INFORMATION ASYMMETRY IN SMB M&A: WHY BUYERS AND SELLERS PRICE THE SAME BUSINESS DIFFERENTLY

Most first-time buyers enter LOI discussions believing they've found "the one."

Strong cash flows. Defensible niche. Experienced team staying on. The seller confirms: "Everything you see in the CIM is accurate."

The seller, meanwhile, is convinced the business is worth 30% more because "you don't understand the relationships I've built" or "the contracts about to sign will add $500K in recurring revenue."

Three months into diligence, the buyer discovers the top customer is on 90-day payment terms (not disclosed), the "experienced team" has never operated without the owner, and those "about to sign" contracts have been "about to sign" for 18 months.

That is information asymmetry—the structural gap between what sellers know about their business and what buyers can verify before committing capital.

How Evermark Defines Information Asymmetry

For Evermark, information asymmetry in SMB M&A exists when sellers possess material operational knowledge—customer payment behaviors, team capability without owner involvement, actual pipeline conversion rates, true cost structures—that buyers cannot verify through standard diligence before committing to exclusivity.

The gap drives three predictable failure modes:

Valuation misalignment. Sellers anchor on potential and legacy. Buyers anchor on verifiable evidence and downside protection.

Disclosure failure. Not all disclosure gaps are intentional—many owners genuinely don't realize what buyers consider "material." But sellers emphasize positives while downplaying risks, whether consciously or not. What starts as "customer concentration isn't an issue" becomes "our top client represents 40% of revenue but has been with us for 10 years"—without acknowledging the relationship is personal to the owner.

Sophisticated buyers understand this isn't deception—it's perspective. Closing the gap requires clear expectations, not just tougher questions.

Deal friction. What should take 60 days stretches to 6 months because buyers keep discovering information that should have been disclosed upfront.

Why Sellers and Buyers See Different Businesses

The Seller's Lens: Sellers focus on what the business could become—contracts "about to close," markets "ready to expand," efficiencies "easy to implement." For many owners, the business isn't just an asset—it's decades of professional identity. Accepting a lower valuation feels like the market saying "your life's work wasn't that valuable."

The Buyer's Lens: Buyers demand proof. Are earnings consistent across 36 months, or spiked in the last 12? Where sellers see opportunity, buyers see exposure. Customer concentration becomes key-person risk. "Strong pipeline" becomes "unproven revenue that may never materialize."

But buyers aren't immune to contributing to asymmetry. Some overstate their operational readiness, drag their feet in diligence, or re-trade terms late. Sophisticated sellers increasingly recognize this pattern—and factor it into their negotiation strategy.

Three Psychological Patterns That Drive Seller Overvaluation

Six Observable Signals of High Information Asymmetry

Signal #1: Vague or Inconsistent Financial Narratives

Ask seller to explain a specific line item. High asymmetry: deflects to generalities, story changes between conversations. Low asymmetry: specific explanation, consistent narrative, offers backup documentation unprompted.

Signal #2: Reluctance to Provide Trailing Data

Request 36 months of financials. High asymmetry: resists ("not relevant," "we changed systems"), provides only summary data. Low asymmetry: provides full trailing financials without hesitation, explains anomalies proactively.

Signal #3: "About to Close" Contract Syndrome

High asymmetry: Pipeline value >30% of current revenue, deals pending 6+ months, no signed LOIs, seller's story changes between conversations. Low asymmetry: Pipeline with clear segmentation, committed deals backed by signed agreements, consistent explanations.

Reality check for sub-$5M deals: Most smaller sellers lack formal CRMs or historical conversion data—that's normal. The red flag isn't system absence; it's inconsistency, inflation, or claims that can't be verified through any supporting evidence.

Signal #4: Selective Customer Disclosure

High asymmetry: provides only top 5 customers, lists revenue but not payment terms. Low asymmetry: full customer list with revenue, terms, tenure, proactively flags concentration risks.

Signal #5: Owner-Dependency Deflection

High asymmetry: insists "team can handle everything" without evidence, can't articulate reporting structure. Low asymmetry: provides org chart with clear responsibilities, references periods when business operated without owner.

Signal #6: Documentation Quality Variance

High asymmetry: professional external presentation but chaotic internal records. Low asymmetry: internal documentation quality matches external presentation.

The Four-Dimension Asymmetry Framework

Evermark uses four dimensions to systematically diagnose asymmetry:

Decision trigger: If asymmetry scores High across 3+ dimensions, require extended pre-LOI diligence, heavily structured deal, or walk.

How Brokers Anchor Valuation—and How Buyers Test It

Brokers prepare "market analyses" using selective comps. In sub-$5M deals, they typically use revenue or SDE multiples rather than EBITDA. This matters: SDE calculations vary widely based on subjective add-back assumptions, making comp validity harder to assess. A $2M SDE service business might be positioned anywhere from 2.5× to 5.5× depending on which comps the broker selects.

