Filters potential acquisition targets against strategic criteria including size, geography, capability gaps, and synergy potential. Use when building target lists, screening M&A pipelines, or identifying bolt-on candidates.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add CaseMark/skills --skill screening-acquisition-targets --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Screening Acquisition Targets?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/casemark-screening-acquisition-targets)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: screening-acquisition-targets
language: en
description: Filters potential acquisition targets against strategic criteria including size, geography, capability gaps, and synergy potential. Use when building target lists, screening M&A pipelines, or identifying bolt-on candidates.
tags:
- screening
- mergers-and-acquisitions
metadata:
author: casemark
practice_areas:
- M&A Advisory
- Corporate Development
- Investment Banking
document_types:
- Screening Report
skill_modes:
- Screening
- Filtering
---
# Screening Acquisition Targets
## When To Use
- Building an initial target universe for a corporate development team or buy-side advisory mandate
- Narrowing a broad industry landscape to a shortlist of actionable acquisition candidates
- Screening bolt-on targets for a platform portfolio company (PE add-on strategy)
- Refreshing or pressure-testing an existing pipeline against updated strategic criteria
- Identifying capability-gap or geographic-expansion targets tied to a specific thesis
## Inputs To Gather
- **Strategic mandate**: Acquirer's stated objectives — capability fill, geographic expansion, revenue/margin accretion, vertical integration, talent acquisition, or technology platform
- **Hard filters**: Revenue range (e.g., $20M–$150M), EBITDA floor, employee count, HQ geography, end-market verticals, ownership type (private, PE-backed, public carve-out, founder-owned)
- **Soft criteria**: Cultural fit signals, customer concentration thresholds, regulatory exposure, IP portfolio relevance, management team retention likelihood
- **Deal parameters**: Maximum enterprise value or equity check, leverage tolerance, earn-out willingness, timeline constraints
- **Source universe**: Specify databases and lists to draw from (e.g., PitchBook, Capital IQ, Mergr, proprietary CRM lists, industry association directories, prior banker outreach logs)
- **Exclusions**: Known pass targets, companies under LOI elsewhere, sanctioned entities, competitors with anti-trust overlap [VERIFY antitrust thresholds per jurisdiction]
## Workflow
1. **Confirm the screening thesis**
- Restate the acquirer's strategic rationale in one paragraph. Get sign-off before filtering.
- Translate qualitative goals ("expand West Coast presence") into measurable proxies (HQ or >30% revenue in CA/OR/WA).
2. **Build the raw universe**
- Pull initial list from specified sources applying only the broadest hard filters (industry code, geography, revenue band).
- De-duplicate by legal entity; flag subsidiaries vs. standalone companies.
- Log universe size (e.g., "843 companies after initial SIC/NAICS + geography filter").
3. **Apply tiered filters**
- **Tier 1 — Quantitative knockout**: Revenue range, EBITDA margin floor, ownership type, geography. Remove non-qualifiers.
- **Tier 2 — Strategic relevance**: End-market alignment, product/service overlap score, capability-gap match. Score 1–5 or pass/fail.
- **Tier 3 — Deal feasibility**: Estimated valuation vs. budget, known seller appetite signals, PE hold-period timing, founder age/succession triggers. Flag unknowns with [VERIFY].
4. **Score and rank survivors**
- Weight criteria per mandate priorities (e.g., strategic fit 40%, financial profile 30%, deal feasibility 30%).
- Produce a ranked list with composite score and individual dimension scores.
- Separate into tiers: **Priority** (top 10–15), **Secondary** (next 15–25), **Watch list** (remainder worth monitoring).
5. **Validate the shortlist**
- Cross-check Priority targets against recent news, M&A rumors, disclosed financials, and litigation searches.
- Flag potential antitrust concerns if combined market share exceeds reporting thresholds [VERIFY HSR thresholds and filing requirements].
- Identify any targets that are portfolio companies of the acquirer's existing investors or LPs (conflict check).
6. **Prepare the screening output**
- Compile into the deliverable format below. Include methodology notes so the screening is reproducible.
## Output
The screening report should contain:
- **Executive summary**: Mandate recap, universe size at each filter stage, final shortlist count
- **Screening criteria table**: Each filter listed with definition, threshold, and pass/fail logic
- **Target shortlist**: One-page profile per Priority target covering:
- Company name, HQ, founding year, ownership structure
- Revenue, EBITDA, growth rate (trailing 3-year CAGR where available)
- Key products/services and end-market mix
- Strategic fit rationale (2–3 sentences)
- Preliminary valuation bracket (comparable multiples or rules of thumb — mark [VERIFY] if based on estimated financials)
- Known deal appetite or succession signals
- Red flags or open diligence questions
- **Secondary and watch-list tables**: Name, headline metrics, reason for lower ranking
- **Methodology appendix**: Data sources, filter sequence, scoring weights, date of data pull
- **Exclusion log**: Targets removed after Tier 1/2 with removal reason (useful for audit trail and future re-screening)
## Quality Checks
- Every hard filter threshold traces back to a stated mandate requirement — no arbitrary cutoffs
- No target appears on the shortlist without a scored strategic-fit rationale
- Financial data points cite their source and vintage; any estimate is marked [VERIFY]
- Antitrust and conflict-of-interest flags are addressed before the list is circulated [VERIFY jurisdiction-specific filing thresholds]
- Universe funnel math is internally consistent (raw count → Tier 1 survivors → Tier 2 → Tier 3 → final shortlist)
- Ownership status is confirmed (a "private" target may have been acquired since the last database refresh)
- The report does not contain material non-public information (MNPI) unless sourced through compliant channels [VERIFY information-barrier policies]
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!