Selected Works

Representative Deal Screens showing how SHP helps buyers advance, validate, deprioritize, or stop opportunities before committing to diligence.

Deal Screen is SHP's focused pre-LOI review. We test each opportunity against the buyer's acquisition criteria, identify the assumptions controlling the decision, and isolate the fastest ways the opportunity could break.

Stop

HEALTHCARE SERVICES

Asking price without a supportable earnings basis

The materials reported the same approximate figure for both revenue and earnings, then gave a materially different owner-earnings number. The unit-level math didn't reconcile to annual revenue either. No coherent earnings basis for an eight-figure ask.

What we saw. An eight-figure asking price supported by a compact set of seller-reported figures: a headline revenue number, an earnings number that approximately equaled it, and a separate owner-earnings figure well below both. Seller financing was on offer.

Why it mattered. The same approximate figure was used for both revenue and EBITDA, which cannot both be true, and the owner-earnings line matched what the materials elsewhere described as a single week of activity. Unit-level revenue assumptions also did not reconcile to the reported annual figure. Taken together, the materials did not establish a coherent earnings basis for the price being asked.

Minimum evidence before LOI. Accountant-prepared financial statements and a high-level bridge between operating activity, reported revenue, and owner earnings.

Deal Screen posture: Stop until a supportable earnings basis is provided.

Deprioritize

TECHNOLOGY DISTRIBUTION

One opportunity, two materially different transaction perimeters

The materials described the owned real estate as both separately priced and included in the ask. Until that was resolved, total consideration and the implied economics couldn't be interpreted at all. No earnings detail was provided.

What we saw. A long-established distributor with owned real estate, listed at a headline price. The materials described the same real estate two different ways: on one page as available under a separate agreement, on another as owned and included in the asking price.

Why it mattered. The two readings produced materially different total consideration, a difference large enough to change the entire economics of the deal, and this was unresolved before any earnings figure was disclosed. No SDE, no EBITDA, and no allocation across the operating business, the inventory, and the real estate. Until the perimeter was confirmed, neither total consideration nor directional economics could be interpreted reliably. This is a decision-controlling question, not an administrative one.

Minimum evidence before LOI. Written confirmation of whether the operating business, inventory, and real estate are included, together with the seller's indicative price attributed to each component.

Deal Screen posture: Deprioritize pending clarification of the transaction perimeter.

Advance

WHOLESALE AND ONLINE DISTRIBUTION

The asking price understated total day-one funding

A reasonable-looking multiple, but a required inventory purchase sat outside the ask, raising expected day-one funding from about $4M to at least $4.7M before other closing needs. The earnings figure still required reconciliation.

What we saw. A warehouse-based distributor with a long operating history, listed around $4M against several million in revenue, at a multiple that reads reasonable on its face.

Why it mattered. Two separate issues sat under the headline. First, the asking price excluded a required inventory purchase, so expected day-one funding rose from roughly $4M to at least $4.7M before other closing and liquidity requirements, a funding fact, not a change in the enterprise multiple. Second, the reported owner-earnings figure arrived with no bridge and no channel-level detail, in a business where product mix and inventory accounting can move margin materially. The two issues are distinct and were kept distinct.

Minimum evidence before LOI. Confirm whether inventory is included in the price, obtain the current inventory balance and a high-level aging summary, and clarify the seller's expected working-capital treatment.

Post-LOI diligence priority. Test inventory quality, establish normalized working capital, and reconcile reported earnings.

Deal Screen posture: Advance after targeted validation, using the higher total funding requirement as the planning reference.

Subsequent buyer action: The buyer elected to submit an LOI, underwriting the higher day-one funding figure rather than the headline price.

Advance

MEDICAL AESTHETICS

4.0x, on earnings not yet supported

The asking price implied a clean 4.0x multiple, but the materials didn't reconcile earnings after recurring provider, management, and location-level costs. The multiple was mathematically clear; its earnings basis was not.

What we saw. A multi-location aesthetics platform in an affluent market, listed around $4M against roughly $4M in revenue and about $1M of reported EBITDA, a clean 4.0x on the seller's figures.

Why it mattered. The multiple was arithmetically clean, but the earnings figure under it was not established. The materials showed no bridge and no recurring-cost detail, and did not demonstrate provider economics, management cost, or location-level performance. A round multiple is not itself a concern; sellers price on round numbers routinely. The issue was that the earnings basis was not supported sufficiently for the buyer to rely on it.

Minimum evidence before LOI. Obtain a seller-prepared EBITDA bridge, location-level financials, a provider compensation summary, and the principal lease terms.

Post-LOI diligence priority. Confirm provider continuity, recurring management costs, and the transferability and economics of each location.

Deal Screen posture: Advance after targeted validation, without treating the seller's EBITDA as a buyer-reliance figure.

Subsequent buyer action: The buyer elected to submit an LOI, advancing on the screen's terms rather than to lock the headline price.

Advance

SPECIALIZED TRAINING OPERATOR

A low multiple contingent on earnings and operating authority

About 2x earnings looked inexpensive for a business with owned hard assets, but the value rested on two unverified conditions: an unusually high owner-earnings margin, and the authority to deliver current services. The materials established neither.

What we saw. A specialized training operator with owned hard assets, listed just under $2M at roughly 2x reported owner earnings, a multiple low enough to look, on its face, like a bargain.

Why it mattered. The apparent value rested on two conditions the materials did not establish. First, an unusually high owner-earnings margin, quoted with no reconciliation of the recurring costs such a business carries, equipment upkeep, skilled instructors, facility access, service delivery. Second, the authority to deliver its current services: the materials leaned on a certification claim while presenting a higher regulatory tier as future upside, and those are not the same thing. SHP flagged the authorization question for qualified confirmation rather than resolving it.

Minimum evidence before LOI. Obtain a high-level earnings bridge, a schedule of material assets, and copies of the licenses or authorizations the seller represents as supporting current operations.

Post-LOI diligence priority. Verify asset ownership and condition and obtain qualified confirmation that the operating entity possesses the authorizations required for its current services.

Deal Screen posture: Advance only after targeted validation; the buyer withheld an LOI until the controlling conditions were confirmed.

These summaries reflect Deal Screens conducted for buyers. To protect confidentiality, identifying details and nonmaterial facts have been modified. The underlying analytical issue, SHP recommendation, and subsequent buyer decision have been preserved.