Matt Hinson's Posts

Debt-like items: buyer beware

Matthew Hinson — Wed, 27 Jan 2021 11:00:46 GMT

A few weeks ago, I posted some thoughts on calculating working capital. In that post, I used the analogy of purchasing a car to illustrate the need for a working capital target and subsequent true up.

One of the takeaways from that piece is that the sole purpose of a working capital adjustment is to align purchase price with the value of assets actually received. If we fail to perform the calculation correctly, we run the risk of receiving less value than we actually paid for.

Another way that we may potentially receive less value than we paid for is by failing to accurately flag and quantify debt-like items. These are not “long-term debt” as traditionally defined by generally accepted accounting principles; financial liabilities like term loans, revolving lines of credit etc. but they are similar to long-term debt in that they represent post-transaction uses of cash. They can be recorded in the financial statements or live off the books. Debt-like items are simply obligations to post-closing cash that arise from choices made by the buyer pre-transaction.

Identifying debt-like items during diligence is extremely important. In my experience, their appearance post-close is the most common source of drag to investment returns as opposed to poor valuation. The reason for this is that valuation, which should be approached as a range of values, can be highly subjective. Debt like items however are claims to hard dollars.

Here’s another way to think about them. The seller of a business made certain decisions and incurred obligations that gave rise to pre-transaction benefits. They have already received these benefits. Each dollar from your own purse that you use to extinguish these obligations instead of them is a dollar of purchase price.

If you are aware of these obligations and decide to proceed, that’s OK. The goal of the transaction after all is to give the seller purchase price in exchange for this stream of economic benefits. This purchase price can be delivered in many forms. The situation that you want to avoid however is the one where you believe you are investing $X in a business but inadvertently invest much more. This is surprise purchase price and that is the absolute worst form.

Many who might read this have heard the stories, perhaps had their own experiences. Soon after closing the surprise cash draws arise. Maybe the IT system isn’t up to snuff. Maybe the sales manager was promised a raise last year and you have to make good or she quits. In both cases, assuming your original purchase price reflected a going concern value and now you have to shell out more dollars to cure the issue, you’ve just paid additional purchase price. Even worse, what you pitched your investors as a 5.0x deal is really now 6.0x or more.

Identifying debt-like items

The most common reason debt-like items are overlooked is that they don’t often show up on the face of the financials. If your target has an annual audit, the footnotes may be a great place to look. In the lower middle market, this is uncommon.

Given the above, it is difficult to design a specific set of financial due diligence procedures to uncover them. You can however greatly increase your probability with a few best practices.

One way to identify debt-like items is to make sure you are active in supplemental due diligence streams, even if outsourced our outside your core competency. Most commonly, you you will flag a debt-like item when you hear something in one diligence stream that doesn’t comport with something you heard elsewhere.

For example, the CFO might have confirmed in financial diligence that no sales discounts have been granted during the past quarter. If your attorney notes on a call during contract review (which should encompass sales contracts) that she noted two contracts for bulk purchases at a discount, the alarm bells should go off.

It’s very easy to turn diligence into a check the box exercise. Especially in auction processes or deals with aggressive timelines. Approaching it holistically will help each work stream compliment the other.

Another way to identify a debt-like item is to ask redundant questions. In my experience, it’s not only important to continue asking the same question but to ask it to a lot of different people. Often times, someone won’t know an answer to a question and by human nature will tell you something that 1. doesn’t make them look bad or 2. just makes the most sense. This doesn’t make them a bad person. It just makes them human.

One way to hack this is by asking the same question to a lot of people to make sure their stories align. For example, you may want to know about the existence of purchase commitments. Ask the controller about it during your deep-dive into the financials. Then ask the operations manager about it during the plant tour. Then ask the AP manager when you take the accounting team out to lunch and the controller has gone to the bathroom.

