TL;DR: Between 70-90% of M&A deals fail because of inadequate due diligence. The root cause is not investor carelessness. It's infrastructure built for middlemen, not decision-makers. Expert networks charge $1,200 per call with 40% being useless, whilst analysts burn 14+ hours monthly on logistics instead of analysis. Investment professionals pay research prices but get access, not answers. 83% of PE leaders admit their due diligence needs fixing.

What You Need to Know

• Due diligence timelines have grown by 1-3 months for 59% of investment professionals, with analysts spending 100+ hours weekly on deals.

• Expert networks extract $1.5 billion annually through a volume model, charging $1,200 per call whilst 40% of calls prove useless.

• The true cost per useful insight reaches $2,000 when you factor in wasted calls and analyst time doing vetting, scheduling, and verification.

• Finished intelligence replaces the middleman tax by delivering verified, decision-ready answers at half the cost with weeks of time recovered per quarter.

• Investment-grade research requires fresh expert recruitment, ID verification, cross-referencing, and performance-based pricing tied to outcomes.

Between 70% and 90% of M&A deals fail.

The culprit? Inadequate due diligence.

This represents billions in wasted capital, countless analyst hours burned, and investment theses that looked bulletproof on paper but collapsed in practice. The problem is not that investors don't care about rigour. The problem is that the infrastructure built to support due diligence was designed for middlemen, not investors.

83% of private equity leaders now admit their current due diligence practices need substantial improvement. The question is no longer whether the system is broken. The question is what to do about it.

How Much Time Does Due Diligence Really Take?

Due diligence has become noticeably longer. Data room providers report record volumes of documents being disclosed. Among those experiencing extended timelines, 59% report that 1-3 months have been added to the process.

Analysts and associates working on live deals routinely clock over 100 hours per week. The problem? Substantial chunks of that time go to organising, cleaning, and validating data rather than analysing it.

The work has expanded in every direction.

45% of investment banking participants now identify technology review as the most expensive and arduous aspect of M&A due diligence. Cybersecurity alone is expected to receive the greatest scrutiny over the next 12-24 months, with 97% of participants anticipating heightened focus in this area.

The scope has exploded beyond traditional financial metrics:

• Commercial due diligence assesses market position, supply chains, and R&D pipelines.

• Legal due diligence covers regulatory compliance, litigation exposure, and intellectual property rights.

• Financial due diligence audits statements for irregularities.

• Tax due diligence examines exposure and reduction opportunities.

Each layer adds time, complexity, and cost.

Bottom line: Analysts spend more time managing the process than doing the actual analysis.

What's Wrong With Expert Networks and Survey Platforms?

Investment professionals understand the value of primary research. 81% believe that talking to experts is a legitimate, value-adding part of the due diligence process.

The problem is how that research gets delivered.

Expert network companies generated an estimated $1.5 billion in revenues in 2020. Management consultants engaged an average of 3 expert networks per project, expecting to receive 12 experts from each network. Investment analysts averaged 2 networks and 9 experts per project.

This is a volume-driven model, not an accuracy-driven one.

Here's the economics:

• The typical expert network call costs $1,200.

• Roughly 40% of those calls turn out to be useless. The expert is off-target, vague, or clearly recycled from a shared database.

• Middlemen extract 50-70% margins whilst pushing all the real research work back onto the investment team: vetting experts, scheduling calls, interviewing, note-taking, and verifying claims.

When you factor in misses and analyst time, the true cost per useful insight approaches $2,000.

Among boutique investment banks, 40% of respondents identified incomplete information on a target company as one of the greatest due diligence hurdles in their most recent buy-side deal.

Translation: Investors are paying research prices for access, not answers.

The reality: Expert networks optimise for call volume and margin, not for correct answers that move investment decisions.

What's the Difference Between Hard and Soft Due Diligence?

Due diligence splits into two camps: hard and soft.

Hard due diligence focuses on financial data. It employs fundamental analysis and financial ratios to assess a company's financial position. In M&A, this means scrutinising EBITDA, cash flow, debt levels, and valuation multiples like P/E and PEG ratios.

Soft due diligence takes a qualitative approach. It evaluates management quality, employee loyalty, corporate culture, and the human element that financial statements don't capture.

The failure of many M&A deals is often attributed to neglecting soft due diligence:

• Leadership gaps at portfolio companies emerged as a critical obstacle, listed among the top three challenges by 47% of private equity leaders.

• Lack of cultural readiness ranked in the top three for 36% of respondents.

75% of private equity leaders say that investments have grown more complex over the past five years.

Compensation structures, incentive programmes, and employee motivation all play a role in whether an acquisition delivers on its thesis.

You'll have perfect financials and still watch a deal collapse because the workforce wasn't aligned post-acquisition.

The lesson: Financial metrics tell half the story. Ignoring culture and management creates blind spots that kill deals.

How Should Due Diligence Be Done Properly?

