Business Sale Negotiations - Bridging the Valuation Gap

 Statistics show that a surprisingly low percentage of businesses for sale actually sell during their first attempt. The major reason for that is the valuation gap between the buyers and the seller. This article discusses how that gap can be breached resulting in completed business sale transactions.

In an earlier article we discussed a survey that we did with the Business Broker and the Merger and Acquisition profession. 68.9% of respondents felt that their top challenge was dealing with their seller client's valuation expectations. This is the number one reason that, as one national Investment Banking firm estimates only 10% of businesses that are for sale will actually close within 3 years of going to market. That is a 90% failure rate.

As we look to improve the performance of our practice, we looked for ways to judge the valuation expectations and reasonableness of our potential client. An M&A firm that fails to complete the sale of a client, even if they charged an up-front or monthly fees, suffers a financial loss along with their client. Those fees are not enough to cover the amount of work devoted to these projects. We determined that having clients with reasonable value expectations was a key success factor.

We explored a number of options including preparing a mock letter of intent to present to the client after analyzing his business. This mock LOI included not only transaction value, but also the amount of cash at closing, earn outs, seller notes and any other factors we felt would be components of a market buyer offer. If you can believe it, that mock LOI was generally not well received. For example, one client was a service business and had no recurring revenue contracts in place. In other words, their next year's revenues had to be sold and delivered next year. Their assets were their people and their people walked out the door every night.

Our mock LOI included a deal structure that proposed 70% of transaction value would be based on a percentage of the next four years of revenue performance as an earn out payment. Our client was adamant that this structure would be a non-starter. Fast forward 9 months and 30 buyers that had signed Confidentiality Agreements and reviewed the Memorandum withdrew from the buying process. It was only after that level of market feedback was he willing to consider the message of the market.

We decided to eliminate this approach because the effect was to put us sideways with our client early in the M&A process. The clients viewed our attempted dose of reality as not being on their side. No one likes to hear that you have an ugly baby. We found the reaction from our clients almost that pronounced.

We tried probing into our clients' rationale for their valuation expectations and we would hear such comments as, "This is how much we need in order to retire and maintain our lifestyle," or, "I heard that Acme Consulting sold for 1 X revenues," or, "We invested $3 million in developing this product, so we should get at least $4.5 million."

My unspoken reaction to these comments is that the market doesn't care what you need to retire. It doesn't care how much you invested in the product. The market does care about valuation multiples, but timing, company characteristics and circumstances are all unique and different. When our client brings us an example of IBM bought XYZ Software Company for 2 X revenues so we should get 2X revenues.

It is simply not appropriate to draw a conclusion about your value when compared to an IBM acquired company. You have revenues of $6 million and they had $300 million in revenue, were in business for 28 years, had 2,000 installed customers, were cash flowing $85 million annually and are a recognized brand name. Larger companies carry a valuation premium compared to small companies.

When I say my unspoken reaction, please refer to my success with the mock LOI discussed earlier. So now we are on to Plan C in how to deal with this valuation gap between our seller clients and the buyers that we present. Plan C turned out to be a bust also. Our clients did not respond very favorable when in response to their statement of value expectations we asked, "Are you kidding me?" or "What are you smoking?"

This issue becomes even more difficult when the business is heavily based on intellectual property such as a software or information technology firm. There is much broader interpretation by the market than for more traditional bricks and mortar firms. With the asset based businesses we can present comparables that provide us and our clients a range of possibilities. If a business is to sell outside of the usual parameters, there must be some compelling value creator like a coveted customer list, proprietary intellectual property, unusual profitability, rapid growth, significant barriers to entry, or something that is not easily duplicated.

For an information technology, computer technology, or healthcare company, comparables are helpful and are appropriate for gift and estate valuations, key man insurance, and for a starting point for a company sale. However, because the market often values these kinds of companies very generously in a competitive bid process, we recommend just that when trying to determine value in a company sale. The value is significantly impacted by the professional M&A process. In these companies where there can be broad interpretation of its value by the market it is essential to conduct the right process to unlock all of the value.

So you might be thinking, how do we handle value expectations in these technology based company situations? Now we are on to Plan D and I must admit it is a big improvement over Plan C (are you kidding)? The good news is that Plan D has the highest success rate. The bad news is that Plan D is the most difficult. We have determined that we as M&A professionals are not the right authority on our client's value, the market is.