Finally, another way to get better at identifying debt-like items is to get as many diligence repetitions as you can. The more reps you have, the more data points you have to reference as you hear folks make comments or see items in the financials that look odd. This doesn’t help a first or second time buyer so I’ve included a list of items below that are typically considered debt-like. This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive list but a few that are commonly found in the wild.

Treatment of Debt-like items:

If you identify a debt-like item, you can handle it in a few different ways. The first and most buyer-friendly is to make a direct purchase price adjustment. This is probably the best place to start. Particularly if it represents a claim to hard dollars’ post-close.

An example of an item where a direct purchase price adjustment is preferred is a transaction bonus for a key employee. This was clearly initiated for the seller’s benefit – executing a deal. As such, it should be their financial burden to bear. Again, the idea is that if you to pay this in their place you are giving them additional proceeds.

Another way to handle debt-like items is through a special escrow. An example of a debt-like item where this is appropriate is pending or threatened litigation. Say the target company is party to litigation that will be resolved within the year. You estimate that if the company loses the suit, it will be liable for $500K in damages. In this case, you might ask the seller to withhold $500K in proceeds in a special indemnity escrow to be release after one year. This is often a good compromise because you have strong downside protection should the worst case scenario materialize but the seller still has a path to full value should the suit be found frivolous.

A final option to consider is the use of specific insurance around representations within the purchase documents. Reps and warranties insurance is a special insurance policy that can be purchased to backstop specific representations made by the seller regarding the state of the company. For example, the company may represent within the purchase agreement that there are no outstanding escheat obligations or unclaimed funds. An insurance company may be willing to underwrite a policy covering this and other representations that will pay you should the representations be false. This may not be an option for buyers in the lower middle market and SMB space.

Folks reading this will know that treatment of items like these doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Getting a direct purchase price adjustment or additional escrow dollars isn’t always as easy as just asking.

My goal here is to help buyers become more diligent in identifying debt-like item so that they can pursue the best course of action in that particular deal. Again, the worst outcome is for a buyer to be surprised post-close. If you know about them, at the very least you can plan for it in your operating model. At best, you can come to an agreement with the seller to properly account for them in your valuation or structure.

How to jam a buyer

Matthew Hinson — Sun, 20 Dec 2020 11:00:15 GMT

Back in college, one of my professors spent a week teaching us how to commit accounting fraud. He covered everything from skimming the till, to creating phony financial statements. He believed that understanding how fraud happens in the real world is more useful to an auditor than simply learning a bunch of rote procedures. I think that was a good approach.

In all of my financial due diligence engagements, I never encountered a case of fraud. I saw plenty of errors but most of those were just plain mistakes and not malfeasance. I did once encounter a seller with a second family running through the company payroll. That is not accounting fraud though. His business, his money.

He was upfront about it. All of the details were open to potential buyers. All he asked for was an EBITDA addback since it was non-operating in nature along with our discretion.

The sellers that I have encountered have largely been honest and hard-working folks. An M&A deal presents about as much information asymmetry as one could imagine though. This is an opportunity for a seller to take advantage of a buyer. Thus no matter how much trust and rapport is built, the best approach is buyer beware.

As such, I think it would be helpful to present a few ways in which a seller might actually do this. Like my accounting professor’s approach, I think that showing you the dark side might be more useful in avoiding a landmine than simply giving you a list of diligence questions.

I have not seen these examples directly in a deal. They are risks talked through with buyers and sellers during diligence. The best way to cover your ass in a deal is to think of the worst potential scenario and work backward probabilistically. As you read these, you might find them silly and think, “I would never fall for that”. Maybe not.

You would be surprised though at how often things like this just fall through the cracks as errors and are discoveries after closing. Now think about easy it would be for someone with all the information to fool you on purpose.

To that end, here are some ways a seller could jam you:

1. Creating income via change in accounting principle: One of the easiest ways a seller may fool you is by simply changing one of assumptions they make in arriving at the reported numbers. One example of this is the allowance for doubtful accounts or bad debt reserve.

