Selling Your Information Technology Company - A Do It Yourself Job - NOT

People who start software and information technology companies are generally very smart people. When it comes to representing yourself in the sale of your business, the key issue is not smarts, but experience. The purpose of this article is to highlight the intelligence versus experience issue and give examples where experience trumps intelligence. Some very well-known examples were the experiences of the great author, George Plimpton as he stepped into the boxing ring against Joe Louis, put on the goalie pads for the Boston Bruins or barked out signals as the quarterback for the Detroit Lions in a pre-season football game.

These experiences resulted in some great reading. The competitive outcome for the inexperienced combatant, however, was not a happy ending. Curious George was totally outmatched. Admittedly, I had earlier written self-serving articles and Blog posts on the benefits of business seller representation by a Merger and Acquisition Advisor or Business Broker. There are hundreds of similar articles out there from our competitors. The message is pretty much the same:

1. They know the market and the valuations.
2. They have an active database of identified buyers.
3. By representing yourself, you alert the market, your customers, your competitors, and your employees that you are for sale.
4. Running a business is a full-time job. Selling a business is also a full-time job.
5. A business owner normally conducts a serial process (one buyer at a time) which dramatically reduces his market feedback and negotiating position.
6. It is complex, you may only sell one business in your lifetime and the buyers are much more experienced than the sellers.

I really want to dissect point number 6 because I don’t believe most business owners fully embrace either the complexity or the consequences of the disparity in experience. First of all, as a generalization, successful business owners are really smart people and have solved myriad complex problems over the years to make their businesses prosper. To many of them, selling their business is just another of those complex problems that they have routinely solved to their advantage. Well, I am a pretty smart guy (my kids might differ), but if my doctor presented me with my lab test results from my physical and asked me to prescribe my treatment, I would refer him to a mental health professional. The point here is not my intelligence, but my level of experience.

Joe Louis spent 10,000 hours perfecting his craft under extreme conditions of competition and pressure. George Plimpton worked in a gym for a couple of weeks with a boxing trainer. If you asked Joe Louis to write a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, you might have to duck a right cross. Both Joe Louis and George Plimpton were geniuses at their craft. They were inexperienced in other areas and were at a distinct disadvantage when trying to compete in another field against the experts in that field.

As I retrieve my third golf ball from the water hazard, I rationalize to myself, “Well at least Tiger Woods can’t run an HP 12C present value calculator like I can. Knowing Tiger Woods, he actually probably can.

Let me try another example of the value of experience to illustrate my point. Have you ever tried mounting a new door? The first time I did it, it took me several hours – getting the special hole drill for the knob and internal mechanism, measuring for hinges, chiseling the slots for the hinges, propping the door and securing it for mounting, etc. Each one of these steps was something new to me and I wasn’t very good at any of them. By my third door mounting, I was starting to become pretty competent. For a business owner, your business sale is your first door.  By the way, that is one very important door.

Now let’s look at the buyers. The first category is the Private Equity Investor. They buy businesses for a living. Ask an average PEG (Private Equity Group) how many deals they look at for every one they actually acquire. They will tell you it is well over 200 different companies. Most of these 200 are dismissed at the start of the process with the teaser or blind profile. They can judge whether the target meets their broad criteria of revenue, EBITDA, profit margins, industry segment, and others.

Many businesses pass their initial screen and they enter the excruciating process of conference calls, detailed data requests on customers, vendors, gross profit by product/customer/vendor, sales by product/customer, top ten customers, top 10 suppliers, percentage of business in the top ten, and on-and on. Many more companies are eliminated in this process. We then proceed to the indication of interest letter (broad statement of the economics of their proposed deal) followed by corporate visits. Once through that process, the surviving targets get additional data requests and follow-up questions. This is not always a one-way elimination. Sometimes the PEG IOI letter is not high enough to make the seller’s cut and they will be eliminated from the process.

The home stretch is submitting a Letter of Intent with a much tighter presentation of the final deal value and structure. This is a competitive process and the seller winnows the suitors down to 1 finalist through back and forth negotiations. Once the highest and best LOI is countersigned by the seller, there is an exclusive period for due diligence. Often the deal blows up in due diligence when a material issue is uncovered and the buyer attempts to alter their original offer in response to this new data. Often times the seller will simply blow up the deal. So the process starts all over.

The point here is that these Private Equity Groups have vast experience, not only in closing deals, but vast experience with every stage of the deal process. So for every deal completed they originally look at 200 teasers that result in the execution of 50 confidentiality agreements and the review of 50 memoranda. 20 of those deals warrant a conference call with the owners and follow up questions. 8 companies survive that process and result in 8 indications of interest letters and 5 corporate visits. 3 companies survive to due diligence and 1 makes it to the finish line. This is a continual moving pipeline of deep deal experience.

