Three analysts per memo. Same conviction, less time.
Drop in the model, the filings, or the deck. Three reads, the disagreements on the page, and a recommendation you can defend in IC.
Marginally accretive, but only if you assume EBITDA growth above 11%. The current management plan calls for 8%. Without growth above plan, year-3 IRR drops below your hurdle.
Accretive if you refinance the second lien at year 2. Without that, debt service eats the upside and the deal is a coupon clipper at best.
Comparable transactions in the last 6 months priced 0.7x lower. The structure is fine; the entry multiple is the issue. Re-cut at 9.5x and the question goes away.
Deal works at the right entry. At 10.2x with management's 8% growth plan, IRR is below hurdle if rates stay above 5.5%. Re-negotiate to 9.5x or condition the deal on the year-2 refinance and accept the execution risk.
What changes for you
Avoid groupthink. The model that disagrees usually catches the assumption that breaks the thesis.
One model crunches, one writes the memo, one fact-checks the comps. The synthesis is the IC-ready version.
Deal context, prior memos, and the comp set carry across rooms.
Which mind to ask
Each model leans differently. Maya keeps the differences visible.
Best for memo writing, careful narrative around numbers, and IC-quality prose.
Best for the model itself, sensitivity tables, and structured financial reasoning.
Best for current market data, comparable transactions, and quick fact-checks against filings.
Where teams reach for it
Hear from three minds, get one verdict.
New accounts get $1 of trial credit. No card required to begin.