The table below presents a typical accounts receivable aging along with an allowance for doubtful accounts. In the initial total column, the aging aggregates the individual customer balances to arrive at Gross Receivables and then applies a bad debt reserve of 5% of the gross balance (completely made up for sake of example). A company could calculate their reserve any number of ways but the important thing is that it should be generally consistent from year to year.

If a seller wanted to create income, one way they could do it would be to lower the reserve percentage, releasing income into the P&L. The second total column illustrates the net AR balance if the company revised their allowance to 2% of gross accounts receivable.

Changing this assumption results in a revised net receivables balance. The journal entry to arrive there results in a $17 benefit to the P&L.

During diligence, it can hard to spot changes like this on the face of the financials. If your target does an annual audit there will likely be a footnote describing changes in accounting principle. This is uncommon in the middle market though. You are more likely to find a messy GL that buries items like these in “Other Income”. Your best bet is to request general ledger details for large accounts like Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, Fixed Assets, Accrued Expenses, etc. and just dig in.

It can make for tedious work but I always request the general ledger at a transaction or journal entry level. The transaction level detail will show you all debits and credits within a set of financials for a given time period. This allows you to sleuth your own answers without having to funnel questions through the accounting department. You can also scan for any entries that appear to be judgmental or non-operating.

2. Gaming the closing around timing of processes like payroll, check runs etc.: These can be hiding in plain sight. It’s common for experienced buyers to slip here.

Companies generally compile financial statements at month, quarter, or year-end. These financials feed your diligence analyses like QoE, NWC, etc. and inform the numbers in your purchase documents. One way a seller could try to game you is by closing the transaction at a different point during the month. Said another way, the balance sheet at mid-month could be significantly different from month-end. If not correctly contemplated in your closing mechanism, you could be holding the bag.

An example of this is accrued payroll. Imagine that our imaginary target pays employees once a month, on the 31st, for work performed through that payroll date. On the month-end financials, accrued payroll will be $0 because there is no outstanding liability at that time. Employees will accrue wages beginning on the next day and receive their check on the next month-end. This cycle drives growth in the accrued balance throughout the month until it is relieved on payday.

Now imagine that you are calculating a working capital target. The seller has provided you with a clean set of financials (prepared as of month-end) for the last several years. Great data! That may look similar to the following table:

As a part of your diligence, you did a detailed walkthrough of the month-end balances and requested a breakdown of each account. Your detail of accrued expenses might look like the below:

Everything here looks reasonable. In our example, you and the seller might agree that an average of the previous three years NWC, Reported, or $682 is a reasonable target. In your purchase agreement, you might be so thorough as to define accrued expenses as including accrued interest, accrued income taxes, and accrued professional services. Now you’re all set to close…

A few weeks before closing the seller asks you to move the closing up to the 15th. They want to go on vacation with their family and this better aligns with their schedule. In the interest of being a good principal, you agree.

Your problem now is that that the balance of accrued expenses on the 15th of the month is very different from the 31st and you missed it. The table below shows an example. Month-end accrued expenses is $49. Mid-month is $95.

The expense here would be on your dime either way. Had you flagged this in diligence though you would have included accrued salaries and wages in the definition of net working capital in the purchase agreement and at settlement, the true-up mechanism would reflect that the amount delivered was lower than the target. This would result in a credit to you for the difference. Without including it in the definition, you would have to eat the $46.

You could ask all the right questions here and still miss it. You asked the seller for a detailed break down at 12/31 and they showed it to you.

The key to finding things like this is to step back and talk about processes vs. financial results. Discuss how $1 moves through the working capital cycle. Take a calendar and just markup important days of the month. Examples of this would be payroll runs, debt service payments, when the company cuts checks, etc.

3. Hanging expenses up on the balance sheet – If I wanted to fool somebody, this would be the way.

In item #1, I talked about how someone might use reserves to create phony income. The other way to use the balance sheet is to hang expenses up via capitalization so that you delay their recognition for as long as possible.