For Stock Investments

Due diligence on stocks involves several steps:

• Analyse market capitalisation, revenue trends, and profit margins.

• Compare a company's performance with its competitors and evaluate valuation multiples.

• Assess management experience and share ownership.

• Examine the balance sheet for debt levels and cash flow.

• Research stock price history and dilution possibilities.

• Consider long and short-term risks, analyst expectations, and whether the investment thesis holds up under scrutiny.

For Startup Investments

Startup investments require a different lens because historical data is limited.

Focus on:

• Exit strategies and partnerships.

• Harvest strategies and the growth plan.

• Product potential and whether the team has the experience to execute.

For M&A Transactions

In M&A, hard due diligence focuses on financial metrics whilst soft due diligence assesses cultural fit. Both matter. Ignoring either creates blind spots.

The Legal Foundation

The Securities Act of 1933 established due diligence as a common practice in the United States, holding securities dealers and brokers accountable for disclosing material information. The act provided a legal defence for those who exercised due diligence in their investigations.

The principle is straightforward: gather the necessary facts to make informed decisions, minimise legal liability, and ensure wise choices in business transactions.

Core principle: Due diligence is about gathering facts to make informed decisions whilst minimising legal liability and investment risk.

How Big Is the Due Diligence Market?

The global due diligence investigation market is expected to grow from $8.5 billion in 2024 to $16.7 billion in 2034, with a compound annual growth rate of 7.4%. Acquisition-related pre-transactions represent 52% of market share in 2024.

This is a massive addressable market growing because complexity is accelerating faster than the infrastructure built to support it.

The opportunity is not in selling more access.

The opportunity is in delivering finished intelligence that changes conviction, sizing, or timing on a position. Investment professionals don't need another expert network charging $1,200 per call. They need verified answers from the right experts, structured and cross-referenced so they drop straight into an IC memo or partner meeting.

They need to stop paying research prices for access and start buying finished intelligence that moves a trade or deal.

Market insight: The due diligence market is doubling over ten years because investors need better tools, not more middlemen.

What Does Finished Intelligence Look Like?

Finished intelligence means the work is done before it reaches the investor.

Here's how it works:

• You hand over a 10-minute brief.

• You get back verified answers from correctly profiled experts.

• The output is structured, cross-referenced, and ready to use.

• You're not scheduling calls, sitting through interviews, taking notes, or cleaning survey data.

• You're receiving investment-grade insight that has already been fact-checked and validated.

This is not a marginal improvement. It's a structural shift.

The benefits:

• Analysts recover weeks of time each quarter.

• The true cost per useful insight drops by roughly half.

• Compliance exposure disappears because you're not on the calls.

• The risk of recycled experts and bad panels is eliminated because every project is freshly recruited and verified.

This is what "by investors, for investors" means in practice.

It means designing workflows that protect analyst time. It means setting verification standards that survive IC scrutiny. It means tying economics to outcomes with performance-based pricing, so the provider only gets paid if the research genuinely enhances decisions.

The shift: From paying for access and doing the work yourself to buying decision-ready intelligence that moves positions.

Why Does the Middleman Model Still Exist?

If the middleman model is so broken, why does it persist?

Because it's optimised for volume and margin, not accuracy and impact. Expert networks and survey platforms are structurally incentivised to maximise calls and completes, not correct answers. $1,200 calls with 40% useless outcomes and 50-70% margins are considered normal instead of a failure mode.

The client carries the exposure because they're on the calls and inside the raw responses. The provider carries no risk. If the expert is off-target or the panel is riddled with fraud, the client still pays.

This is backwards.

Investment-grade research should come with skin in the game. If the output doesn't move a decision, the provider shouldn't get paid. If the data doesn't survive scrutiny in an IC memo, it's not finished.

The incentive problem: Middlemen profit from volume, not accuracy. Investors need providers whose economics depend on delivering correct answers.

What Should You Do About It?

Due diligence reduces risk exposure by ensuring awareness of transaction details. Checklists help organise the analysis, covering areas like ownership, assets, financial ratios, and future growth potential.

Examples of due diligence include property inspections, company examinations before M&A, and background checks. Ultimately, due diligence involves gathering necessary facts to make informed decisions.

The question is how you gather those facts.

You have two options:

Option 1: Keep paying the middleman tax

• Keep paying middlemen for access and doing all the real research work yourself.

• Keep burning analyst time on vetting, scheduling, interviewing, and cleaning data.

• Keep accepting 40% useless calls and recycled experts as a cost of doing business.

Option 2: Demand finished intelligence

• Demand finished intelligence from providers who put skin in the game.

• Insist on fresh, correctly profiled experts.

• Require ID verification, cross-referencing, and human validation on every key claim.

• Tie fees to outcomes so the provider's economics only work when your decisions get better.

The infrastructure exists. The question is whether you're willing to stop accepting the middleman tax as inevitable.

