Some Revenue Generated By Firms May Not Be Worth Much in Acquisition

Posted on November 13th, 2013 at 4:54 PM

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law Offices:

Certain revenue that a firm generates may actually reduce its valuation in an acquisition.  The M&A market wants revenues that both are recurring and stable.  The market severely discounts non-recurring revenues because of the unpredictability of the future cash flows. 

            The “right” kind of revenue includes, among others, the “fee-only” model, in which advisers are compensated directly and exclusively by their clients.  In addition, history has shown that fee-only firms with this type of billing arrangement have remarkably low rates of client departure.  Other revenues that likewise are recurring and somewhat stable include: retainer fees and family office types of service fees. 

            On the other hand, the “wrong” kind of revenue exists.  First, trading or product-based commissions.  Commissions may generate an immediate rush of cash flow in the short-term but have a long-term negative impact on valuation, as there is a risk that they are non-recurring.  They also may create a structural conflict of interest between adviser and client which could jeopardize the future stability of client relationships.  Moreover, trails are considered to be the “wrong” kind of revenue.  Those factors affect the valuations as well as the way we advise both buyers and sellers of advisory firms.  

The attorneys of Eccleston Law Offices represent investors and advisers nationwide in securities and employment matters. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 50 years in delivering the highest quality legal services.

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags:

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next

Jim, Stephany and the whole team were a God send.  We felt like we were put into a situation where we had no advocate. Jim’s team came in with a strong, well laid out strategy on how to get our story heard. Where our outside compliance company had no ability to help, our Broker Dealer was impenitent, and the regulators were aggressive pursuing vague rules, Jim came like a barricade against an assault we did not understand. Though you pay member dues to be affiliated with FINRA and a B/D, you have no voice. The only thing that is truly heard in this un-level playing field is a bulldog’s bark like Jim’s. I would encourage anyone to call Jim and his team to find a real ally in the tough and complicated world of securities regulation. They are truly the best.

Greg P.

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

October 20, 2021
5 First-of-Their-Kind SEC Enforcement Actions Announced

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Enforcement Director Gurbir Grewal recently discussed notable first-of-their-kind enforcement actions that his division has pursued.

October 19, 2021
FINRA Targets SPACs in Most Recent Exam Sweep

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has begun an examination sweep of advisors’ involvement with special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs).

October 18, 2021
SEC’s Statement on Complex Exchange-Traded Products

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently voted to approve a pair of rule changes proposed by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. to list and trade shares of new exchange traded-products: the 2x Long VIX Futures ETC and the -1x Short VIX Futures ETF.