When you capitalize something to the balance sheet, you push the accounting recognition of the cost over future periods. The business takes the cash hit but the P&L impact leaks out in dribs and drabs that appear much less costly from month to month.

This fib relies solely on buyer inexperience. It’s a gamble that you’ll just miss it. If you’re not an accountant or not willing to pay one to help you they are easy to gloss over.

One way a company might do this is by simply fluffing up the name of the expense to sound more reasonable. “Marketing expense” might be “capitalized customer acquisition”. Payroll for a fleet manager may be “fixed assets administration” etc. hoping that you hear “fixed assets” and just move on.

Another way a company could defer expenses is by just being aggressive with items that could go either way. Said another way, when something is a toss-up between expense vs. capitalize a company might just always defer to capitalization.

Most companies have a monetary threshold above which they capitalize expenses, say $5,000. If a cost is less than the threshold they expense it. If more, it is capitalized.

A company could be aggressive and just set the bar at $2,500. Ceteris paribus, this would push more dollars to the balance sheet to trickle out over time vs. hitting COGS or SG&A in the period of purchase.

These are just three examples of items to keep in mind as you go through diligence. The best way to stay out of trouble is to look at as many businesses as you can and just get more repetitions. The more companies and deals you see, the more reference points you have.

These form a latticework to frame your overall diligence approach. You’ll then have a better idea of where to dig when you hear the seller say something odd or perhaps you see something in the numbers that just doesn’t make sense.

Calculating Working Capital

Matthew Hinson — Mon, 14 Dec 2020 02:12:04 GMT

One of the most complicated parts of closing a deal is calculating the Net Working Capital (“NWC”) target and settlement. In recent years, NWC has become an opportunity for buyers and sellers to take advantage of each other through asymmetric information or legalese. All of this can make calculating the target one of the most tedious tasks of any deal.

This is meant to help anyone approaching NWC for the first time or wanting to brush up a little. It’s framed from a buyer’s perspective but hopefully could be useful to either side.

Why is a NWC settlement even necessary?

Confusion often arises from a fundamental misunderstanding of why a NWC mechanism is necessary in a deal. I like to use the following example in discussions with sellers:

If you think of your business as a car, working capital is the gasoline. At this point in the deal, I’ve decided that I want to buy your car and we’ve settled on a purchase price. The next step is for us to figure out how much gas should be in the tank when I drive your car off the lot.

It’s in the seller’s interest for the tank to be as low as possible. As the buyer, I would love for the tank to be full. Together we should analyze the needs of the business and identify what a normal level of “gas” should be. Normal for a Hummer isn’t normal for a Prius.

What makes buying a business more complicated is the number of items that impact working capital at once. In our example of buying the car, you can easily look at the fuel gauge to see how much gas is in the tank at closing. In a business, the constant fluctuation of accounts make it far too difficult to accurately calculate the level of NWC at closing. Inventory is in transit, vendor checks are in the mail, receipts are being processed, etc. all at the exact same time.

For this reason, parties usually wait for a period, typically 90-120 days after closing, and after the dust has settled they will look back and calculate the amount of NWC that was actually delivered at close.

Now let’s go back to our example of buying a car. Say that we have agreed that a half a tank is a normal level. After the lookback period is over and we find out that you have given me three fourths of a tank, I will give you some additional purchase price for the difference. If we find out that you have only given me a quarter tank, you will agree to top me off.

The key takeaway here is that the actual settlement payment from one party to another is only a true up to economics that were previously agreed upon. Often buyers and sellers mistakenly see the settlement payment as winning or losing.

Another way to think about it is this: principals on either side of a deal can do a poor job of negotiating NWC and still get a settlement payment or vice versa.

Why is setting the NWC target so complicated?

Most complexity in setting a NWC target arises from one of the following questions. Each is an opportunity for disagreement that can significantly slow down or halt progress toward completion of a deal:

1. What items should be included or excluded from the calculation of NWC?

2. How should we quantify the items that we have agreed should be included or excluded?

3. What time-period offers the best view of a normal level of working capital?

What items/accounts should be included or excluded from the calculation of NWC?

