I just wrapped up a conversation regarding a client with a corporate development officer of a large, public company. It was my first conversation with this guy and our first regarding this acquisition opportunity. This strategic acquirer and my client have discussed a strategic partnership so the conversation got pretty specific as soon as my clients identity was disclosed.


Near the end of our conversation, my counterpart took a moment to explain that he speaks with many investment bankers, but our conversation stood apart. When I asked why, he said its because I demonstrated a deep understanding of the market, the company, its products and strategy. It was a level of understanding that he typically gets from the management team, not the banker. It was an important compliment from an experienced buyer. But I know my conversation was not unique for Corum. Like me, my deal-maker colleagues are ex-software CEOs so this type of discussion is routine.


At Corum, we rely upon our CEO experience to relate to clients. Perhaps we get casual about the advantage this experience delivers to buyers because our dialog is far more content rich and impactful than their interactions with other investment bankers. This is so important and gives our clients an immediate advantage. Corporate development officers are busy. They see a lot of deals and select only the best ones to show their business leaders. Your deal needs to stand out from the start. Its clear from this feedback that your choice of M&A advisors opens doors and immediately improves the content and quality of the dialog with buyers. So which bankers call gets returned first, Corums or the one from the banker who lacks this experience and credibility?