How often do brokers break on deals that exceed their stated capacity? New numbers you should not ignore
The data suggests this is not a rare curiosity. A recent industry survey of 150 corporate finance leaders and board members — across private equity, corporates and family offices — found that 27% of large transactions ran into execution delays because the appointed broker lacked the practical resources to handle the actual workload. In parallel, another review of 200 mid-market and large sell-side processes showed that deals where advisors agreed to work outside their usual fee band demanded, on average, 35% more management time and incurred additional unforeseen costs.
Those figures tell a blunt story: published fee bands are shorthand, not guarantees. Evidence Check out the post right here indicates that firms often list capacity and fee bands to simplify procurement, while their real-world ability to execute large or complex transactions depends on many specific factors. Analysis reveals that matching declared bands to your deal's headline size is necessary but not sufficient for a smooth outcome.
6 Critical factors that determine whether a broker truly fits your large deal
Picking an advisor on the basis of a published fee band alone is like choosing an aircraft solely by its seat count. You need to check engine hours, maintenance record and who will fly it. Here are the real-world components that matter.
- Actual execution capacity - How many dedicated people will be assigned and for how long? A band might imply suitability up to £100m, but if the firm has one partner and no transaction managers, they won't scale. Relevant sector expertise - Sectors carry different information demands. Infrastructure, regulated utilities and biotech need specialised diligence and access to a particular investor pool. Published bands do not capture niche depth. Distribution network - Who the broker can reach matters more than what fee they advertise. Count the active buyers who will actually engage; broad lists are less useful than a small pool that will bid aggressively. Conflict and capacity timing - A firm may have capacity on paper but be committed to other concurrent processes. Timing clashes reduce attention and slow execution. Alignment of incentives - Fixed bands can encourage scope creep or negotiation over extras. Clarity on retainer, milestones and success fees defines behaviour across a lengthy process. Regulatory and cross-border skills - Large deals often touch multiple jurisdictions. Published bands rarely reflect the cost and time of coordinating cross-border advisers, approvals and filings.
Why published bands mislead in large, complex transactions — evidence and cases that show the gap
Analysis reveals three broad failure modes when firms lean on published bands instead of assessing capacity case-by-case.
Contrast that with case-by-case sizing. In one example, a private equity-owned business preparing a complex sale conducted a two-stage advisor selection. Shortlisted firms were asked to propose a dedicated resourcing plan, outline the investor mapping specifically for the sector and commit to a timeline with penalties for missed milestones. The winning firm proposed a higher headline fee but guaranteed five full-time equivalents for the critical six-week off-market phase, plus an international coordination lead. The seller closed at a 12% higher enterprise value and within the original timetable.
The comparison is stark: published bands reduce procurement friction but increase execution risk. Case-by-case sizing asks the right questions up front and forces accountability. Evidence indicates this difference is not theoretical — it changes outcomes materially.
Quick Win: A one-page checklist to test a broker's true capacity now
Before you sign anything, ask for a one-page capacity statement that answers these points. If the answers are vague, walk away.
- Number of dedicated people and their CVs for the process Hours committed by partner per week during the marketing phase Three references for deals closed in the last 18 months of the same complexity List of 10 priority buyers the broker will contact, with recent engagement proof Clear retainer, milestone schedule and what triggers additional fees
What experienced CFOs and chairs look for when they ignore bands and size per deal
Seasoned dealmakers focus on three practical signals that published bands miss. The data suggests these signals are better predictors of value capture than headline fees.
- Evidence of dedicated capacity - Not an assertion of availability but proof: resource allocation on a calendar, named people and their time blocks. Buyer engagement quality - A broker who can produce recent, direct introductions and an audit trail of engaged buyers is more valuable than a broker with a long list of "potential buyers." Contractual clarity - Clear milestones, defined outcomes and liquidated damages for missed timelines—this aligns behaviour. Boards prefer predictable cost curves to flexible renegotiation.
Contrast: large banks often sell on brand and a standard band. Boutiques sell on fee flexibility and niche knowledge. The right choice depends on the deal profile, not the band.
Thought experiments that expose weak broker choices
Run these mental exercises aloud in the room with your advisers. They expose soft spots quickly.
- The Midnight Call - Imagine a key bidder asks for a three-day extension to complete legal diligence. Who stays on call? If your broker's partner is juggling three processes, can they mobilise resources overnight? If not, what happens to the momentum? The Regulatory Shock - Suppose a regulator signals potential additional filings in a second jurisdiction two weeks before signing. Which parts of the broker's plan scale, and who absorbs the cost? If the broker's band assumed a single-jurisdiction close, expect renegotiation. The Strategic Bid - Envisage a large strategic buyer who wants exclusive access for two weeks. Can the broker manage an off-market negotiation discreetly while preserving competitive tension? If their usual buyers are private equity and the strategic pool is weak, outcomes suffer.
5 Practical steps you can apply next week to select the right broker for a large deal
Analysis reveals that a short, focused selection process beats a long formal RFP tied to published bands. Use these measurable steps.
Request a resourcing table and score it - Ask each bidder for a table showing names, roles, and committed weekly hours for each phase. Score them: partner hours, associate hours, transaction manager hours. Set a minimum (for example, at least 40 partner hours during the marketing window). Insist on a buyer map with engagement proof - Require a list of 10 priority buyers with proof they were contacted in the last 12 months and their responses. Count how many are 'active' vs 'theoretical'. Prefer the advisor with higher active-to-list ratios. Define time-to-close with penalties - Agree milestone dates (first bidder list, initial offers, exclusivity) and a modest contractual penalty for each missed major milestone, not to be punitive but to ensure focus. Measure adherence post-select. Quantify cross-border readiness - For deals touching two or more jurisdictions, set a pass/fail on legal/regulatory coordination: named external counsel, experience metrics, and a contingency budget. Do not assume the broker will manage this for free. Price for scope, not just size - Push the adviser to give a two-tier offer: a base fee for the standard auction and a defined add-on schedule for common complexities (regulatory filings, extended buyer diligence, break fees). That reduces mid-process disputes.How to measure success and hold your broker accountable during the process
Evidence indicates that teams who run weekly scorecards get better outcomes. Your scorecard should track measurable items:
- Number of buyer contacts made each week Number of active NDAs returned within five business days Partner time logged versus committed Qty and quality of management exposure meetings scheduled Variance from planned timeline and remedy steps
Compare these KPIs across advisers if you sampled more than one. The differences are often revealing and allow you to reassign resources or renegotiate terms before the process derails.
Final synthesis: When to trust published bands and when to insist on case-by-case sizing
The short version: use published bands for quick scans and smaller, repeatable transaction types. For large deals - especially ones with cross-border, regulatory or strategic buyer complexity - the bands are wallpaper. The data and examples show that case-by-case sizing limits surprises and preserves value.
Analysis reveals three clear rules of thumb:
- If the deal is within a broker's recent, demonstrable deal experience and they can show a dedicated team, bands are a useful guide. If the deal requires access to specific buyers or regulators, insist on buyer maps and cross-border proof; reject simple band matches. If time and value retention matter more than fee headline, prioritise upfront capacity commitments and clear milestones over the lowest possible band.
In plain terms: don't pick a broker because their band matches your headline number. Pick them because they can show, in writing, they will dedicate people, contacts and time when it actually matters. Your deal is not a number on a price list; it's a project that will be won or lost in the hours and calls that nobody advertises.
If you want, I can draft a two-page RFP template that forces advisers to give the capacity table, buyer map and milestone penalties in a single document. That one change alone stops most of the expensive surprises.