After 750+ placements for 36+ PE sponsors, we know exactly where the gaps are. Here is an honest account of why those gaps exist and what Falcon does differently.
Most retained search firms are structured as confederacies of partners who share a brand and split fees. Search partner income is the primary variable each partner optimizes for. Everything else — execution depth, candidate quality, replacement search priority — is constrained by that imperative.
Falcon is a single integrated firm, not a partnership confederation. We are EOS-powered, with firm-level KPIs, measurables, and accountability structures. Our economics are oriented around sponsor outcomes because those outcomes determine whether a sponsor relationship becomes a 10-year relationship. That alignment is structural. It is not something we claim at the pitch meeting and forget about in the execution.
You get the same execution standard on every search, regardless of which partner or principal is running it. You get a replacement search executed with the same intensity as the original, because we pay internal incentive compensation on replacements. Our rivals do not.
Most search firms that handle PE work also handle corporate, venture, non-profit, and non-C-suite mandates. PE work is one practice area among several. The team that runs your CFO search may have run a university president search last month. The PE axe gets sharpened and then dulled. Rinse and repeat.
Every single Falcon search is PE-backed C-suite or Operating Partner. No exceptions. No dilution. Every search sharpens the same understanding of governance nuance, deal performance dynamics, and the specific behavioral profile that survives sponsor ownership. After 750+ searches in this single lane, the pattern recognition is a different category from what a generalist firm can offer.
The person running your search has calibrated dozens of searches in your function or sector. The candidate write-ups reflect real understanding of LBO environments, not functional tenure dressed up in PE language. The sourcing targets candidates that a generalist approach misses because the criteria are more specific.
Most search firms share a curated track record when asked. Progress updates during a search are narrative, not metric. Reason codes on eliminated candidates do not exist. The sponsor's information asymmetry is treated as a feature of the relationship rather than a problem to solve.
Every prospective client receives Falcon's complete placement history before any decision is made. Not highlights. Not the good years. The whole record, with methodology. During a search, weekly pipeline reports contain full funnel data: considered, targeted, engaged, recruited, screened, tested, presented. Reason codes on every eliminated candidate. The deal team knows exactly where the search stands, every week.
You are an informed buyer from day one, not a dependent one. You can see the search clearly enough to give useful input rather than anxiety-driven pressure. And when we share the track record before you sign, you know the number is real because you can verify the methodology.
Many firms source from warm networks and databases of candidates who have previously engaged. These lists are efficient to work but they are not comprehensive. The best candidates for any given search are rarely the people at the top of a pre-existing list. They are in seat, performing, and not thinking about a move.
We map every relevant mid-market transaction before sourcing begins, building a universe of LBO veterans specific to the thesis, sector, and revenue profile of each search. 99% of Falcon's CFO slates and 80+% of all other slates are executives with prior PE-backed experience. We also hold direct relationships with 50,000+ executives through PE-CXO, which means the passive candidates most firms cannot reach are often already in our network. And we persist: up to 10 outreach attempts per target. Our placements respond on the fourth attempt on average.
The first slate you see reflects the actual market, not the available market. The candidates on it are the executives who are genuinely most qualified for this specific thesis, not the ones who happened to be easiest to reach.
Most search firm submissions include a resume, a brief summary of the candidate's background, and a characterization of their interest level. The information is thin. The sponsor burns cycles in interviews discovering things that a more rigorous screen would have surfaced before the first meeting.
Every submitted candidate receives a 3-4 page investment-grade write-up: career arc with organic and inorganic revenue growth, EBITDA outcomes, TEV improvement, the specific value creation levers the executive pulled, compensation current and expected with no surprises at offer, and the intangibles surfaced in the recruiting conversation that do not appear on a resume. The write-up format is modeled on deal team due diligence, not recruiting industry norms.
Your interview time is spent on the decisions that matter, not on background discovery that a good screen should have already handled. The offer conversation has no surprises. The write-up replaces the first 40 minutes of every first-round interview.
Every firm you will consider for a retained search will tell you they are process-driven, candidate-focused, and PE-specialized. Most of them are not lying. They believe it. The differences are structural, and they show up in the execution.
Ask any search firm you are evaluating three questions:
Can I see your full placement history before I sign?
What is your replacement search compensation policy?
What is in your weekly progress report?
The answers will tell you everything you need to know about the model.