In any given deal, 80%-90% of the items to be included/excluded are “no brainers” or items that never present cause for disagreement. These are usually items like fixed assets or intangibles. The problem is that the other 10% - 20% of accounts that comprise the balance are open to interpretation.

Keep in mind here that smart people can disagree. For that reason, calculating the NWC target is an art as well as a science. Hard numbers feed into the final calculations but there are always exceptions.

The exhibit below illustrates the way that I start a working capital analysis (note: all numbers here are completely made up). I begin with numbers that are commonly agreed by buyer and seller. Typically, this is the seller’s reported balance sheet. You want to start with reported numbers here because inevitably some disagreement will arise. If you start with the seller’s reported numbers and make adjustments from there, it is easier to bridge the gap and discuss the specific points of difference.

We will work from here to flesh out our view of normalized NWC or NWC, Adjusted.

Consider two items included in the definition of NWC, Reported - Cash and Current Portion of Long Term Debt. Most transactions close on a “cash-free/debt-free basis”, meaning that the economics of the deal reflect the business as if the seller took all cash from the business at closing and retired all outstanding debt. This does not necessarily mean that those actions occur at closing but the economics of the deal are premised on it.

This is beneficial for the seller when evaluating offers from multiple bidders who may have varying views on things like pro-forma debt and how much cash should remain in the business.

Buyers also prefer to look at deals this way because their cost of capital and debt structure may likely be different from the seller’s. As such, their valuation should be based on an expected earnings stream that reflects those differences.

The key takeaway here is that your approach to setting your NWC should be consistent with the overall approach to structuring a deal. Many buyers get into trouble by approaching each stage of the deal as a standalone work stream. Your approach to valuation, structure, NWC, etc. should be approached holistically and consistently.

In this case, to align with our “cash free/debt free” offer we will adjust for the impact of cash and debt in NWC.

The process becomes harder as we move into areas that require a higher degree of judgment. These adjustments may not be taken directly from the face of the financial statements. Rather, they typically require some digging to find, usually through detailed discussions with the seller at a trial balance level.

A common place to start the discussion is with accrued expenses - items incurred by the company but not paid. A great example of this is accrued salaries and wages.

I would start by discussing the company’s payroll process with the seller. That might inform me that month end falls on a Friday but employees were paid the previous Wednesday. If your financial statements are prepared through Friday, they should reflect two additional workdays earned by employees during that month but not paid until the following payroll run. My follow up question to the seller would be if they accrued for them. If the answer here was “no”, an adjustment is necessary.

Another way to identify these, beyond a process walkthrough is to request a more detailed breakdown of accrued expenses from the company. The type of data available will vary from company to company but something like the below is typical. Always remember to agree the detail to the balance sheet feeding your NWC analysis.

In our imaginary deal here, the valuation is based on a multiple of Adjusted EBITDA. Since this excludes interest expense and taxes, we should make adjustments for those when calculating NWC. See the table below for mechanics.

Most potential adjustments kick out when you notice trends or activity in a particular account that just seem odd. Candidly, you’ll just get better about sensing what is odd as you get more deal reps. You’ll also learn that businesses just account for different items in different ways and most of this activity will have a perfectly valid explanation. Occasionally you will find an error, which should result in an easy conversation and correction. Your job here is simply to ask the question and learn the answer. More common in smaller deals, you will come across items that are neither right nor wrong but just the result of how the seller chooses to run things. Personal and owner related expenses in the business are usually the most common occurrence.

In the summary table above, notice how Accounts Payable seems to increase in Dec19 when it’s been steady for the previous two years. This would suggest that we should dig a little deeper and ask for a detail of the account. This would normally come in the form of an Accounts Payable Aging similar to the below:

Upon examination of the detail, one vendor appears to be very different from the others. In this instance, you may have gleaned from previous steak dinners with the seller that they are an aficionado of fine wine. This is enough information to ask the question about whether this is business related or not.