After years of what are some of the most emotionally charged events in a business owner's life, we have determined that we must earn our credibility to fully gain his trust. If the client feels like his broker or investment banker is just trying to get him to accept the first deal so that the representative can earn his success fee, there will be no trust and probably no deal.

If the client sees his representatives bring multiple, qualified buyers to the table, present the opportunity intelligently and strategically, fight for value creation, and provide buyer feedback, that process creates credibility and trust. The client may not be totally satisfied with the value the market is communicating, but he should be totally satisfied that we have brought him the market. If we can get to that point, the likelihood of a completed transaction increases dramatically.

The client is now faced with a very difficult decision and a test of reasonableness. Can he interpret the market feedback, balance that against the potential disappointment resulting from his preconceived value expectations and complete a transaction?

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

Before You Sell Your Software Company- Focus on Recurring Revenue

This article discusses some actions the owners should take in anticipation of selling a software business or an IT Services business. Many of these actions would be implemented by the acquirer post acquisition. If, you implement them prior to the sale, the buyers will reflect that in an enhanced purchase price. If the buyer implements them post acquisition, they certainly will not pay you for the improvements.

Review all long-term maintenance contracts and implement price increases that are covered by your annual increase limits. Send your sales team out to all accounts that are not on your latest version. Bring those accounts current with the appropriate license and maintenance level increase.

Identify all accounts that use your software, but are not currently covered by an annual maintenance contract, but by a T&M contract. Offer them a one-time fee to get the latest software version if they agree to execute an annual maintenance agreement.

Do you have any Add-on modules that your customers base has been slow to adopt? Offer a 2 year price freeze on their currently installed software if they buy the add-on module and sign a maintenance agreement. The principal theme of these actions is to increase your company's level of contractually recurring revenue. That is your most important financial driver of the value of your software company.

Tie these actions directly to your sales team's commission plan. The commission plan should tell your sales reps exactly what you value. A higher commission rate should be applied to recurring revenue contracts. If you have poor performers, immediately put them on notice. You may tie their future employment to meeting some short term goals in these strategic areas. If they continue to under perform, let them go. A buyer that is looking at your business will rightfully question your management capability when they find in due diligence that you have allowed a poor performer to drain profits from your company.

If you are concerned that firing the sales rep would be disruptive to your customer base, offer to allow him to stay on a commission only plan. Remove his fixed salary portion and replace that with a higher commission rate that would equal his previous expected compensation level at 100% of quota. Let's think of it this way. If a salesman's lack of performance is costing you $50,000 in EBITDA and your company will sell at a 7 X multiple, this laggard will cost you $350,000 in transaction value.

Your key short-term strategy in maximizing your company's value in the marketplace is to increase the level of contractually recurring revenue. As an acquiring company looks at you as a potential acquisition target they place a value of, for example, 1 X on projected new sales supported by historical performance. They will place a value of 2 X on the revenue that is covered by contracts they acquire with the purchase of your information technology company.

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

Selling Your Information Technology Company - Using  an Earn Out to Maximize Value
 
Sellers have historically viewed earn outs with suspicion as a way for buyers to get control of their companies cheaply. Earn outs are a variable pricing mechanism designed to tie final sale price to future performance of the acquired entity and are tied to measurable economic milestones such as revenues, gross profit, net income and EBITDA. An intelligently structured earn out not only can facilitate the closing of a deal, but can be a win for both buyer and seller. Below are ten reasons earn outs should be considered as part of your strategy to maximize your selling price and transaction value.

Sellers have historically viewed earn outs with suspicion as a way for buyers to get control of their companies cheaply. Earn outs are a variable pricing mechanism designed to tie final sale price to future performance of the acquired entity and are tied to measurable economic milestones such as revenues, gross profit, net income and EBITDA. An intelligently structured earn out not only can facilitate the closing of a deal, but can be a win for both buyer and seller. Below are ten reasons earn outs should be considered as part of your selling transaction structure.

1. Buyers acquisition multiples are at pre 1992 levels. Strategic corporate buyers, private equity groups, and venture capital firms got burned on valuations. Between 1995 and 2001 the premiums paid by corporate buyers in 61% of transactions were greater than the economic gains. In other words, the buyer suffered from dilution. During 2012 multiples paid by financial buyers were almost equal to strategic buyers multiples. This is not a favorable pricing environment for tech companies looking for strategic pricing.

