Mandate Comparison

Curated by Vinod Kumar Jain & Amit Jain · All Frontier Global · free, no login

Two mandates are rarely comparable as quoted: one is larger, one is likelier, one ties up six months. Enter up to three and this puts them on the same footing — expected value, net of the costs you carry either way, and expected value per month of effort, which is the number that decides which to chase when you cannot chase both. Expected values are planning aids, not forecasts, and the probabilities are yours.

The arithmetic, in order

• Gross fee = deal value × success fee % · Expected value = gross fee × probability
• Net expected value = expected value − costs carried either way
• Expected value per month = net expected value ÷ months of effort — the comparison that matters when the constraint is your time rather than your money
• Break-even probability = costs ÷ gross fee × 100, shown per mandate

Honest limits

• Expected values are planning aids, not forecasts. Each of these closes or does not. The expected value is what you would average across many like it, and you are running these.
• The probabilities are the weakest inputs and they are yours. If two mandates differ mainly in the probability you assigned, the comparison is measuring your optimism, not the deals.
• Months of effort is usually understated, and understated most for the mandate you find most exciting.
• Single currency, no discounting for time, and no allowance for the option value of a relationship that outlives the mandate. Related: the single-mandate ROI view and the offer comparator, which uses the same arrangement logic for a different decision.

Sources

None. Every figure is one you entered and the arithmetic is written out above; nothing is fetched or stored.

← all tools Business library