial diligence, while extremely important to the deal, will usually serve as a confirmation to an existing view held by the deal team - they already are serious about the asset, and are doing a CDD when they are already fairly well advanced in the process. 

To sum, no it is not an inherent love for Consultants nor a hatred for Bankers, just a byproduct of the relative urgency of the different work streams.

The workstreams bankers are involved in matter 10x more than what a consultant is touching, they're getting paid 5-10x more in fees to do them, and PE teams know they can take it because that's just the culture.