When Cleaning Up Your Books Starts Working Against You

← All insights

Positioning the recent year is legitimate and expected. But three common moves cross from positioning into something a competent buyer simply unwinds, and a fourth crosses into something far worse.

Any good advisor will tell a seller to get the financials in order before going to market, and they are right to. Clean, well-documented statements with legitimate adjustments clearly supported are worth real money, because they let a buyer and a lender see the true earning power of the business without having to guess. Positioning the most recent year to show the company at its best is not just allowed, it is expected, and I coach sellers to do it.

But there is a point where cleaning up the books stops helping and starts working against the seller, and it is a point a lot of owners cross without realizing it. The common thread is that each move inflates the recent-year bottom line in a way a competent buyer unwinds during diligence, so the seller gets no lasting benefit from it and often does real damage. Three versions of this come up again and again.

The first is cutting capital expenditures and deferring maintenance. The year before going to market, the owner stops replacing equipment, puts off the roof repair, lets the fleet age another year, and the money that would have gone to those things falls straight to the bottom line. The number looks better. But a buyer who knows what they are doing looks at the trend in capital spending across several years, sees the recent year is an outlier, and adds a normalized level of capital expenditure back into their analysis. The inflated earnings evaporate in their model. Worse, the buyer now understands that the assets have been starved for a year and that they will be paying for the deferred maintenance themselves after closing, which becomes a reason to push the price down rather than up.

The second is the same mistake on the operating side, which is cutting discretionary spending that was actually doing work. Marketing and advertising, sales commissions, training, sometimes staffing. These are real expenses that drive real results, and slashing them in the trailing year lifts the bottom line while quietly undermining the thing that produced the revenue in the first place. A buyer sees marketing spend drop and revenue hold for a year and does not conclude the business got more efficient. They conclude the business was coasting on momentum that will not last, and that they will have to put the spending back to keep the revenue, which again comes back out of the earnings they are willing to pay for. Starving the business to fatten the number is visible to anyone who looks at more than one year.

The third is the one that does the most damage, and it is over-reaching on add-backs. The normalization schedule is where a seller legitimately adjusts for things a new owner will not incur, the owner’s above-market salary, a genuine one-time expense, personal items run through the company. Those are fair and they help. The problem starts when the schedule includes an adjustment that will not hold, a one-time expense that happens every year, an owner-comp add-back far beyond what a replacement manager would actually cost, a personal expense with nothing to support it. Here is why that one matters more than the others. The damage is not that the buyer strikes the bad line. It is that credibility is contagious. The moment a buyer catches one add-back that does not survive scrutiny, they stop trusting the whole schedule, and they go back through every other adjustment looking for the next one. A seller can lose good, defensible add-backs they were entitled to, because one greedy one made the buyer suspicious of all of them. You can trade a schedule that would have held up for a schedule the buyer now reads with a red pen.

The thread through all three is the same. Each one trades something real, a maintained asset, future performance, or the seller’s credibility, for a temporary bump that a capable buyer unwinds in diligence anyway. The seller ends up no better off on the number and frequently worse off on trust, which is the thing a transaction actually runs on.

And there is a line past all of this that a seller should never go near. The three moves above are legitimate cleanup taken too far. They are visible, they are defensible as judgment calls even when they are overdone, and the cost is lost value and lost credibility. Pulling revenue forward is different in kind. Recognizing revenue early, pushing customers to buy ahead of when they otherwise would, booking things that have not really been earned, to make the trailing year look bigger than the business actually is, is not positioning anymore. It is a misstatement of the financials, and it does not quietly disappear when the buyer normalizes it. It shows up in the cash proof, it shows up when the next period’s revenue sags, and most importantly it follows the seller past the closing table into the representations and warranties they sign in the purchase agreement. A seller who inflates revenue to get a higher price has not just risked the deal. They have signed a legal document attesting to numbers they know are not real, and that is a problem that can come back years later, long after the money has been spent. The gap between aggressive positioning and misrepresentation is the gap between a negotiation and a lawsuit, and it is worth being very clear with yourself about which side of it you are on.

The honest version of all of this is simpler and it works better. Clean up what should be cleaned up, document every adjustment you intend to claim, and position the business accurately at its genuine best. A buyer who finds nothing in your numbers that does not hold up is a buyer who trusts the rest of them, and that trust is worth more at the closing table than any number you could manufacture and then have to defend.

A note for the CPAs who refer clients to me

When a client of yours is getting ready to sell, the normalization schedule is a place where your judgment protects them from themselves. You know the difference between an add-back that will hold and one that will not, because you know what the underlying expense actually is and whether it truly recurs. An owner eager to show the strongest possible number will sometimes push for adjustments that a buyer’s diligence will reject, and the cost of that, as this piece describes, is not just the rejected line but the credibility of the whole schedule. Getting involved early, while the trailing-year financials are still being shaped rather than after a buyer has started picking them apart, is where you keep a client from trading a defensible set of numbers for an aggressive one. And when it comes to the harder line, revenue recognition, you are exactly the right person to keep a client well clear of something that would follow them into the representations they sign.