Mind the gap

Chapitre

Financing dissolution

Dealmakers: the end of M&A league tables, the rise of proof

For decades, advisers' reputations could be bought: directory listings, sponsored rankings, industry awards. Dealmakers reverses the burden of proof: only a completed deal counts. A network of contributors identified by the deals they have actually worked on — and available to business owners preparing an acquisition-led growth strategy or a business sale. Proof replaces M&A league tables.

I.Visible · today

The signal: every deal leaves a footprint, and that footprint can now be read

Every acquisition, business sale or financing deal produces a public or semi-public trail: regulatory announcements, registers, press releases from the parties, mentions of the advisers involved. Taken in isolation, each trace is worth little. Aggregated worldwide, they add up to something else: a factual map of who actually worked on what.

That is the starting point for Dealmakers. By extracting every completed deal — all countries, all sizes — and identifying for each one the lawyers, auditors, lending banks and investment funds involved, you do not build an opinion-based ranking. You rebuild a participation register. The difference is fundamental: a ranking tells you who is reputed; a participation register tells you who has done the work.

The signal in one sentence: data on participation in completed deals exists, it is scattered, and whoever consolidates it holds the only non-self-reported measure of transaction expertise.

Fig. 1The basic unit of the Dealmakers network is not the professional: it is the completed deal. Contributors inherit their credentials from it; they do not claim them.

This reversal looks modest. It is not. It shifts the source of professional legitimacy from the self-reported to the verifiable — exactly as repayment data, over a century, shifted a borrower's legitimacy from social standing to credit history.

II.Invisible · today

The mechanism: why the M&A advisory market still rewards visibility rather than contribution

Today the market for transaction reputation works on three levels, and each has an economic bias known to every practitioner — and rarely spelt out in front of clients.

Directories: visibility that can be bought

Most professional directories and industry guides rely on a hybrid model in which enhanced presence — the detailed profile, the highlighted listing, premium positioning — is paid for. Readers think they are consulting a selection; in part, they are consulting advertising space. The excellent but discreet professional is structurally under-represented compared with the average professional with a marketing budget.

League tables: a measure distorted by self-reporting

Industry rankings and league tables rely largely on submissions from the firms and institutions themselves: application files, lists of deals provided, perimeters chosen by the applicant. The input data is self-reported, and therefore open to optimisation. They measure the quality of the team preparing the submission as much as the quality of the service.

Word of mouth: accurate but slow, and confined

That leaves the most reliable channel: peer recommendation. It is precise, but it only circulates within small circles — the owner of a regional manufacturing SME has no access to the address book of the M&A director of a listed group. The right information exists, but it is locked away. The measurable result: weeks, sometimes months, spent identifying the right people before the first file is even opened.

The hidden cost of a deal does not show up in the fees. It shows up in the time spent finding the people who know — and in the deals never launched because they were never found.

Fig. 2Three reputation regimes. Only the third rests on data that professionals can neither buy nor write themselves: their actual presence in completed deals.

III.Announced · tomorrow

What the players are betting on: within fifteen to twenty years, transaction reputation will be an established asset, no longer a narrative to maintain

Let us project the trajectory. If the global participation register becomes the reference, three shifts follow one another — each overturning an established business model.

First shift: the execution graph replaces the CV

Within a decade, every transaction professional will carry an execution graph: a time-stamped list of the deals they have contributed to, with their role, the sector, the geography and the type of deal. This graph is not written; it builds up. The firm brochure, a century-old stylistic exercise, loses its evidential function — it keeps only a storytelling function. It is the same dissolution we described for the business plan: the format dies, the narrative function remains, but it now rests on a verifiable foundation.

Second shift: sourcing is reversed

Today, business owners look for advisers. Tomorrow, detailed knowledge of execution graphs will allow the reverse: start from a project — selling a business unit, acquiring in a sector, structuring a financing — and go straight to the professionals whose track record shows they have already handled this precise type of situation, in this sector, often with the very counterparties the project will have to meet. Sourcing stops being an investigation and becomes a query.

Third shift: marketplaces that sold visibility will have to sell proof

Business models built on paid visibility — directories, sponsored rankings, awards events — will come under the same pressure as classified advertising did from data platforms: as long as verified information is expensive to compile, self-reporting thrives; as soon as it becomes accessible, it loses value. The players that survive will be those that move from a regime of assertion to a regime of evidence.

Central scenario at 15–20 years: the question a business owner asks will no longer be “who is reputed for this?” but “who has already done it, how many times, with whom, and are they available now?”. Four questions that only a participation register can answer.

The opposite scenario, not to be ruled out: participation data could be captured by a small number of closed infrastructures, recreating a toll where openness was expected. It is precisely this risk that makes the position of independent networks decisive — networks not tied to any vested market interest, and imposing no exclusivity on the business owners who use them.

IV.In your hands · now

Closing the gap: what Dealmakers changes, right now, for a business owner or an M&A director

There is no need to wait twenty years. Both advantages of the shift can already be used — and they reinforce each other.

Advantage 01 · Proof

Reach the people who do the work — not those who pay to appear

No contributor to the Dealmakers network pays for their presence. Each one is there because the deals they actually worked on — and which completed — put them there. Business owners are not browsing advertising space: they are looking at a statement of fact. The selection is not an opinion; it is an observation.

Advantage 02 · Speed

Engage people who already know the sector and its players

A professional whose execution graph runs through your sector does not need to be taught your market: they already know its natural buyers, potential sellers, active lenders and investors, and the sticking points in valuation. Sourcing for an acquisition-led growth project or a business sale starts at mile ten, not mile zero.

Fig. 3The participation register absorbs the intermediate steps of sourcing: verification is built into the data, and sector knowledge already exists within the contributor.

Three practical steps for business owners

State the project before the profile. The way into Dealmakers is not “I am looking for a lawyer” but “I am preparing the sale of a B2B services business, mid-range valuation, counterparties probably European”. The project filters the network, not the other way round.

Read the graphs, not the brochures. Faced with two possible contributors, the decisive question is no longer how well known the name is, but how closely their deal history matches the situation at hand — sector, size, type of deal, counterparties already met.

Build the team like a deal syndicate. Because the register covers the four families of contributors — lawyers, auditors, lending banks, investment funds — it lets you assemble from the outset a team whose members have often already worked together on documented deals. Cohesion is no longer a gamble: it is documented.

Here Mind the gap holds its line: formats die, functions remain. The trust function that kept directories and league tables alive does not disappear — it migrates to its most honest medium, the completed deal. Closing this gap takes neither twenty years nor an act of faith: a first query is enough to measure the difference between a reputation that is told and a contribution that is proven.

AI in the value chain: the EBITDA upside to negotiate before you sell your business

Venture capital leaves the station: tokenised securities, retail savings and porous borders

The business plan will no longer be a document

Dealmakers: the end of M&A league tables, the rise of proof

E-invoicing and Open Finance: when cash flows become programmable