Cyber risk escalates in PE when technical findings aren’t translated into deal costs and value impact.
Cyber risk escalates in PE when technical findings aren’t translated into deal costs and value impact.
Unpriced cybersecurity gaps often surface post-close, creating surprise remediation costs that erode value.
Leading PE firms treat cybersecurity as a financial variable tied to insurance, growth and exits.
Private equity firms do not have a cybersecurity problem. They have a translation problem. According to Anthony Catalano, a principal and private equity cybersecurity leader at RSM US LLP, the problem is not a lack of tools or frameworks; it is a persistent translation gap between cyber risk and financial decision making.
“Cybersecurity is not appropriately accounted for in a deal or in a post-close strategy,” Catalano says. “Deal teams are still asking ‘Is cybersecurity adequate?’ instead of understanding what it will actually cost if it’s not there.”
Catalano describes a recurring pattern in PE transactions: limited access during diligence, no defined cybersecurity thesis and an inability to quantify gaps in financial terms. As a result, cyber issues surface late, often after close, creating unplanned costs that directly erode value.
In one recent example he shared, a portfolio company inherited an estimated $1.5 million in cybersecurity remediation costs that were not identified during diligence.
“Now they have an asset they’ve taken on with a $1.5 million surge cost for cybersecurity that no one ever accounted for,” he says. “That impacts valuation because they have to eat that cost, and it compounds as the company grows.”
This disconnect reflects a broader issue: Security findings are still presented in technical language—frameworks, controls, maturity models—while PE investors focus on internal rate of return, multiple on invested capital and exit readiness.
Cybersecurity is not appropriately accounted for in a deal or in a post-close strategy. Deal teams are still asking ‘Is cybersecurity adequate?’ instead of understanding what it will actually cost if it’s not there.
Several structural dynamics are compounding the exposure and risk:
“As soon as deals are announced, attackers go after the organization,” Catalano notes. “It’s a 90‑day window where everything is in flux and attention is not on security as it might need to be.”
Rather than treating cybersecurity as a checklist item, Catalano encourages PE firms to reframe it as a financial and operational discipline. Key actions include:
If PE firms focus on one priority in the near term, Catalano says, “make sure you’re aligned at a baseline with your cyber liability insurance policy. That’s your primary risk transference strategy—and a signal of whether you’re doing the basics.”
Cyber risk is not a technology problem that PE firms fund and move on from. It is a recurring financial variable that shows up in diligence, post-close operations, exit readiness and insurance pricing. The firms getting this right are not the ones with the most sophisticated frameworks. They are the firms that stopped asking whether cybersecurity is adequate and started asking what it would cost if it is not.
For deeper insights on this topic, read the RSM US Middle Market Business Index Special Report: Cybersecurity 2026.
RSM US MMBI