2. Based on the bubble, there is a great deal of investor skepticism. They no longer take for granted integration synergies and are wary about cultural clashes, unexpected costs, logistical problems and when their investment becomes accretive. If the seller is willing to take on some of that risk in the form of an earn out based on integrated performance, he will be offered a more attractive package (only if realistic targets are set and met).

3. Many tech companies are struggling and valuing them based on income will produce some pretty unspectacular results. A buyer will be far more willing to look at an acquisition candidate using strategic multiples if the seller is willing to take on a portion of the post closing performance risk. As a starting point, consider the cash at closing component of the transaction at 5 X EBIT with an earn out component based on post acquisition performance that would capture the strategic value component. The key stakeholders of the seller have an incentive to stay on to make their earn out come to fruition, a situation all buyers desire.

4. An old business professor once asked, “What would you rather have, all of a grape or part of a watermelon?” The spirit of the entrepreneur causes many tech company owners to go it alone. The odds are against them achieving critical mass with current resources. They could grow organically and become a grape or they could integrate with a strategic acquirer and achieve their current distribution times 100 or 1000. Six % of this new revenue stream will far surpass 100% of the old one.

5. How many of you have heard of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat of stock purchases at dizzying multiples? It went something like this - Public Company A with a stock price of $50 per share buys Private Company B for a 15 x EBITDA multiple in an all stock deal with a one-year restriction on sale of the stock. Let's say that the resultant sales proceeds were 160,000 shares totaling $8 million in value. Company A’s stock goes on a steady decline and by the time you can sell, the price is $2.50. Now the effective sale price of your company becomes $400,000. Your 15 x EBITDA multiple evaporated to a multiple of less than one. Compare that result to $5 million cash at close and an earn out that totals $5 million over the next 3 years if revenue targets for your division are met. Your minimum guaranteed multiple is 9.38 X with an upside of 18.75 X.

6. Strategic corporate buyers are reluctant to use their devalued stock as the currency of choice for acquisitions. Their preferred currency is cash. By agreeing to an earn out, you give the buyer’s cash more velocity (ability to make more acquisitions with their cash) and therefore become a more attractive candidate with the ability to ask for greater compensation in the future.

7. The market is starting to turn positive which reawakens sellers’ dreams of bubble type multiples. The buyers are looking back to the historical norm or pre-bubble pricing. The seller believes that this market deserves a premium and the buyers have raised their standards thus hindering negotiations. An earn out is a way to break this impasse. The seller moves the total selling price up. The buyer stays within their guidelines while potentially paying for the earn out premium with dollars that are the result of additional earnings from the new acquisition.

8. The improving market provides both the seller and the buyer growth leverage. When negotiating the earn out component, buyers will be very generous in future compensation if the acquired company exceeds their projections. Projections that look very aggressive for the seller with their pre-merger resources, suddenly become quite attainable as part of a new company entering a period of growth. An example might look like this: Oracle acquires a small software Company B that has developed Oracle conversion and integration software tools. Last year Company B had sales of $8 million and EBITDA of $1 million. Company B had grown by 20% per year. The purchase transaction was structured to provide Company B $8 million of Oracle stock and $2 million cash at close plus an earn out that would pay Company B a % of $1 million a year for the next 3 years based on their achieving a 30% compound growth rate in sales. If Company B hit sales of $10.4, $13.52, and $17.58 million respectively for the next 3 years, they would collect another $3 million in transaction value. The seller now expands his client base from 200 to 100,000 installed accounts and his sales force from 4 to 5,000. Those targets should be very easy to hit. If these targets are met, the buyer easily finances the earn out with extra profit.

9. The window of opportunity in the technology area opens and closes very quickly. An earn out structure can allow both the buyer and seller to benefit. If the smaller company has developed a winning technology, they usually have a short period of time to establish a lead in the market. If they are addressing a compelling technology gap, the odds are that companies both large and small are developing their own solution simultaneously. The seller wants to develop the potential of the product and achieve sales numbers to drive up the company’s selling price. They do not have the distribution channels, the resources, or time to compete with a larger company with a similar solution looking to establish the industry standard.

