TRANSITION TALK

During our 2021 Mid-year Market Update, in addition to up-to-date transaction data and trends, our experts, M&A Director James Fisher, JD and CEO Brad Bueermann, explored some myths and misconceptions about the current M&A marketplace.

The problem with misinformation is that as a buyer you may find yourself discouraged from exploring acquisitions or mergers as a growth strategy or from inquiring on businesses that could be a great fit and expand your reach. As a seller, misinformation can lead you to compromising your fit criteria or from exploring a wider pool of buyers.

The following are the top five misconceptions we hear from advisors and from other market participants.

MYTH: Reported transaction data shows a complete view of the industry M&A marketplace.

No current reporting of annual M&A transactions–including ours–encompasses activity across the entire industry. Even if data is being reported based on publicly advertised transactions, many are private and not publicized as larger M&A deals tend to be. Details and terms are often kept confidential regardless, and, as the old adage goes, "the devil is in the details." So, comparing the data and transaction activity across firms participating in M&A can be tricky.

Last month our M&A Director James Fisher, JD and CEO Brad Bueermann delivered our 2021 Mid-Year Market Update and explored marketplace activity for the first half of 2021.

We all know that 2020 was a truly unique year on all fronts. The financial services M&A marketplace was no exception (as we discussed back in January).  The effects of 2020 have carried over into 2021 and have impacted transactions in some unexpected ways–and have potentially changed deal term norms from here on out.

Our full Mid-Year Market Update presentation was close to 60 minutes, including a live Q&A session, and covered up-to-date transaction data and trends, realities of today's industry, qualities of successful buyers, and common acquisition misconceptions.

To focus in on some of the most important highlights from the session, Craig Strauser sat down with James Fisher, JD to discuss them further. Watch their chat below.

Many financial services businesses focus on revenue strength while downplaying–or ignoring–enterprise strength. However, revenue strength and enterprise strength are both critical to the growth and sustainability of a business. When revenue is the sole driver of your value, you’re leaving money on the table and jeopardizing the long-term success of the business.

Since revenue and enterprise strength influence the value of your business in different ways, it's crucial to understand these differences and why balancing the two is so important. While clients, fees, and assets under management (AUM) pay the bills, the absence of a solid business infrastructure will put a company's longevity at risk. Whether you’re determined to create explosive business growth or have a sale–external or internal–on the horizon, knowing how to position your company now can result in a higher return on your efforts and investment for the years to come.

Revenue vs. Enterprise Strength

Revenue strength represents the source, quantity, and quality of your cash flow. This includes your active income generated based on advisory fees, commissions, and other financial planning services. Revenue strength accounts for your team’s compensation and other business expenses. Revenue strength represents the top-line accounting of the business.

It's the value of your book.

We know it’s common to focus on getting a new client by sharing just enough information to win the sale. Often, that comes down to a quick diagnosis based on what the salesperson wants to sell, rather than what the client truly needs.

We don’t do it that way.

Through our Consulting services, we guide clients through discovery and then implementation, similar to the financial planning process that advisors provide.

Recurring revenue is one of the most important single determinants of value. Revenue produced through management fees, trails, or renewals is ongoing and reasonably predictable. Transactional revenue is more elusive and difficult to predict. While this isn’t cutting edge news, it is important to understand that recurring revenue is more predictable and presents less risk of future earnings when compared to transactional revenue. As such, when a portion of revenue is generated from transactional revenue, buyers will require a higher rate of return (discount) when compared to other market alternatives that provide more certainty.

Rule of Thumb?

It is important to understand the difference between an adjusted pricing multiple based on the specific characteristics of the business being valued versus a “rule of thumb.” A rule of thumb for the financial services industry is that businesses sell for two-times gross recurring revenue and one-times non-recurring revenue, or that they are worth five-times Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA). Often sellers approach us asking if the offer they have received based on a rule of thumb is sufficient or fair. This question cannot reasonably be answered without understanding the revenue characteristics of the practice.