There is a specific moment in every deal process that kills the multiple. It’s not the management presentation. It’s not the initial bid. It’s the week the Quality of Earnings (QoE) report drops.
You presented $12M in Adjusted EBITDA. The buyer’s accounting firm—likely a Big 4 or a specialized mid-market tiger—just handed over a report restating it to $8.4M. They didn’t just challenge your projections; they systematically dismantled your add-backs.
In 2024 and heading into 2025, the market has shifted. The “growth at all costs” forgiveness of 2021 is gone. Buyers are no longer paying for theoretical synergies or “pro forma” cost savings that haven’t hit the P&L yet. According to recent data from SRS Acquiom, in disputes over Purchase Price Adjustments (PPAs), buyers’ calculations are accepted 70% of the time. That means when you argue about an adjustment, you are statistically likely to lose.
For Operating Partners and Founders, this is a valuation massacre. A $3.6M reduction in EBITDA at a 10x multiple isn’t just a rounding error—it’s $36 million in Enterprise Value (EV) evaporated overnight. This article diagnoses exactly why adjustments get rejected and how to build a defensive moat around your numbers before you sign the LOI.
While every deal is unique, the reasons for rejection follow a predictable pattern. In our work preparing services firms for exit, we see the same three categories of add-backs getting slashed during diligence.
You stripped out $400k in “implementation consulting” fees because you claimed it was a one-time ERP migration. But the buyer’s diligence team found similar consulting fees in 2022, 2023, and 2024. They reclassified it from “Non-Recurring” to “Operating Expense.”
The Verdict: If it happens in three consecutive years, it’s not one-time; it’s the cost of doing business.
For SaaS and tech-enabled services, this is the silent killer. You’ve been capitalizing 40% of your engineering salaries as R&D under ASC 985-20, boosting your EBITDA. A rigorous technical due diligence (often paired with financial diligence) will audit your Git commits and Jira tickets. If those “R&D” hours were actually spent on maintenance, bug fixes, or technical debt remediation, the capitalization is reversed.
We detail this risk in our guide on calculating real EBITDA add-backs. When that $2M of capitalized labor is forced back into OpEx, your EBITDA crashes instantly.
“We plan to close the Denver office, saving $500k.” “We will automate this process, reducing headcount by 5 FTEs.” Buyers in 2025 are cynical. If the action hasn’t been taken—if the lease isn’t terminated, if the employees are still on payroll—credit is denied. Market data shows that less than 30% of projected synergies in mid-market deals are fully realized post-close. Buyers know this math and will refuse to pay for execution risk.
Recent analysis from Middle Market Growth indicates that sellers who conduct their own sell-side QoE typically secure a 7.4x multiple compared to 7.0x for those who don’t. Why? Because they identify these rejections before the buyer does and adjust the narrative (or the price) proactively.
You cannot win a QoE argument with a spreadsheet; you win it with operational evidence. To prevent EBITDA erosion, you must treat your add-backs as legal cases requiring proof.
Do not present “pro forma” cuts. If you are going to claim a $500k saving from vendor consolidation, execute the consolidation six months before the process starts. Show the savings in the run-rate P&L. Buyers pay for history, not hope.
Don’t let your Controller bury implementation fees in “Professional Services.” Create specific GL codes for “M&A One-Time Costs” or “System Migration - Non-Recurring.” When the diligence team asks for the transaction detail, you hand them a clean ledger, not a messy export that requires manual sorting. This builds trust and reduces the “forensic discount” buyers apply to messy books.
If you are capitalizing software development, conduct a technical debt audit alongside your financial prep. Ensure your engineering time-tracking aligns with GAAP standards for “technological feasibility.” If your engineers are logging “maintenance” as “new feature development,” catch it now. It is better to lower your marketed EBITDA by $1M voluntarily than to have the buyer discover it and cut your valuation by $3M due to “loss of confidence.”
In the current market, a clean $8M EBITDA beats a messy $10M. Buyers will pay a premium for certainty. By scrubbing your own add-backs and pre-validating your adjustments, you transfer the leverage from their diligence team back to your deal team.