A larger acquiring company recognizes this first mover advantage and is willing to pay a buy versus build premium to reduce their time to market. The seller wants a large premium while the buyer is not willing to pay full value for projections with stock and cash at close. The solution: an earn out for the seller that handsomely rewards him for meeting those projections. He gets the resources and distribution capability of the buyer so the product can reach standard setting critical mass before another large company can knock it off. The buyer gets to market quicker and achieves first mover advantage while incurring only a portion of the risk of new product development and introduction.

10. You never can forget about taxes. Earn outs provide a vehicle to defer and reduce the seller’s tax liability. Be sure to discuss your potential deal structure and tax consequences with your advisors before final negotiations begin. A properly structured earn out could save you significant tax dollars.

Smaller technology companies have many characteristics that make them good candidates for earn outs in sale transactions: 1. High growth rates, 2. Earnings not supportive of maximum valuations, 3. Limited window of opportunity to achieve meaningful market penetration, 4. Buyers less willing to pay for future potential entirely at the sale closing and 5. A valuation expectation far greater than those supported by the buyers. It really comes down to how confident the seller is in the performance of his company in the post sale environment. If the earn out targets are reasonably attainable and the earn out compensates him for the at risk portion of transaction value, a seller can significantly improve the likelihood of a sale closing and maximizing the transaction value.


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

Maximizing Valuation Multiples in the Sale of a Software Company

One of the most challenging aspects of selling a software or information technology company is coming up with a business valuation. Sometimes the valuations provided by the market defy the valuation logic that typically dictates a selling price for a manufacturing company, for example. This article discusses how an investment banker can properly position your company to the right buyer in order to achieve a strategic transaction value.
One of the most challenging aspects of selling an information technology company is coming up with a business valuation. Sometimes the valuations provided by the market (translation - a completed transaction) defy all logic. In other industry segments there are some pretty handy rules of thumb for valuation metrics. In one industry it may be 1 X Revenue, in another it could be 5 X EBITDA or cash flow.

Since it is critical to our business to help our information technology clients maximize their business selling price, I have given this considerable thought. Why are some of these software company valuations so high?

It is because of the profitability leverage a technology company can generate. A simple example is what is Microsoft's incremental cost to produce the next copy of Office Professional? It is probably $1.20 for three CD's and 80 cents for packaging. Let's say the license cost is $400. The gross margin is north of 99%. That does not happen in manufacturing or services or retail or most other industries.

One problem in selling a small technology company is that they do not have any of the brand name, distribution, or standards leverage that the big companies possess. So, on their own, they cannot create this profitability leverage. The acquiring company, however, does not want to compensate the small seller for the post acquisition results that are directly attributable to the buyer's market presence. This what we refer to as the valuation gap.

What we attempt to do is to help the buyer justify paying a much higher price than a pre-acquisition financial valuation of the target company. In other words, we want to get strategic value for our seller. Below are the factors that we use in positioning our software business for maximum selling price:

1. Cost for the buyer to write the code internally - Many years ago, Barry Boehm, in his book, Software Engineering Economics, developed a constructive cost model for projecting the programming costs for writing computer code. He called it the COCOMO model. It was quite detailed and complex, but I have boiled it down and simplified it for our purposes. We have the advantage of estimating the "projects" retrospectively because we already know the number of lines of code comprising our client's products. This information is designed to help us understand what it might cost the buyer to develop it internally so that he starts his own build versus buy analysis.

2. Most acquirers could write the code themselves, but we suggest they analyze the cost of their time to market delay. Believe me, with first mover advantage from a competitor or, worse, customer defections, there is a very real cost of not having your product today. We were able to convince one buyer that they would be able to justify our seller's entire purchase price based on the number of client defections their acquisition would prevent.

3. Another arrow in our valuation driving quiver for our sellers is we restate historical financials using the pricing power of the brand name acquirer. We had one client that was a small IT company that had developed a fine piece of software that compared favorably with a large, publicly traded company's solution. Our product had the same functionality, ease of use, and open systems platform, but there was one very important difference. The end-user customer's perception of risk was far greater with the little IT company that could be "out of business tomorrow."

We were literally able to double the financial performance of our client on paper and present a compelling argument to the big company buyer that those economics would be immediately available to him post acquisition. It certainly was not GAP Accounting, but it was effective as a tool to drive transaction value.

