i struggled to make my consulting casework sound like due diligence until i started structuring narratives around asset-level questions. instead of describing ‘we improved client margins by X,’ i reframed projects as: what’s the revenue or cost lever, how sustainable is it, what would an owner pay for that change, and what are the downside scenarios?
i combined two consulting projects into a single dd thread by using a common industry thesis. one project showed commercial upside, the other showed operational leverage. i linked them with numbers and created a one-page ‘investment memo’ that highlighted the thesis, evidence, key risks, and a back-of-envelope valuation. interviewers treated that memo like a real deal artifact and asked way better questions.
who wants to see a redacted example of a memo built from consulting work?
most people paste client slides and call it diligence. no. you must show how a change translates to cashflow and then to valuation. if you can’t sketch a 3-year p&l and a buyer multiple, you’re not telling a dd story. keep it gritty and numbers-first. fluff = automatic pass.
quick ask
combine 2 projects by theme, make a 1pg memo with ops levers + rough valuation. simple and effective.
When converting consulting engagements into due-diligence narratives, focus on the chain from operational insight to cash-flow impact to valuation. Start with a one-line investment thesis, then present the quantitative evidence you have (margin uplift, revenue growth drivers, customer concentration), quantify the time-to-realize, and present sensitivities. Close with two realistic downside scenarios and mitigants. This format forces you to think like an investor and gives interviewers an artifact to probe—much more persuasive than abstract consulting deliverables.
yes — do this! tie projects to cashflow, keep it concise, and you’ll start having much better interviews.
i once stitched two unrelated client projects into a single narrative about distribution economics. it felt awkward at first, but the interviewer loved the pivot: ‘show me you can see how operational fixes become valuation drivers.’ the memo was messy but it got the conversation where i wanted it to go — into downside testing and exit options.
I recommend a three-part template: thesis (1 sentence), evidence (2–3 bullet metrics with baseline and post-intervention estimates), and valuation sensitivity (3 scenarios). In a small study of 20 mock interviews, candidates who presented a one-page memo with those elements saw a 35% higher rate of technical follow-ups than those who relied on slide decks or verbal summaries. The memo communicates both analytical rigor and investor thinking.