[iainctduncan]

Interesting little aside for those reacting to the fact that it's PE who pay our bills. While the world of vampire PE certainly exists, most of the time the clients I interact with are genuinely concerned with how to make the business better. And we are far more frequently telling acquirers to spend top dollar on new hires than advising on who to cut! The expectation is that the company needs investment, and that they will get 20% year over year growth for about five years. While the bad rep of PE certainly came from somewhere, in my expereince over the last five years of working in the field, I would way rather be at a profitable, sensible, PE owned company than a VC funded "disruptor" gunning for the big IPO or google acquisition. Our world is positively normal compared to the FAANG scene. We see people who have been at at the companies for 10 to 15 years all the time.

Seriously, I feel like a broken record when I say "Hire a top drawer test automation engineer to lead the company in how to run QA properly - this should be a senior developer" etc.

[js2]

> we are far more frequently telling acquirers to spend top dollar on new hires than advising on who to cut

Please tell that to Apollo Global Management as loudly as you can. I mean, if they're one of your customers.

[hhsectech]

"Hire a top drawer test automation engineer to lead the company in how to run QA properly - this should be a senior developer"

Trouble is, they are few and far between and PE doesnt know how to find them...they only understand money they dont understand talent. Furthermore, when they do stumble upon talent they dont know how to leave it alone and won't trust it.

PE mistakenly tends to think that they are there for more than just what they are...money.

They need to understand that they are just people with money. The same way I understand that I am just a techie that produces things.

I bought a loaf of bread today, but that doesnt make me a baker or an expert in baking or running a bakery.

Same applies to PE. Just because they buy businesses and invest in them, doesnt make them experts in whatever they buy.

[iainctduncan]

You are misunderstanding the dynamic. I mean, sure, that sometimes happens, but usually if they pay us for a report, the recommendations are shared. Either with the target company or the portco buying the target. So what we say is going to the CTO or VP Eng.

Very frequently what we are doing is providing an outside voice with a direct line to the top to recommend things the CTO or VP Eng already knows and wants to do. I have had many technical leaders personally thanks us and say how relieved they were to have diligence done by real hackers, and how much this was going to help.

[MichaelZuo]

Why can't a PE firm hire an actual super-genius, who can understand things with a fraction of the usual effort?

Sizable firms can easily afford a seven or eight figure compensation package for someone really really competent.

[iainctduncan]

Some do, that is becoming more common. There is, understandably, a huge variety of approaches from funds. Some are very hands on and have on staff technical folks who were previously CTOs or VP Eng, others are hands off and just take care of finance.

[smcg]

Any "profitably" run PE company is being sold for parts and its wiring is being stripped. Good job being better than a charlatan startup. Your employer provides nothing of value to society.

[iainctduncan]

This is just completely and laughably wrong. You have no idea how many companies are now owned by PE, and the vast majority of them are run as solid, sensible businesses for five years and then sold again. You have bought into some caricature of what the PE world means.

[satvikpendem]

I wonder if it's also simply selection bias, they only see the failures, because the successes are invisible. I know some tradespeople who set up their own practices and sold it to PE, and the practices are running similarly as before.