4. Financials are important so we have to acknowledge this aspect of buyer valuation as well. We generally like to build in a baseline value (before we start adding the strategic value components) of 2 X contractually recurring revenue during the current year. So, for example, if the company has monthly maintenance contracts of $100,000 times 12 months = $1.2 million X 2 = $2.4 million as a baseline company value component. Again, this financial analysis is to establish a baseline, before we pile on the strategic value components.

5. We try to assign values for miscellaneous assets that the seller is providing to the buyer. Don't overlook the strategic value of Blue Chip Accounts. Those accounts become a platform for the buyer's entire product suite being sold post acquisition into an "installed account." It is far easier to sell add-on applications and products into an existing account than it is to open up that new account. These strategic accounts can have huge value to a buyer.

6. Finally, we use a customer acquisition cost model to drive value in the eyes of a potential buyer. Let's say that your sales person at 100% of Quota earns total salary and commissions of $125,000 and sells 5 net new accounts. That would mean that your base customer acquisition cost per account was $25,000. Add a 20% company overhead for the 85 accounts, for example, and the company value, using this methodology would be $2,550,000.

After reading this you may be saying to yourself, come on, this is a little far-fetched. These components do have real value, but that value is open to a broad interpretation by the marketplace. We are attempting to assign metrics to a very subjective set of components. The buyers are smart, and experienced in the M&A process and quite frankly, they try to deflect these artistic approaches to driving up their financial outlay. The best leverage point we have is that those buyers know that we are presenting the same analysis to their competitors and they don't know which component or components of value that we have presented will resonate with their competition. In the final analysis, we are just trying to provide the buyers some reasonable explanation for their board of directors to justify paying far more than a financial multiple for our client's company.

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

The Art of Software Company Business Valuation

One of the most challenging aspects of selling a software company is coming up with a business valuation. Sometimes the valuations provided by the market (translation - a completed transaction) defy all logic. In other industry segments there are some pretty handy rules of thumb for valuation metrics. In one industry it may be 1 X Revenue, in another it could be 7.5 X EBITDA.

Since it is critical to our business to help our information technology clients maximize their business selling price, I have given this considerable thought. Why are some of these software company valuations so high? It is because of the profitability leverage of technology?
A simple example is what is Microsoft's incremental cost to produce the next copy of Office Professional? It is probably $1.20 for three CD's and 80 cents for packaging. Let's say the license cost is $400. The gross margin is north of 99%. That does not happen in manufacturing or services or retail or most other industries.

One problem in selling a small technology company is that they do not have any of the brand name, distribution, or standards leverage that the big companies possess. So, on their own, they cannot create this profitability leverage. The acquiring company, however, does not want to compensate the small seller for the post acquisition results that are directly attributable to the buyer's market presence. This is what we refer to as the valuation gap.


What we attempt to do is to help the buyer justify paying a much higher price than a pre-acquisition financial valuation of the target company. In other words, we want to get strategic value for our seller. Below are the factors that we use in our analysis:

1. Cost for the buyer to write the code internally - Many years ago, Barry Boehm, in his book, Software Engineering Economics, developed a constructive cost model for projecting the programming costs for writing computer code. He called it the COCOMO model. It was quite detailed and complex, but I have boiled it down and simplified it for our purposes.
We have the advantage of estimating the projects retrospectively because we already know the number of lines of code comprising our client's products. In general terms he projected that it takes 3.6 person months to write one thousand SLOC (source lines of code). So if you looked at a senior software engineer at a $70,000 fully loaded compensation package writing a program with 15,000 SLOC, your calculation is as follows - 15 X 3.6 = 54 person months X $5,800 per month = $313,200 divided by 15,000 = $20.88/SLOC.

Before you guys with 1,000,000 million lines of code get too excited about your $20.88 million business value, there are several caveats. Unfortunately the market does not care and will not pay for what it cost you to develop your product.

Secondly, this information is designed to help us understand what it might cost the buyer to develop it internally so that he starts his own build versus buy analysis. Thirdly, we have to apply discounts to this analysis if the software is three generations old legacy code, for example. In that case, it is discounted by 90%. You are no longer a technology sale with high profitability leverage. They are essentially acquiring your customer base and the valuation will not be that exciting.

If, however, your application is a brand new application that has legs, start sizing your yacht. Examples of this might be a click fraud application, Pay Pal, or Internet Telephony. The second high value platform would be where your software technology "leap-frogs" a popular legacy application.