As a business owner, by the time you connect with a PEG, they have pretty much seen every twist and turn a deal can take.  Their approach resembles an apartment owner’s rental agreement – tremendously one-sided in their favor. For a PEG, a deal that blows up in the eleventh hour becomes an expensive lesson learned and war story. For a business owner, it can dramatically negatively impact their future business performance.

Wait, you say. I am a software company with the next big thing. My buyer is not a private equity group, but one of the strategic buyers – IBM, Google, Facebook, Adobe, and Microsoft (pick your giant). Let me give you a humbling dose of reality. We have represented some world class technology companies and just getting one of these blue chippers to take a look at them is a monumental task. The primary objective of the M&A department of the giants is to protect the mother ship. They want to prevent entrepreneurs from getting into any potential legal claim on the Blue Chip’s intellectual property.

Therefore they institute a screening process designed to surround the company with a corporate moat around the castle. That moat has different names at each company. At one it is called the “Opportunity Management System”. At another it is the “Partnership Management Department”.

Here is how it works. The individuals in this department are very hard to find and very seldom answer their phone. You are directed to a Website and are required to fill out an exhaustive 16 page submission form. You are then issued a submission number. You then go into the black hole and may be reviewed by a junior level screener that does not have the breadth of experience to judge a Twitter versus a Pets.com.

It gets worse. Every day 100 more “Opportunities” get submitted and piled on top of your number. The only way to get attention is from the Division Manager who owns the functional area where your product fits.  Convince him to go rescue your number and to get your form to a senior opportunity manager to process and vet the idea.

Just like with the PEGs, this is a relentless process of deal flow for these company buyers. Sellers in this environment are on their heels right from the start and struggle to garner any negotiating leverage. If your technology is strong enough to be rescued for a more comprehensive look, the guys on the other side of the table are the heavyweight champions of M&A deals. They have seen it all.

Not to minimize the first 5 benefits identified earlier in this article, but balancing the experience of the buyer’s team with the experience of the seller’s team is critical to enhance, protect and preserve the value of your transaction.

In its purest form, a letter of intent is a document designed to define the economic parameters of a transaction that, pending completion of due diligence, will be memorialized in a definitive purchase agreement and a deal closing. In its practical use, a letter of intent is like an apartment renter’s agreement with every subtle advantage benefitting the author of the document. An inexperienced seller will agree to a seemingly innocuous clause about working capital adjusted at closing according to GAAP accounting rules. If you are the seller of a software company with annual software licenses or prepaid maintenance contracts, that could be a $ million mistake. It is a rare attorney that would ever catch that. Well, not actually. They are all representing the experienced buyers.

Dave Kauppi is a Merger and Acquisition Advisor and Managing Director of MidMarket Capital, providing business broker and investment banking services to owners in the sale of information technology companies. To view our lists of buyers and sellers click to visit our Web Site MidMarket Capital

Valuing The Growth Rate in the Sale of a Technology Company

In the sale of privately held businesses there seems to be no mechanism and certainly no attempt on the part of buyers to account for the selling company's growth rate. In the public market this factor is widely recognized and is accounted for with an improvement on the PE multiple, the PEG or Price Earnings Growth multiple. Because there is no exact translation between EBITDA multiple (the primary valuation metric for privately held companies) and Earnings Per Share and PE multiple (the primary valuation metric for publicly traded stocks), the purpose of this article is to try to calculate an adjustment factor that can be applied against the EBITDA valuation metric in order to present a more accurate accounting for differences in growth rate for the valuation of privately held companies.

Experienced business buyers are masters of setting the rules for how they calculate the value of a business they are attempting to acquire. You may think that a 5 X multiple of EBITDA or 1 X Sales would be pretty cut and dried, but in practice it is open for creative interpretation. For example, if you just had your best year ever and your EBITDA was $2 million and the market valuation was 5 X, then you would expect a $10 million offer. Not so fast. The buyer may counter with, "That last year was an anomaly and we should normalize EBITDA performance as an average of the last three years." That average turns out to be $1.5 million and like magic your purchase offer evaporates to $7.5 million. On the flip side, if you just had your worst year at $1 million EBITDA, you can bet the buyer will use that as your metric for value.

The three owners paid themselves $100,000 each in salary, but the buyer asserts that the fair market value salary for a replacement for each senior manager is really $150,000. They apply this total $150,000 EBITDA adjustment and your valuation drops by another $750,000. If the family owns the building separately and rents it to the business for an annual rent of $200,000 when the FMV rental rate is $300,000, the resulting adjustment costs the seller another $500,000 in lost value.

Another valuation trap for a seller is that they want to hire additional sales resources to pump up their sales just prior to the sale. This is almost always a bad move. Most technology sales reps take a year or longer to ramp up to productivity. In the interim, with salary and some draw or guarantee, they actually become a drain on earnings. The buyers do not care about the explanation, they just care about the numbers and will whack you with a value downgrade.