Christmas gifts to employees or select customers may pass the operational vs. non-operational test but in this case, we would ask the questions anyway. In our imaginary deal, the seller might tell us that they are purely personal purchases that were paid through the business. As such, we should consider them non-operating in nature and an adjustment to NWC.

Key takeaway here: expenses that are personal in nature are not right or wrong. They may inform our opinion of the sellers’ general level of business hygiene but it’s their business and they can run it how they wish. The best way to approach these items is in a non-judgmental way.

How should we quantify the items that we have decided should be included/excluded?

There may be accounts that are clear in their classification of inclusion in NWC but they may still require additional adjustment to quantify how much. Take accounts receivable for instance. There’s no doubt that AR is a part of NWC, but should all of it be?

Notice in our summary NWC table above that Accounts Receivable has been growing over the past few years. If the business has been growing, this may be expected but imagine in this case that business is relatively stable. In order to identify what may be going on in Accounts Receivable we might ask for an Accounts Receivable Aging similar to the below:

An Accounts Receivable Aging report gives us a view of how old the outstanding receivables are. Generally, the older the receivable the more questionable its collectability. It’s a great idea to ask for an Inventory Aging report as well which may give insight as to which products are moving and which products are languishing on the warehouse shelves.

In this Accounts Receivable Aging, we can see that Customer 5 has a balance that has been outstanding for over a year when other customers seem to be paying on time. As with the items flagged before, this should be brought up to the seller in a non-judgmental way to get a better understanding of the reason for the aged receivable and whether or not it’s collectable.

It’s not uncommon for businesses to get behind in cleaning up things like this, especially in smaller companies that may be less sophisticated. Again, it’s not right or wrong but simply the way they do things.

In a larger business, someone may review receivables regularly for items that may need to be written off. Here let’s assume that the owner tells you that this customer has been in financial straits for some time and that this receivable has actually been sitting on the books since 2017 and is likely uncollectable.

Based on this explanation, this portion of the overall accounts receivable balance should be excluded from NWC, Adjusted. As such, we adjust for it in our calculation below.

One final point to make here is that often you will identify items which impact several different work streams. Here, if we exclude this receivable from our calculation of NWC, Adjusted, it’s also appropriate to reflect the impact in our calculation of Adjusted EBITDA in the time period it was originally recorded. In this case, a negative adjustment of $25 should ding the 2017 P&L.

What time-period offers the best view of a normal level of working capital?

Our final complication here is the consideration of what time period accurately reflects the working capital needs of the business.

One component of this is seasonality within a given year. Large retailers for example have inventory balances that swell ahead of major holidays. Growth within a particular business may have led to increased sales. This would likely drive higher inventory purchases and payables to service it. In this case, you would likely see growing receivables on the other side.

The overall goal of our diligence here is to inform a view on the amount of working capital necessary to service the needs of the businesses cash conversion cycle post-transaction. The best way to do this is to consider each component of working capital and it’s associated timing in addition to the overall working capital trend.

This approach will ensure that you really understand the mechanics of the cash conversion cycle and how a company transforms cash flow out into cash flow coming in.

At this stage of the analysis, it’s best to look at the components on a monthly basis if possible. Varying levels of sophistication impact what data is available but if possible, a good place to start would be a monthly detail of Accounts Receivable. This would look similar to the below:

We can see from the table that there is a swell in accounts receivable during the summer.

This trend would tell us that an adjustment is likely necessary to reflect the seasonality of working capital. Often, buyers default to a yearly average. This would be more appropriate than the reporting Dec19 balance but we likely need to analyze further to determine the time-period over which an average would make sense.

Recall from our discussions with the seller that Customer 5 is likely uncollectable, thus we should remove its impact from the analysis. Next we examine the average level of receivables over the past three, six, and twelve month periods in order to get a view of the average levels at various points in time.

In our imaginary deal, suppose that we have discussed the upcoming working capital needs of the business and agree that an average of the last six months is appropriate as it reflects the likely working capital need post-transaction and enough runway before the summer build.

I would then compare this average to the reported amount to arrive at an adjustment for seasonality in accounts receivable.

Your AR seasonality analysis should accompany similar work on other large working capital items such as inventory or accounts payable to better understand the interplay between them as dollars work through the cash conversion cycle. On larger deals, it is typical to analyze working capital on a monthly basis for all accounts in order to get a view on the entire working capital trend. The ability to perform analyses at this level of detail may not be available on smaller deals.

One other important consideration is that seasonality is often considered from an inter-month standpoint, i.e., how does the balance trend from month-end to month-end? Within any given month though, working capital needs can vary greatly from the month-end reported balance due to the timing of large expenses like payroll, batched inventory purchases, or AP payments.

It’s important to spend some time with the seller discussing these inter-month needs to make sure you don’t miss large items that could surprise you post-deal.

It's also important to make sure your closing date timing mirrors the reporting dates used in your working capital analysis. For example, if you set your target based off month-end balances but decide to close on the 15th someone may be surprised when a large payroll run or other bill is due.

How do we come to agreement with the seller?

Performing an analysis of working capital can take a lot of work but if you can’t come to terms with the seller in a productive way all that work may be for naught. I’ve found that the following steps are key in making the discussion around NWC as smooth as possible.

1. Agree on approach first – The foundation for success is placed when framing the LOI which should include the broad strokes of a NWC mechanism. The key here is to avoid surprises and the best way to avoid those is through regular discussion along the way. Your LOI plants the seed.

As diligence proceeds, the next step is a detailed discussion on approach. This conversation should note the data that you will look at and analyses you will perform. The aim of this conversation is to get on the same page and to that end, I find it helpful to leave out the numbers. This allows you to narrow your focus to the “what” and the “why”. Subsequent conversations will address the “how much”. A few typical items that you may note to the seller are below

2. Schedule an extended due diligence session and show up prepared – Your general request list should be detailed enough and include items sufficient to form a preliminary view on working capital before your first detailed discussion. This includes an Accounts Receivable Aging, Accounts Payable Aging, Inventory detail by SKU, etc.

These items can be the basis of a detailed discussion about specific components and your thoughts on a quantified amount. It’s best to have a preliminary number fleshed out with a bridge from the seller’s reported financials to a preliminary NWC, Adjusted.

The goal here is to make your discussion around “how much” as substantive as possible and not drawn out. You want to hit bottom on a collaborative answer as soon as possible. Discussions around NWC usually happen in the later stages of the deal and can cause “deal fatigue” like no other. The way to combat this is to have your ducks in a row and don’t waste the sellers time.

These discussions are also an opportunity to build trust and rapport that may be useful in other deal discussions.

It’s also important that your preliminary view on working capital is well thought out, respectful of both sides, and not approached as an opportunity to take advantage of them.

3. Incorporate any findings and changes from the diligence session quickly – In a perfect world, a majority of adjustments in either direction will be agreed to during the preliminary discussion. Any remaining items requiring further analysis are to be wrapped up expeditiously so that you can revert to the seller with final numbers.

With respect to negotiation at this point, it’s best to define all points of contention before attempting to settle any one. This helps prevent the seller from “re-trading” certain items with a never-ending supply of new issues.

4. Shake hands and fill the numbers into the SPA.

M&A, deals, PE, business, management

Matthew Hinson — Sun, 13 Dec 2020 20:00:47 GMT

Hi. I work in acquisitions at a private equity backed healthcare company. Before this I was a consultant focusing on transaction services at Alvarez & Marsal and then for a while on my own. I'm a CPA by training, starting my career as an accountant with Deloitte. I also did some time as an analyst with a regional investment bank.

I live in Gainesville, FL with my wife and two kids. I'm originally from North Carolina with a long stop in Atlanta in between.

Subscribe now

In the meantime, tell your friends!