Read the credentials list correctly
Start by separating firm credentials from personal credentials. A tombstone on a website shows the firm was involved, not that your prospective advisor led it.
Then look at distribution rather than total. Are the transactions clustered in one sector and size band, or scattered? Clustering indicates a specialism. Scattering can indicate a generalist practice, which is fine if that is what you need.
Finally, check dates. A dense recent record and a thin recent record with a strong past tell different stories about current market access.
The questions that surface the reality
For a shortlist of three or four cited transactions, ask:
What was your personal role, and who else from the firm worked on it? How long did the process take from mandate to close? How many counterparties did you approach, and how many engaged? Did the final terms differ materially from the initial expectation, and why? What went wrong, and what would you do differently?
The last question is the most useful. Advisors who answer it concretely have reflected on their work. Advisors who say nothing went wrong are describing a process that does not exist.
Ask about the deals that did not close
Every advisor has processes that failed. Ask about one or two, and about the ratio of mandates signed to transactions completed over the past three years.
A low completion rate is not automatically negative, since some advisors take on difficult mandates deliberately. What matters is whether they can explain the pattern. Failed processes caused by market conditions, valuation gaps or a buyer withdrawing are normal. Failed processes caused by poor preparation are a warning.
Run reference calls that produce information
Ask for references from clients rather than counterparties, and ask for at least one from a transaction that did not complete.
Useful reference questions, phrased to invite honest answers:
How was the work actually divided between you and the advisor? Which parts of the process did the advisor improve most? Where did you have to push them? How did they behave when the buyer or investor tried to reprice? Would you use them again for the same mandate, and for a different one?
Ask the reference who else you should speak to. Second-degree references are often more candid.
Verify independently where you can
Cross-check what you are told against public sources: company registers, funding announcements, press coverage, professional profiles and industry databases.
You are not auditing anyone. You are checking that the picture is consistent. Discrepancies in dates, roles or transaction sizes are worth asking about directly, and there is often an innocent explanation.
Signals worth noting
Positive: specific detail about counterparties and market conditions, willingness to describe failures, references offered without hesitation, clear separation of personal and firm work, current knowledge of pricing in your segment.
Negative: aggregate deal value used as the main credential, reluctance to name the working team, references limited to written quotes, guaranteed outcomes, valuation promises made before seeing your numbers, and pressure to sign quickly.
None of these is conclusive on its own. A pattern of them is.