The most dangerous document in a data room is a clean audit report. For a founder, it’s a badge of honor—proof that their numbers are accurate, their controls are tight, and their taxes are paid. For a Private Equity Operating Partner, it is virtually useless for predicting the future.
We see this scenario play out in deal after deal: A target company presents audited financials showing steady Net Income growth. The Letter of Intent (LOI) is signed at a healthy 8x multiple. Then, the buy-side Quality of Earnings (QoE) team arrives. Within three weeks, they find that 15% of that revenue is tied to a single customer on a cancelling contract, "capitalized" software development costs were actually maintenance opex, and the "clean" inventory number includes $500k of dead stock.
The result? The EBITDA number collapses, the multiple compresses, and the deal either trades down or dies. Recent data from 2025 indicates that nearly 50% of M&A transactions fail during due diligence, often because financial realities diverge from the audited narrative. The audit answers the question: "Are these numbers historically accurate according to compliance rules?" The QoE answers the only question that matters to an investor: "Are these earnings sustainable, and do they convert to cash?"
The distance between GAAP Net Income and Adjusted EBITDA is where deal value is either created or destroyed. While an audit verifies the past, a Quality of Earnings report stress-tests the future model. There are three specific vectors where the "GAAP Gap" is widest.
Auditors care about what did happen. QoE providers care about what should happen under new ownership. This leads to the battleground of "add-backs." Founders often claim personal expenses (cars, club memberships) as add-backs, but buy-side teams aggressively reverse aggressive capitalization policies. In 2024, middle-market deals ($10M-$25M TEV) traded at an average of 6.4x TTM EBITDA. Every $100k of disputed EBITDA isn't just $100k—it’s $640k of Enterprise Value erased.
An audit confirms the balance sheet balances at year-end. It ignores the seasonality that happens in between. A QoE establishes a "Working Capital Peg"—the normative level of cash required to run the business. If the target consistently delays vendor payments to artificially inflate cash at year-end (window dressing), the audit passes, but the QoE will catch the anomaly. The adjustment forces the seller to leave more cash in the business at close, effectively lowering the purchase price.
Auditors check invoices against bank deposits. They do not check if the customer who paid that invoice is happy. A robust QoE includes a revenue concentration and churn analysis that looks for "hollow revenue"—long-term contracts with high churn probability. As we detailed in our guide on Revenue Quality Audits, understanding the quality of the dollar is infinitely more valuable than verifying its receipt.
Waiting for the buyer to commission a QoE is a strategic error. It hands the pen—and the narrative—to the counterparty. The most sophisticated sellers now commission a Sell-Side QoE before going to market. This is not about hiding skeletons; it’s about framing them.
A Sell-Side QoE allows you to:
In the current market, where 70% of value creation plans struggle in year one, the precision of your entry data dictates the success of your exit. Don’t rely on a compliance document to tell a commercial story. If you want to defend your multiple, stop treating the audit as the finish line and start treating the QoE as the starting gun.