An example of this is when we sold a company that had completely rewritten their legacy distribution management platform for a new vertical market in Microsoft's latest platform. They leap-frogged the dominant player in that space that was supporting multiple green screen solutions. Our client became a compelling strategic acquisition. Fast forward one year and I hear the acquirer is selling one of these $100,000 systems per week. Now that's leverage!

2. Most acquirers could write the code themselves, but we suggest they analyze the cost of their time to market delay. Believe me, with first mover advantage from a competitor or, worse, customer defections, there is a very real cost of not having your product today.

We were able to convince one buyer that they would be able to justify our seller's entire purchase price based on the number of client defections their acquisition would prevent. As it turned out, the buyer had a huge install base and through multiple prior acquisitions was maintaining six disparate software platforms to deliver essentially the same functionality.
This was very expensive to maintain and they passed those costs on to their disgruntled install base. The buyer had been promising upgrades for a few years, but nothing was delivered. Customers were beginning to sign on with their major competitor.

Our pitch to the buyer was to make this acquisition, demonstrate to your client base that you are really providing an upgrade path and give notice of support withdrawal for 4 or 5 of the other platforms. The acquisition was completed and, even though their customers that were contemplating leaving did not immediately upgrade, they did not defect either. Apparently the devil that you know is better than the devil you don't in the world of information technology.

3. Another arrow in our valuation driving quiver for our sellers is we restate historical financials using the pricing power of the brand name acquirer. We had one client that was a small IT company that had developed a fine piece of software that compared favorably with a large, publicly traded company's solution. Our product had the same functionality, ease of use, and open systems platform, but there was one very important difference.


The end-user customer's perception of risk was far greater with the little IT company that could be "out of business tomorrow." We were literally able to double the financial performance of our client on paper and present a compelling argument to the big company buyer that those economics would be immediately available to him post acquisition. It certainly was not GAP Accounting, but it was effective as a tool to drive transaction value.

4. Financials are important so we have to acknowledge this aspect of buyer valuation as well. We generally like to build in a baseline value (before we start adding the strategic value components) of 2 X contractually recurring revenue during the current year. So, for example, if the company has monthly maintenance contracts of $100,000 times 12 months = $1.2 million X 2 = $2.4 million as a baseline company value component. Another component we add is for any contracts that extend beyond one year. We take an estimate of the gross margin produced in the firm contract years beyond year one and assign a 5 X multiple to that and discount it to present value.

Let's use an example where they had 4 years remaining on a services contract and the last 3 years were $200,000 per year in revenue with approximately 50% gross margin. We would take the final tree years of $100,000 annual gross margin and present value it at a 5% discount rate resulting in $265,616. This would be added to the earlier 2 X recurring year 1 revenue from above. Again, this financial analysis is to establish a baseline, before we pile on the strategic value components.

5. We try to assign values for miscellaneous assets that the seller is providing to the buyer. Don't overlook the strategic value of Blue Chip Accounts. Those accounts become a platform for the buyer's entire product suite being sold post acquisition into an installed account. It is far easier to sell add-on applications and products into an existing account than it is to open up that new account. These strategic accounts can have huge value to a buyer.

6. Finally, we use a customer acquisition cost model to drive value in the eyes of a potential buyer. Let's say that your sales person at 100% of Quota earns total salary and commissions of $125,000 and sells 5 net new accounts. That would mean that your base customer acquisition cost per account was $25,000. Add a 20% company overhead for the 85 accounts, for example, and the company value, using this methodology would be $2,550,000.

After reading this you may be saying to yourself, come on, this is a little far fetched. These components do have real value, but that value is open to a broad interpretation by the marketplace. We are attempting to assign metrics to a very subjective set of components. The buyers are smart, and experienced in the M&A process and quite frankly, they try to deflect these artistic approaches to driving up their financial outlay.

The best leverage point we have is that those buyers know that we are presenting the same analysis to their competitors and they don't know which component or components of value that we have presented will resonate with their competition. In the final analysis, we are just trying to provide the buyers some reasonable explanation for their board of directors to justify paying 8 X revenues for an acquisition.

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

Selling Your Software Company- The Number One Value Driver

When helping our clients sell their software companies, we get to witness buyer behavior first hand. The most important behavior is their economic vote - how much they are willing to pay for a business. Many factors go into their assessment of value, but a contractually recurring revenue stream is consistently the number one value driver.

