Richard Wilson: applying a diligence claim to your own team

Richard used an example involving former investigators in his due diligence module. A group promoted its investigative background, and he asked whether it had applied equally thorough examination to itself.

The claimed strength sets an expectation

Richard recalled a group saying its former FBI experience supported its diligence work. His response was to ask why the group did not also have thorough diligence available on its own people. He connected the outward claim with evidence an investor could examine about the team making it.

Common practice was a separate question

In his account, the group asked whether everybody did that. Richard argued that being common was the wrong test for a proposed improvement. The narrower example here is a consistency check: does the team's own preparation demonstrate the particular strength it advertises?

In Richard C. Wilson's words

"why don't you have super thorough due diligence on yourself?" (Richard C. Wilson, Richard C. Wilson's recorded Rainmaker Series module)

How to use this

Select one claimed strength and identify evidence of it inside the team.
Assess whether the evidence helps the investor, beyond asking whether competitors provide it.

Questions and answers

What claim did Richard examine?

An investigative background offered as an advantage in diligence.

What did he suggest the group examine?

Its own team, with the thoroughness it claimed to bring to investments.