By Brannon Poe, Founder of Poe Group Advisors
A version of this article first appeared in The Journal of Accountancy’s CPA Insider™ By Brannon Poe, CPA
How Does An Earnout Affect The Buyer And Seller?
Earnouts are popular deal structures used by buyers and sellers of accounting practices, but they have drawbacks. In an earnout, a buyer pays for a practice using the earnings that are expensed from that practice, plus an initial down payment in some cases. In a pure earnout structure, the buyer takes no risk in the deal and pays no interest, while the seller takes on all of the risk.
One reason earnouts became popular is that many sellers (and many buyers) have difficulty imagining that clients will transfer easily to a buyer. They believe it takes months or years for clients to become comfortable with a new owner. As earnouts place a high level of risk on a seller, they keep him or her involved in the practice for a long time after a sale in hopes of maintaining client retention. This is a false belief. When a seller selects a buyer who is the right fit for the practice, smoothly transferring those relationships is an achievable and likely outcome when the transition of an accounting practice is done with reasonable care and common sense.
How Should You Structure A CPA Acquisition?
For this reason, we prefer to sell practices for 100% cash at closing. When this isn’t possible, we advise buyers and sellers to structure a deal that is a hybrid of an earnout and a cash-only deal. A number of variables can be tweaked to shift risk from one party to the other, such as the duration of the contingency period, the size of the down payment, and the percentage of price adjustment for each dollar of lost revenue.
In our experience over the last few years, we have seen that when firms sell for exceptionally high multiples, we may see some earnout structures when the sales price is 1.5 to 2x gross revenue. They may receive 1.3x cash down with an earnout on the remaining agreed-upon amount for six months to a year. Our team strongly discourages accepting less than 1x of your multiple in cash at close as long as you are not pursuing a fire sale. In our data from the last several years the majority of our deals receive a minimum of 1x of their gross revenues at the time of close and in most cases, more.
Earnout structures can lead buyers to “cherry-pick” only the clients they deem worthy of keeping. If buyers don’t lose money when clients leave, they have no financial incentive to hang on to those they don’t want to serve. This can be especially problematic when the buyer and seller have big differences in how they value their clients, deliver and price services, or when the buyer doesn’t have enough staff to give clients the level of service they’ve become accustomed to. Clients may become dissatisfied with the changes and leave the firm, costing the seller money.
One caveat: In some instances, earnouts are necessary to protect the buyer. Most commonly, we’ve seen this occur when a practice has a concentration of especially large clients or when a past or present partner or employee may pose a competitive threat to the practice.
Many CPAs believe that, after a practice changes hands, it’s good for the seller to stay in the office for several months or even years to help ease clients’ transition. In our experience, that is not true in most cases. The earnout structure often incentivizes sellers to stay in the practice far longer than is necessary for a successful hand-off, and when that happens, control battles often ensue.
Moreover, buyers often bond with clients faster if the seller is not around. If the seller is in the office when the client calls or comes by, the client will want to talk to the seller, not the buyer, and the buyer-client relationship is not nurtured. Plus, the buyer often loses money by paying the seller a substantial salary to stay on for a while. Often, the buyer could afford to lose a lot of clients for what he or she is paying the seller for extended transition assistance.
There are of course exceptions to this. For example, in private equity acquisitions, it can be optimal for the seller to stay on for a while where the PE firm is providing structure and back-office support. This is because the goal here is often other acquisitions and growing a larger practice. A private equity buyer will value and need the continued support of the seller who is usually still invested with growth equity. You can read more about this in our new report, “Private Equity M&A in the Accounting Industry.”
Another exception to speedy transitions can occur when there are multiple partners. When timelines are misaligned on retirement with partnerships, it can be ideal to keep some partners on board. As firms get larger, oftentimes client relationships are not solely owned by the seller. In these instances, it can be great to keep company culture and maintain client points of contact by employing partners not ready for retirement. Transition planning in these cases must be carefully done before closing to ensure a healthy start to a new relationship. Finding a buyer for these types of transitions can also take longer because fit becomes even more crucial when a partner plans to work with the new owner for an extended period.
When a seller doesn’t end up receiving what he or she had hoped for from the earnout structure, disputes often arise. According to data from SRS/Acquiom, in general business sales, about two-thirds of earnout deals give rise to conflicts regarding escrowed funds. In our experience, the most frequent cause for dispute is that a buyer either didn’t calculate the revenue as agreed or was negligent in developing client relationships and/or providing reasonably good client service.
Cash deals happen much more frequently than many realize. At our firm, we often sell practices for all cash or cash equivalent with no risk to the seller for client retention. Over half of our transactions are sold with 100% cash at closing, while approximately 85% of our transactions have fixed-price structures, leaving only about 15% with any contingencies whatsoever. We believe a small sacrifice in price is well worth getting the right terms. Furthermore, we believe fixed pricing helps both parties in the deal because it generally facilitates better transitions.