For buyers in the lower middle market, last week’s most useful reading was a reminder that the headline number is often the least reliable part of a deal. A Searchfunder forum discussion, as summarised by The Business Inquirer, suggested that Quality of Earnings work changes the story more often than many first-time buyers expect: in one practitioner’s experience across more than 225 engagements, more than half of deals saw seller earnings reduced by at least 5%, and nearly one in five were cut by more than a quarter. The message was blunt: after diligence begins, the issue is usually not whether adjustments appear, but how large they will be.

That thread also helped explain why. The recurring culprits were mechanical rather than dramatic: personal loan payments treated as discretionary add-backs, duplicated adjustments, and cash-basis reporting that flatters growth. A separate guide on small-deal QoE from BizTrader underlined the same point, arguing that even a lighter-touch review can be enough to validate sustainable cash flow if it focuses on revenue quality and the credibility of add-backs. For smaller transactions, where seller’s discretionary earnings often anchor valuation and SBA lenders are underwriting against normalised cash flow, the difference between a clean adjustment and a false one can decide whether a deal still works.

The newsletter then turned to a broader challenge to the search-fund playbook. Research highlighted by The Business Inquirer and published by Yale’s A.J. Wasserstein and Jacob Thomas suggests that the conventional story about searchers buying good businesses and improving them through superior management may be overstated. In the sample they studied, roughly 80% of enterprise value creation came from multiple expansion at exit, while only about 20% came from EBITDA growth. Margins, meanwhile, did not systematically improve; they actually compressed over the hold period, even as revenue grew. The implication is uncomfortable but important: a large share of returns may depend less on operator brilliance than on timing, buyer appetite and valuation conditions when the business is sold.

That reframing matters because it changes how investors should read mid-hold performance. The study’s authors argue that declining margins are not automatically a sign of weak execution; they may reflect deliberate reinvestment that makes the company more attractive later. In other words, the value-creation story may be less about squeezing each dollar of profit and more about building a larger, more marketable business. For ETA buyers, that is a useful correction to a familiar mantra: operational discipline still matters, but terminal valuation can matter more.

The rest of the issue stayed close to the practical realities of buying and financing small businesses. One online discussion captured the continuing mismatch between what buyers can justify and what sellers hope to receive, especially outside premium assets. Another warning, from a buyer who mistook working-capital negotiations for a simple price concession, showed how quickly a weak balance sheet can turn into a solvency problem. The newsletter also noted that brokers are increasingly screening buyers as hard as buyers screen sellers, while a separate deal note on e-commerce suggested 2025 activity has returned to its post-pandemic baseline, with add-ons still doing most of the work. Taken together, the issue painted a familiar but useful picture of the market: diligence is where optimism gets tested, and the best deals are often the ones whose risks were understood before the first draft of the purchase agreement.

Source Reference Map

Inspired by headline at: [1]

Sources by paragraph:

Source: Noah Wire Services