Deal Screening for M&A
Score and qualify acquisition targets against buyer investment criteria.
Screening Framework
Evaluate targets across five dimensions, each scored 0-100:
1. Strategic Fit (25% weight)
- - Industry/sector alignment with buyer portfolio
- Geographic fit (markets, operations, customer base)
- Product/service complementarity
- Technology or capability gap fill
- Brand and market position value
2. Financial Profile (25% weight)
- - Revenue scale (minimum threshold check)
- Revenue growth trajectory (3-year trend)
- EBITDA margin vs. industry benchmark
- Revenue quality (recurring vs. one-time, customer concentration)
- Working capital efficiency
3. Valuation Attractiveness (20% weight)
- - EV/EBITDA vs. comparable transactions
- EV/Revenue vs. sector median
- Implied IRR at estimated purchase price
- Multiple arbitrage potential (buy low, exit higher)
4. Risk Profile (15% weight)
- - Customer concentration (top 10 customers as % of revenue)
- Key-person dependency
- Regulatory exposure
- Technology obsolescence risk
- Litigation or compliance issues
5. Execution Feasibility (15% weight)
- - Management team quality and retention likelihood
- Integration complexity estimate
- Competitive auction dynamics
- Seller motivation and timeline
- Financing availability
Scoring Output
CODEBLOCK0
Thresholds
| Score Range | Recommendation |
|---|
| 80-100 | Strong fit — prioritize for DD |
| 65-79 |
Good fit — proceed with caution |
| 50-64 | Marginal — requires strategic justification |
| Below 50 | Poor fit — pass unless compelling thesis |
Deal-Breaker Checks (Auto-Fail)
Before scoring, check for absolute disqualifiers:
- - Revenue below buyer's minimum threshold
- Negative EBITDA (unless growth-stage thesis)
- Active material litigation exceeding 20% of EV
- Sanctioned entities in ownership chain
- Industry explicitly excluded by buyer mandate
PE-Specific Criteria
For financial sponsor buyers, additionally evaluate:
- - LBO feasibility: Can the deal be levered 3-5x EBITDA?
- Value creation levers: Revenue growth, margin expansion, add-ons, multiple expansion
- Exit path: IPO viability, strategic buyer universe, sponsor-to-sponsor
- Hold period returns: Target 20-25% gross IRR over 3-5 years
- Fund fit: Check size, vintage, sector focus, geographic mandate
Output Format
Provide structured JSON-compatible output with:
- -
overall_score: 0-100 - INLINECODE1 : proceedtodd | proceedwithcaution | pass
- INLINECODE2 : object with each dimension
- INLINECODE3 : list of any auto-fail conditions triggered
- INLINECODE4 : top 3 positive factors
- INLINECODE5 : top 3 risk factors
- INLINECODE6 : prioritized action items
并购交易筛选
根据买方投资标准对收购目标进行评分和资格评估。
筛选框架
从五个维度评估目标,每个维度评分0-100分:
1. 战略契合度(权重25%)
- - 行业/领域与买方投资组合的匹配度
- 地理契合度(市场、运营、客户基础)
- 产品/服务互补性
- 技术或能力缺口填补
- 品牌和市场地位价值
2. 财务概况(权重25%)
- - 收入规模(最低门槛检查)
- 收入增长轨迹(3年趋势)
- EBITDA利润率与行业基准对比
- 收入质量(经常性vs一次性、客户集中度)
- 营运资本效率
3. 估值吸引力(权重20%)
- - EV/EBITDA与可比交易对比
- EV/收入与行业中位数对比
- 按估计购买价格计算的隐含IRR
- 多重套利潜力(低价买入、高价退出)
4. 风险状况(权重15%)
- - 客户集中度(前10大客户占收入百分比)
- 关键人员依赖度
- 监管风险敞口
- 技术过时风险
- 诉讼或合规问题
5. 执行可行性(权重15%)
- - 管理团队质量及留任可能性
- 整合复杂度评估
- 竞争性拍卖动态
- 卖方动机和时间表
- 融资可用性
评分输出
整体契合度评分:78/100 — 推进尽职调查
战略契合度: 85/100 ████████░░
财务概况: 72/100 ███████░░░
估值: 80/100 ████████░░
风险状况: 68/100 ██████░░░░
执行: 82/100 ████████░░
建议:推进尽职调查
关键优势:[前3项]
关键顾虑:[前3项]
建议下一步:[优先行动项]
阈值
| 评分范围 | 建议 |
|---|
| 80-100 | 强契合 — 优先进行尽职调查 |
| 65-79 |
良好契合 — 谨慎推进 |
| 50-64 | 边缘 — 需战略理由支持 |
| 50以下 | 差契合 — 除非有令人信服的理由否则放弃 |
交易否决检查(自动失败)
在评分前,检查绝对排除条件:
- - 收入低于买方最低门槛
- EBITDA为负(除非是成长阶段投资逻辑)
- 活跃的重大诉讼超过EV的20%
- 所有权链中存在受制裁实体
- 买方授权明确排除的行业
PE特定标准
对于财务赞助方买家,额外评估:
- - LBO可行性:交易能否实现3-5倍EBITDA杠杆?
- 价值创造杠杆:收入增长、利润率扩张、附加收购、倍数扩张
- 退出路径:IPO可行性、战略买家群体、赞助方间交易
- 持有期回报:3-5年内目标20-25%总IRR
- 基金匹配度:检查规模、年份、行业重点、地理授权
输出格式
提供结构化的JSON兼容输出,包含:
- - overallscore:0-100
- recommendation:proceedtodd | proceedwithcaution | pass
- dimensionscores:每个维度的对象
- dealbreakers:触发的任何自动失败条件列表
- strengths:前3项积极因素
- concerns:前3项风险因素
- nextsteps:优先行动项