The choice: Accept the broken model or demand investment-grade research with real accountability.

The Path Forward

83% of private equity leaders say their due diligence approach has substantial room for improvement. They're not wrong.

The failure rate for M&A deals remains stubbornly high. The time sink continues to expand. The cost per useful insight keeps climbing. And the middleman model keeps extracting margin whilst pushing all the real work back onto investment teams.

This doesn't have to be the default.

Investment-grade primary research becomes both higher quality and lower cost when you remove middlemen and own the full chain from brief to finished intelligence. Analysts spend their time on investment decisions instead of logistics. Firms cut the true cost per useful insight in half whilst improving accuracy and reducing compliance risk.

The question is not whether the system needs fixing. The question is what you're going to do about it.

If you're tired of paying research prices for access, if you're ready to stop burning analyst time on middleman logistics, and if you want primary research that moves conviction, sizing, or timing on a position, the alternative exists.

You just have to demand it.

Final word: The infrastructure for investment-grade primary research exists. The only question is whether you'll demand it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main reason M&A deals fail?

Between 70-90% of M&A deals fail primarily because of inadequate due diligence. This includes both hard due diligence (financial metrics) and soft due diligence (cultural fit, management quality, employee alignment). 47% of private equity leaders cite leadership gaps at portfolio companies as a critical obstacle, whilst 36% point to lack of cultural readiness.

How much do expert network calls really cost?

The sticker price for an expert network call is $1,200. However, the true cost per useful insight approaches $2,000 when you factor in that 40% of calls are useless and include analyst time spent on vetting experts, scheduling, interviewing, note-taking, and verification. Middlemen extract 50-70% margins whilst pushing all the real research work back onto investment teams.

What is finished intelligence?

Finished intelligence means the work is done before it reaches the investor. You hand over a 10-minute brief and get back verified answers from correctly profiled experts. The output is structured, cross-referenced, and ready to use. You're not scheduling calls, sitting through interviews, taking notes, or cleaning survey data. You're receiving investment-grade insight that has already been fact-checked and validated.

What's the difference between hard and soft due diligence?

Hard due diligence focuses on financial data, employing fundamental analysis and financial ratios to assess a company's financial position (EBITDA, cash flow, debt levels, valuation multiples). Soft due diligence takes a qualitative approach, evaluating management quality, employee loyalty, corporate culture, and the human element that financial statements don't capture. Both are essential because you'll have perfect financials and still watch deals collapse when the workforce isn't aligned post-acquisition.

Why does the middleman model persist if it's so inefficient?

The middleman model persists because it's optimised for volume and margin, not accuracy and impact. Expert networks and survey platforms are structurally incentivised to maximise calls and completes, not correct answers. The client carries the exposure because they're on the calls and inside the raw responses. The provider carries no risk. If the expert is off-target or the panel is riddled with fraud, the client still pays.

How long does due diligence take now compared to before?

Due diligence timelines have grown significantly. 59% of investment professionals report that 1-3 months have been added to the process. Analysts and associates working on live deals routinely clock over 100 hours per week, with substantial chunks of that time spent organising, cleaning, and validating data rather than analysing it.

What should investment professionals demand from research providers?

Investment professionals should demand fresh, correctly profiled experts (not recycled from databases), ID verification, cross-referencing, and human validation on every key claim. They should tie fees to outcomes through performance-based pricing so the provider's economics only work when decisions get better. Providers should deliver finished intelligence with skin in the game, not just access to experts.

How big is the due diligence market?

The global due diligence investigation market is expected to grow from $8.5 billion in 2024 to $16.7 billion in 2034, with a compound annual growth rate of 7.4%. Acquisition-related pre-transactions represent 52% of market share in 2024. Expert network companies alone generated an estimated $1.5 billion in revenues in 2020.

Key Takeaways

• 70-90% of M&A deals fail because of inadequate due diligence, representing billions in wasted capital and collapsed investment theses.

• Expert networks charge $1,200 per call with 40% being useless, whilst the true cost per useful insight reaches $2,000 when you include analyst time on vetting, scheduling, and verification.

• Due diligence timelines have grown by 1-3 months for 59% of professionals, with analysts spending 100+ hours weekly managing processes instead of analysing data.

• The middleman model persists because it's optimised for volume and margin, not accuracy. Providers profit from call counts, not correct answers that move investment decisions.

• Finished intelligence delivers verified, decision-ready answers at half the cost with weeks of analyst time recovered per quarter through fresh expert recruitment, ID verification, and performance-based pricing.

• Investment-grade research requires both hard due diligence (financial metrics) and soft due diligence (cultural fit and management quality). Ignoring either creates blind spots that kill deals.

• The due diligence market is growing from $8.5 billion in 2024 to $16.7 billion in 2034 because complexity is accelerating faster than infrastructure, creating demand for better tools, not more middlemen.