Why is contractually recurring revenue so important? The first answer is risk. Buying a business is risky. Any factor that reduces this risk is rewarded with transaction value. Forecasted sales, for example, are at the high end of the risk scale and are heavily discounted in value. Historical time and materials revenues that are "most likely to be at about the same level" next year are somewhere in the middle of the risk scale and are valued accordingly.The owner and key employees may leave after the acquisition and may take their customer relationships and accounts with them.

Those customers locked into contracts are less likely to leave. The acquisition can temporarily inject uncertainty into the marketplace and cause disruption or delays in pending sales situations. The integration efforts will introduce execution risk into previously routine revenue generating activities.The acquiring company wants the existing customers to stay put long enough to get comfortable with the new company. Contracts with plenty of time remaining are their security.How can you use this knowledge to your advantage?

Go on a mission to convert every time and materials revenue source you can to an annual contract. If you are a software company, for example, and you have customers that are not on an 18% - 20% annual maintenance contract, get those customers converted. A strategy might be a one time "get current sale" in return for signing an annual maintenance contract. Services companies should review their T&M records with their regular customers and devise programs that convert those to annual fixed price programs. Equipment dealers come up with your own extended warranty programs. Services firms devise a concept where you provide departmental or functional outsourcing for your clients.

Financials are important so we have to acknowledge this aspect of buyer valuation as well. We generally like to build in a baseline value (before we start adding the strategic value components) of 2 X contractually recurring revenue during the current year. So, for example, if the company has monthly maintenance contracts of $100,000 times 12 months = $1.2 million X 2 = $2.4 million as a baseline company value component. Another component we add is for any contracts that extend beyond one year.

We take an estimate of the gross margin produced in the firm contract years beyond year one and assign a 5 X multiple to that and discount it to present value. Let's use an example where they had 4 years remaining on a services contract and the last 3 years were $200,000 per year in revenue with approximately 50% gross margin. We would take the final three years of $100,000 annual gross margin and present value it at a 5% discount rate resulting in $265,616. This would be added to the earlier 2 X recurring year one revenue from above. Again, this financial analysis is to establish a baseline, before we pile on the strategic value components.

On a value scale, contractually recurring revenue is a 10, expected historical revenue is a 6 and a sales pipeline is a 3. Move your 3's and 6's to 10's and recognize a big boost in your business selling price.

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. For more information about exit planning and selling a business, click to visit our Web Site MidMarket Capital

Selling Your Technology Company - Why Earn Outs Make Sense Today

Sellers have historically viewed earn outs with suspicion as a way for buyers to get control of their companies cheaply. Earn outs are a variable pricing mechanism designed to tie final sale price to future performance of the acquired entity and are tied to measurable economic milestones such as revenues, gross profit, net income and EBITDA. An intelligently structured earn out not only can facilitate the closing of a deal, but can be a win for both buyer and seller. Below are ten reasons earn outs should be considered as part of your selling transaction structure.

1. Buyers acquisition multiples are at pre 1992 levels. Strategic corporate buyers, private equity groups, and venture capital firms got burned on valuations. Between 1995 and 2001 the premiums paid by corporate buyers in 61% of transactions were greater than the economic gains. In other words, the buyer suffered from dilution. During 2002 multiples paid by financial buyers were almost equal to strategic buyers multiples. This is not a favorable pricing environment for tech companies looking for strategic pricing.

2. Based on the bubble, there is a great deal of investor skepticism. They no longer take for granted integration synergies and are wary about cultural clashes, unexpected costs, logistical problems and when their investment becomes accretive. If the seller is willing to take on some of that risk in the form of an earnout based on integrated performance, he will be offered a more attractive package (only if realistic targets are set and met).

3. Many tech companies are struggling and valuing them based on income will produce some pretty unspectacular results. A buyer will be far more willing to look at an acquisition candidate using strategic multiples if the seller is willing to take on a portion of the post closing performance risk. The key stakeholders of the seller have an incentive to stay on to make their earnout come to fruition, a situation all buyers desire.

4. An old business professor once asked, "What would you rather have, all of a grape or part of a watermelon?" The spirit of the entrepreneur causes many tech company owners to go it alone. The odds are against them achieving critical mass with current resources. They could grow organically and become a grape or they could integrate with a strategic acquirer and achieve their current distribution times 100 or 1000. Six % of this new revenue stream will far surpass 100% of the old one.

