{"id":96217,"date":"2022-04-07t19:00:08","date_gmt":"2022-04-07t23:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/?p=96217"},"modified":"2022-12-22t00:40:42","modified_gmt":"2022-12-22t05:40:42","slug":"one-times-fees-isnt-the-only-way","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.g005e.com\/2022\/04\/07\/one-times-fees-isnt-the-only-way\/","title":{"rendered":"one times fees isn\u2019t the only way"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>check the math.<\/strong><\/p>\n by marc rosenberg<\/i> partners in accounting firms are familiar with the rule of thumb that a cpa firm\u2019s goodwill (excluding capital) is worth one times fees. however, like many rules of thumb, this notion is often incorrect.<\/p>\n more: <\/b>thinking merger? first ask why.<\/a> | why do you want to merge? be honest.<\/a> | four reasons to fear a merger<\/a> when buyers begin to think about how much they will pay for a smaller firm, they often have this one-times-fees notion in the back of their minds. then, when sellers are bold enough to ask for a price in excess of one times fees, buyers often balk. assume the following:<\/p>\n here is what the cash flow looks like to the buyer (numbers in $000s):<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n the return on investment (roi) is a wonderful 49.5 percent, which most people would consider a steal.<\/p>\n caveat: the above assumes that the buyer acquires a seller and the compensation to the seller is minimal because the latter wants to be gone soon after transitioning the clients. if the seller wishes to continue working, either full-time or part-time, then the roi will be lower, though still solid.<\/p>\n now let\u2019s look at the roi if the firm sells for 1.3 x fees instead of 1x:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n to<\/strong><\/p>\n seller<\/strong><\/td>\n fees<\/strong><\/td>\n profit<\/strong><\/td>\n exp<\/strong><\/td>\n cash<\/strong><\/p>\n flow<\/strong><\/td>\n value @<\/strong><\/p>\n 29.0%<\/strong><\/td>\n present value<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n <\/p>\n despite paying a 30 percent higher price, the buyer still nets an outstanding 29 percent on the deal. a great investment any day of the week!<\/p>\n conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n this post illustrates that paying well over one times fees should not make buyers feel they are overpaying for the firm. a buyer can earn a very handsome return despite paying a premium price.<\/p>\n there is a critical caveat: the buyer must be able to earn respectable profits from the revenues acquired. if this is not the case, then it\u2019s probably not a good idea to pay a premium price. in fact, i would seriously question acquiring any<\/strong> firm at any<\/strong> price if the buyer has valid concerns about not earning an acceptable profit from the seller.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\ncpa firm mergers: your complete guide<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n
\nexclusively for pro members. <\/span><\/strong>log in here<\/a> or 2022世界杯足球排名 today<\/a>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nthe purpose of this post is to demonstrate that buying a small firm for one times fees is a steal (for the buyer). in fact, it\u2019s still an outstanding investment at a premium price in excess of 1.0. let me illustrate my point.<\/p>\n\n
\n\n
\n <\/td>\n payment <\/strong>to <\/strong>seller<\/strong><\/td>\n annual <\/strong>fees<\/strong><\/td>\n annual <\/strong>profit<\/strong><\/td>\n start-up <\/strong>exp<\/strong><\/td>\n net <\/strong>cash <\/strong>flow<\/strong><\/td>\n present <\/strong>value @ <\/strong>49.5%<\/strong><\/td>\n net <\/strong>present value<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n down
\npmt<\/td>\n(80)<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n (80)<\/td>\n 1.0000<\/td>\n (80)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 1<\/td>\n (144)<\/td>\n 800<\/td>\n 240<\/td>\n (50)<\/td>\n 46<\/td>\n 0.5050<\/td>\n 23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 2<\/td>\n (144)<\/td>\n 840<\/td>\n 252<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 108<\/td>\n 0.2550<\/td>\n 28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 3<\/td>\n (144)<\/td>\n 882<\/td>\n 265<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 121<\/td>\n 0.1288<\/td>\n 16<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 4<\/td>\n (144)<\/td>\n 926<\/td>\n 278<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 134<\/td>\n 0.0650<\/td>\n 9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 5<\/td>\n (144)<\/td>\n 972<\/td>\n 292<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 148<\/td>\n 0.0328<\/td>\n 5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n total<\/strong><\/td>\n (800)<\/td>\n \u00a0 4,421<\/td>\n \u00a01,326<\/td>\n (50)<\/td>\n 476<\/td>\n <\/td>\n (0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n \n\n
\n <\/td>\n payment<\/strong><\/p>\n annual<\/strong><\/p>\n annual<\/strong><\/p>\n start-up<\/strong><\/p>\n net<\/strong><\/p>\n present<\/strong><\/p>\n net<\/strong><\/p>\n \n down
\npmt<\/td>\n(104)<\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n <\/td>\n (104)<\/td>\n 1.0000<\/td>\n (104)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 1<\/td>\n (188)<\/td>\n 800<\/td>\n 240<\/td>\n (50)<\/td>\n 2<\/td>\n 0.7100<\/td>\n 1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 2<\/td>\n (187)<\/td>\n 840<\/td>\n 252<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 65<\/td>\n 0.5041<\/td>\n 33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 3<\/td>\n (187)<\/td>\n 882<\/td>\n 265<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 78<\/td>\n 0.3579<\/td>\n 28<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 4<\/td>\n (187)<\/td>\n 926<\/td>\n 278<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 91<\/td>\n 0.2541<\/td>\n 23<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n year 5<\/td>\n (187)<\/td>\n 972<\/td>\n 292<\/td>\n <\/td>\n 105<\/td>\n 0.1804<\/td>\n 19<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n total<\/strong><\/td>\n (1,040)<\/td>\n \u00a04,421<\/td>\n \u00a01,326<\/td>\n (50)<\/td>\n 236<\/td>\n <\/td>\n (0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n