“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” – George Orwell, from the essay In Front of Your Nose, published in Tribune, 22 March 1946.
Across a boardroom table, an owner is talking a prospective buyer through the business. It’s a kind of conversation that starts almost by instinct: the years it took to build, the difficult stretches survived, the customer relationships formed personally along the way, the reputation earned one delivery, one late-night call, one saved contract at a time. None of it is untrue. None of it is unimportant.
The person across the table listens with genuine interest, then asks something slightly different. What happens to sales if the owner isn’t present? Who actually holds the relationship with the biggest customer? How much of next year’s budget can be relied on without anyone doing anything unusual to produce it?
It isn’t that one side cares about the business and the other doesn’t. Both are looking at the same company. They’re simply measuring it by two different yardsticks.
What years of effort come to mean
There’s a reason owners describe their business the way they do. The remortgaged house sits somewhere behind the story, along with the invoices paid personally when cash was tight, the customer talked out of leaving on a Saturday morning, the years the owner’s own salary came last so everyone else could be paid. Much of this history has become part of how the owner sees themselves, not only how they see the business.
Over enough years, effort and value can become almost indistinguishable in an owner’s mind. A relationship feels valuable because of how long it took to build. A process feels sound because of how much scar tissue sits behind it. Even the owner’s own continuing indispensability can start to feel like proof of what they built, rather than a cost the business is still carrying every day they remain the answer to every hard question.
The owner sees experience, trust and judgement. The uncomfortable part is that a good deal of this perceived value may still belong to the founder personally. It hasn’t yet made the move into the enterprise itself.
The questions from the other side of the table
A business buyer isn’t dismissing what’s been built. They’re working out how much of it can actually change hands. Would the customers stay if the name on the door changed? Would the management team remain and keep making sound calls without the owner being present? Would next year’s earnings be achievable without the founder personally making it happen?
This is roughly where the concept of a three-month absence tends to surface, less as a formal exercise than as the kind of question that exposes a gap most owners haven’t looked at directly. An owner will often say, with complete confidence, that the team runs the day-to-day. The hesitation only arrives with the follow-up: would three months away change the numbers? Would it change who’s still a customer when the owner gets back? A capable team can run operations smoothly and still defer every pricing exception, every senior appointment and every difficult customer conversation to the one person who’s always handled them.
None of this is an objection invented by outsiders looking to talk a price down. The latest IBBA/M&A Source Market Pulse report, drawn from Main Street and lower-middle-market transactions, describes buyers at the smaller end of the market as particularly sensitive to margins and operating risk. The buyer is not simply looking at the profit the business produced last year, but at how reliably and independently it was produced, and how much confidence can reasonably be placed in it continuing.
The parts that cannot yet be handed over
Some of what makes a business feel strong turns out, when looked at from outside, to come with conditions attached. A customer relationship might be genuinely solid and still belong personally to the owner rather than to the company. Important knowledge might be extensive and still live almost entirely in the minds of two or three long-serving people, not written down because there was never an obvious need to do it. A large share of what looks like recurring revenue often rests on one or two relationships that have never been tested without the founder present.
None of these are really failures. They’re strengths with a catch. A senior employee asked where a particular process is documented might answer, without a flicker of concern, that Mary has always handled that. A management team asked who would make an unpopular strategic call while the owner was away might exchange a brief glance before anyone answers at all. The business runs. It just hasn’t yet proven it can run without the one person everyone generally still checks with.
The value consequences of that pattern tend to become visible only once someone from outside the business is doing the looking, which is often the first time an owner sees clearly how much of the organisation still travels through them personally, long after they assumed it had stopped.
The discount that tells the truth
This is usually where it starts to sting a little. A business buyer’s discount can feel like a verdict on everything the owner has poured into the business, but it’s more a price placed on uncertainty than a judgement on effort. A concentration discount is really saying the income is less secure than it looks on paper. A discount for founder dependency is saying the buyer may not actually receive the decision-making and relationships currently producing the results being sold to them. A discount for undocumented knowledge is saying part of the operating business simply can’t be handed over with any real confidence yet.
What matters here isn’t what any of this might eventually cost in some future transaction that may never happen. It’s that each one is already costing the business something today, in terms of resilience it doesn’t have, management capacity it hasn’t built, strategic freedom the owner doesn’t really feel they have, and no shortage of the owner’s own time.
An owner told that their most trusted customer or supplier relationship reads as concentration risk will often push back on the description before considering what it’s actually pointing at. A process that works beautifully and has done for years can still draw very little confidence from someone new to it, simply because nobody but its creator has ever needed to explain how it works. In fact, much of what a buyer would discount turns out to be something the business would be healthier without carrying, regardless of whether or not a buyer ever appears.
A buyer who may never arrive
Many owners have no intention of selling, and some never will. That does not make the business buyer’s perspective irrelevant – it offers a view of the business stripped of the owner’s understandable attachment to the effort behind it.
This can matter more, or sooner, than one might expect. An owner in their fifties may include a substantial assumed business value in retirement planning without ever testing what would remain after their departure. The company is profitable, growing and respected, so the assumption does not seem unreasonable. Yet those qualities say little about how readily that business value could pass to someone else.
Illness can force the same question without the courtesy of advance notice. A business may continue producing income, although perhaps less of it, while losing its ability to make significant decisions. A family may inherit something that looked like a valuable asset and discover that many of its customer relationships, commercial judgements and working practices were never part of what they inherited.
None of this needs to become an exit plan or an estate-planning exercise to matter. It only needs the business to be worth something on its own terms, in case the moment when that stops being optional arrives before anyone chose it.
What would actually be left on the table?
Back at that boardroom table, the owner and the buyer were never really disagreeing about whether something worthwhile had been built. They’d simply spent the whole conversation answering two different questions. One was accounting for what it took to create the business. The other was working out what would continue if it changed hands.
No valuation follows from any of this, and no exit plan either. What’s left, perhaps, is an important question worth thinking about for longer than feels entirely comfortable: is the more revealing test really what a buyer would pay for this business, or how much of what the owner values in the business would still continue in their absence?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments