Decisions our work changed.

Situation. A buyer was evaluating a warehouse-based distributor with owned hard assets, listed around $4 million at a multiple that looked reasonable.

The issue. A required inventory purchase sat outside the asking price. The reported owner earnings also arrived with no bridge to the financial statements.

The stakes. Day-one funding rose from about $4 million to at least $4.7 million before other closing costs. A buyer who financed the headline price would have been at least $700,000 short at closing.

The decision. The buyer submitted an LOI built on the real funding figure rather than the headline price.

Situation. A buyer was evaluating a multi-location aesthetics business in an affluent market, listed around $4 million on about $4 million of revenue and $1 million of reported EBITDA.

The issue. Nothing in the materials connected that EBITDA to provider pay, management cost, or results by location.

The stakes. At 4x, every dollar of overstated EBITDA would have cost the buyer four dollars of purchase price.

The decision. The buyer submitted an LOI with the price subject to a quality of earnings review, and $400,000 held back until the EBITDA was confirmed.

Situation. A buyer was evaluating a training operator with owned hard assets, listed just under $2 million at roughly 2x reported owner earnings.

The issue. The margin was unusually high, with no reconciliation to costs such as equipment, instructors, and facilities. The authority to deliver its current services rested on a certification claim the materials did not establish.

The stakes. Without that authority, the revenue the buyer was paying for was at risk, and the low multiple was not a bargain.

The decision. The buyer held the LOI until both conditions were checked. The certification covered only part of the current services, and the buyer walked away before paying for diligence.