5. How many of you have heard of the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat of stock purchases at dizzying multiples? It went something like this – Public Company A with a stock price of $50 per share buys Private Company B for a 15 x EBITDA multiple in an all stock deal with a one-year restriction on sale of the stock. Lets say that the resultant sales proceeds were 160,000 shares totaling $8 million in value. Company A’s stock goes on a steady decline and by the time you can sell, the price is $2.50. Now the effective sale price of your company becomes $400,000. Your 15 x EBITDA multiple evaporated to a multiple of less than one. Compare that result to $5 million cash at close and an earnout that totals $5 million over the next 3 years if revenue targets for your division are met. Your minimum guaranteed multiple is 9.38 x with an upside of 18.75x.

6. Strategic corporate buyers are reluctant to use their devalued stock as the currency of choice for acquisitions. Their preferred currency is cash. By agreeing to an earnout, you give the buyer’s cash more velocity (ability to make more acquisitions with their cash) and therefore become a more attractive candidate with the ability to ask for greater compensation in the future.

7. The market is starting to turn positive which reawakens sellers’ dreams of bubble type multiples. The buyers are looking back to the historical norm or pre-bubble pricing. The seller believes that this market deserves a premium and the buyers have raised their standards thus hindering negotiations. An earnout is a way to break this impasse. The seller moves the total selling price up. The buyer stays within their guidelines while potentially paying for the earnout premium with dollars that are the result of additional earnings from the new acquisition.

8. The improving market provides both the seller and the buyer growth leverage. When negotiating the earnout component, buyers will be very generous in future compensation if the acquired company exceeds their projections. Projections that look very aggressive for the seller with their pre-merger resources, suddenly become quite attainable as part of a new company entering a period of growth. An example might look like this: Oracle acquires a small software Company B that has developed Oracle conversion and integration software tools. Last year Company B had sales of $8 million and EBITDA of $1 million. Company B had grown by 20% per year. The purchase transaction was structured to provide Company B $8 million of Oracle stock and $2 million cash at close plus an earnout that would pay Company B a % of $1 million a year for the next 3 years based on their achieving a 30% compound growth rate in sales. If Company B hit sales of $10.4, $13.52, and $17.58 million respectively for the next 3 years, they would collect another $3 million in transaction value. The seller now expands his client base from 200 to 100,000 installed accounts and his sales force from 4 to 5,000. Those targets should be very easy to hit. If these targets are met, the buyer easily finances the earnout with extra profit.

9. The window of opportunity in the technology area opens and closes very quickly. An earnout structure can allow both the buyer and seller to benefit. If the smaller company has developed a winning technology, they usually have a short period of time to establish a lead in the market. If they are addressing a compelling technology gap, the odds are that companies both large and small are developing their own solution simultaneously. The seller wants to develop the potential of the product and achieve sales numbers to drive up the company’s selling price. They do not have the distribution channels, the resources, or time to compete with a larger company with a similar solution looking to establish the industry standard. A larger acquiring company recognizes this first mover advantage and is willing to pay a buy versus build premium to reduce their time to market. The seller wants a large premium while the buyer is not willing to pay full value for projections with stock and cash at close. The solution: an earnout for the seller that handsomely rewards him for meeting those projections. He gets the resources and distribution capability of the buyer so the product can reach standard setting critical mass before another large company can knock it off. The buyer gets to market quicker and achieves first mover advantage while incurring only a portion of the risk of new product development and introduction.

10. You never can forget about taxes. Earnouts provide a vehicle to defer and reduce the seller’s tax liability. Be sure to discuss your potential deal structure and tax consequences with your advisors before final negotiations begin. A properly structured earnout could save you significant tax dollars.

Smaller technology companies have many characteristics that make them good candidates for earnouts in sale transactions: 1. High growth rates, 2. Earnings not supportive of maximum valuations, 3. Limited window of opportunity to achieve meaningful market penetration, 4. Buyers less willing to pay for future potential entirely at the sale closing and 5. A valuation expectation far greater than those supported by the buyers. It really comes down to how confident the seller is in the performance of his company in the post sale environment. If the earnout targets are reasonably attainable and the earnout compensates him for the at risk portion of transaction value, a seller can significantly improve the likelihood of a sale closing and the transaction value.


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. For more information about exit planning and selling a business, click to visit our Web Site MidMarket Capital