The least understood valuation trap, however, is there seems to be no mechanism and certainly no attempt on the part of buyers to account for the selling company's growth rate. In the public market this factor is widely recognized and is accounted for with an improvement on the PE multiple, the PEG or Price Earnings Growth multiple. The rule of thumb is that if the stock is valued with a PEG of less than 1 then it is a good value and if it is over 1 it is not as good.

Because there is no exact translation between EBITDA multiple (the primary valuation metric for privately held companies) and Earnings Per Share and PE multiple (the primary valuation metric for publicly traded stocks), please allow me a measure of imprecision in my analysis. My purpose is to try to calculate an adjustment factor that can be applied against the EBITDA valuation metric in order to present a more accurate accounting for differences in growth rate for the valuation of privately held companies.

I have chosen two stocks for my analysis, Google and Facebook. The reason I choose these two is that they are widely known, very successful, in the same general market niche, and are at different stages of their growth cycle. Google sells at a PE multiple of 33.37 while Facebook sells for a PE multiple of 113.71. The PEG of Google which = PE Multiple/5 year growth rate is 33.37/16.85 for a PEG of 1.98. I actually backed into the growth rate using the readily available PE multiple and the PEG from my Fidelity account.

Facebook sells at a PE multiple of 113.71 and has a PEG ratio of 3.62 (may be some irrational exuberance here), which translates into a 5 year growth rate of 31.41%. For our comparison we should also include the average PE multiple for the S&P 500 of about 15. Let's make the assumption that on average, this assumes that these companies will grow at the growth rate of the U.S. Economy, say 3%.

So to calculate a normalized PE ratio for these two companies, we are going to create an adjustment factor by dividing the 5 year compound growth rate of Google and Facebook versus the anticipated 5 year compound growth rate of the S&P 500. For Google the 16.85% growth rate over 5 years creates a factor or 2.178 or a total of 217.8% total growth over the next 5 years. The S&P factor is 1.16. So if you divide the Google factor by the S&P factor you get 1.878. If you multiple the market PE multiple of 15 by the Google factor, the result is a PE of 28.2. Not too far off from the current PE multiple of 33.37

Facebook is a little off using this method resulting in a normalized calculated PE of 50.65 versus their current rate of 113.71. This will appropriately seek a level over time and settle into a more rational range. My point here is that the public markets absolutely account for growth rates in the value of stocks in a very significant way.

Now let's try to apply this same logic to the EBITDA multiple for valuing a privately held technology company. If the rule-of-thumb multiple for your company's valuation is 5 X EBITDA but you are growing at 10% compounded, shouldn't you receive a premium for your company. Using the logic from above we assign a 3% compound growth rate as the norm in the 5 X EBITDA metric. So the 10% grower gets a factor of 1.61 versus the norm of 1.16. Dividing the target company factor by the normalized factor results in a multiple acceleration factor of 1.39. Multiply that by the Standard 5 X EBITDA multiple and you get a valuation metric of 6.95 X EBITDA.

A little sobering news, however, you will have a real challenge convincing a financial buyer or a Private Equity Group to veer to far away from their rule of thumb multiples. You will have a better chance of moving a strategic technology company buyer with this approach.  A discounted cash flow valuation technique is superior to the rule of thumb multiple approach because it accounts for this compound growth rate in earnings. If the technique produces a higher value for the seller, the buyer will keep that valuation tool in his toolbox.

Perhaps the best way to negotiate a projected high growth rate and translate that into transaction value is with a hybrid deal structure. You might agree to a cash at close valuation of 5 X EBITDA and then create an upside kicker based on hitting your growth targets.

 So for example, your EBITDA is $2 million and your standard industry metric is 5X EBITDA. You believe that your 10% growth rate (clearly above the industry average) should provide you a premium value of 6 X.  So the value differential is $10 million versus $12 million. You set a target of a 10% compounded growth in Gross Profit over the next 4 years and you calculate an earn out payment methodology that would provide an additional $2 million in transaction value if you hit the targets. It is a contingent payment based on actual post closing performance, so if you fall short of targets you fall correspondingly short on your earn out. If you exceed target you could earn more.

Successful buyers do not remain as successful buyers if they over pay for an acquisition. Therefore, the lower the price they pay, the greater their odds of chalking up a win. This is a zero sum game in that each dollar that stays in their pocket is one less dollar in your pocket. They will utilize every tool at their disposal to convince the seller that "this is market" or this is "how every industry buyer values similar companies."  It is to your advantage to help move them toward your value expectations. That is a very hard thing to accomplish unless you have other buyers and can walk away from a low offer. Believe me, if they are looking at you, they are doing the same dance with at least a couple of others. You must match their negotiation leverage by having your own options.

Dave Kauppi is a Merger and Acquisition Advisor and Managing Director of MidMarket Capital, providing business broker and investment banking services to owners in the sale of information technology companies. Please visit our Web Site MidMarket Capital