A Private Equity Blog

A vignette into the aberrant thoughts of a private equiteer

Working Capital Series: What to do at settlement?

This post belongs to a series on Working Capital (see the contents page here).

An agreement on value doesn’t necessarily signal the end of all deal negotiations and troubles. Partisan vendors will likely hand the business over with zero debtors, zero inventory and a mountain of creditors… oh, and no cash, of course. A scenario like this may see you paying millions more for a business than you had originally planned.

dont-be-evilAs I’ve discussed in a litany of working capital discourses, working capital goes to value. But, it’s not just the value imputed to the business at a particular point in time; it drives the value you’ll actually get when the business is handed over. And, the last thing you want is to base your valuation on favourable working capital terms and receive the business in an opposite state.

The simplest solution is to decide the settlement accounts at the time of valuation. That is, place a few imaginary stakes in the ground and peg your working capital drivers (decide a fixed amount for inventory, debtors, creditors, cash, etc). If at settlement working capital is not equal to the trigger amount, then the purchase price is adjusted on an equal basis ($1 less in working capital leads to $1 downward adjustment to the price paid). Many private equiteers will try to enforce a one-way adjustment,  but as Sergey and Larry say, don’t be evil.

This isn’t a perfect solution. But, it is a solution designed to be communicated upfront with complete transparency. It will avoid most resentment later on because there is a lot less subjectivity. With that said, there will be some subjectivity in deciding the trigger values for the working capital drivers, but ideally you can make a case based on rigorous analysis of the historic financials.

The simple rule is that you value a business as a going concern and so the business should be left to you as a going concern (therefore, not requiring extraneous investment to support working capital after purchase). Make sure you decide early what constitutes a going concern and then stick to your guns.

twitter: @privateequiteer |

Posted in Analysis & DD

  • My experience is that there are fewer issues with the locked boxed method, but vendors are sometimes wary about giving you the business financially months before giving you the business legally. They often argue you shouldn't profit unless you take the risk. I've seen mechanisms to get around this by introducing some sort interest charge, but then this becomes another point of contention. But I definitely agree that it's the lesser of two evils.
  • Alex
    Hi TPE - i call it the 'dreaded' LB because rather like churchill's comment on democracy, it's the worst way of sorting out working capital apart from all of the other ways. so we're kind of stuck with it...

    i think the fundamental problem is information asymmetry - ie the acquirer just can't get quality information from management like the vendor can. i'd be interested in your thoughts.
  • Alex
    Will you be posting your thoughts on the dreaded locked box approach?
  • Thanks for the note Alex. Why do you call it the "dreaded" locked box approach? And what do you consider a better alternative? Just curious so I have some basis for a post if I do write more on this topic. My experience is that there are always issues around agreeing WC, net assets, etc., but I still haven't found a perfect template solution.
blog comments powered by Disqus