What sophisticated buyers do: Request full comp set with sources, independently verify, ask "How many were all-cash vs. structured?" and "What was the actual SDE add-back justification?" Then re-anchor using validated data—assuming comps reflect salesmanship more than science.

Professional CIMs emphasize potential markets (speculative) while minimizing risks (concentration buried in appendix). What sophisticated buyers do: Assume growth projections are 30-50% optimistic. If CIM says "diversified customer base," check if top 3 clients = 60%. Request underlying data for every material claim.

Brokers claim competitive interest: "We have three other LOIs at this price." What sophisticated buyers do: Call the bluff ("Seller should take the best offer—we'll proceed at our pace"), request proof of competing interest, treat artificial urgency as red flag.

When brokers help vs. hurt: Professional brokers reduce asymmetry through documentation discipline and standardized processes. However, some prioritize momentum over completeness or frame valuation through selective comps. Sophisticated buyers assess the rigor of broker prep, not just their presence.

What Sophisticated Buyers Do Before LOI

Demand Disclosure Upfront

Ideal Pre-LOI Request:

Sub-$5M Reality Check: Most small sellers won't offer tax returns, detailed SOPs, or full customer lists pre-LOI. That's typical—not evasive. What matters is how they respond: Willing but unprepared → coachable. Reluctant but transparent → manageable. Defensive or inconsistent → structural asymmetry.

Your Move:

Make Assumptions Explicit in LOI

"This offer assumes: Seller provides complete documentation within 14 days; customer concentration <25% single customer, <60% top 5; business maintains 90% revenue with seller involvement <10 hours/week after 90-day transition; no undisclosed liabilities. Buyer may adjust price, structure, or timelines to reflect material discrepancies."

Structuring Deals to Share Information Risk

When information gaps persist despite pre-LOI diligence, deal structure becomes the lever to align incentives.

Earnouts: Converting Seller Optimism into Shared Upside

Example: Seller claims business will grow from $1.5M to $2.2M EBITDA within 24 months.

Structure: Base $4.5M (3× current) + $1.4M earnout if EBITDA reaches $2.0M+ = $5.9M total potential

This is binary—seller receives full $1.4M only if threshold is hit. Anything below yields no additional payment.

Alternative structures: Stair-stepped ($700K at $1.9M, $1.4M at $2.0M) reduces cliff risk. Linear ($200K per $100K above baseline) aligns gradually.

SBA constraint: SBA 7(a) loans—most common financing for $1-5M deals—prohibit earnouts entirely, limit seller involvement to <10 hours/week, require seller notes on full standby. Many buyers discover this late—forcing restructuring or jeopardizing lender approval. SBA deals rely on holdbacks (10-20% escrowed 12-18 months) or price reduction instead.

When earnouts work (non-SBA): Structure around objective metrics, keep periods short (12-24 months), define every term with zero ambiguity.

Holdbacks and Escrows

Withhold 10-20% for 12-18 months. Released if no breaches; buyer draws for undisclosed liabilities.

Seller Notes

Seller gets paid over time as business performs. If business struggles from undisclosed issues, seller takes the hit. Only works if seller remains solvent.

When to Demand More Disclosure vs. Walk

Demand More Disclosure When:

Working capital asymmetry often matters more than pipeline claims. AR collectibility, AP timing, and inventory obsolescence directly affect day-one cash needs—frequently minimized until deep in diligence.

Response: Extend diligence (60-90 days), require targeted deliverables (AR/AP aging, inventory reconciliations, accrual schedules), structure with earnouts/escrows, make price contingent on working capital true-up.

Walk When:

Bottom line: If you can't trust the information enough to price the deal accurately, don't proceed—no matter how compelling the opportunity looks on paper.

The Bottom Line

Information asymmetry in SMB M&A is structural—sellers will always know more than buyers can verify upfront.

But asymmetry can be managed through:

The question sophisticated buyers ask isn't "Is there information asymmetry?" There always is.

The question is: "Can I close the gap enough to price this deal accurately—or is the seller unwilling to bridge the perception divide?"

Deals that close successfully are those where both parties commit to narrowing the asymmetry gap early, transparently, and systematically. Asymmetry doesn't disappear. But with discipline, it can be reduced to a level where both sides see the same business clearly enough to transact with confidence.

If You Treat Acquisition Strategy as a Discipline, Not a Gamble

Evermark's weekly brief breaks down the structural, operational, and financial patterns that separate disciplined acquirers from expensive lessons:

Join thousands of searchers, operators, and investors building acquisition discipline.

Subscribe to Evermark's Newsletter

Follow us on LinkedIn for more updates

#SearchFund #SMBAcquisition #DueDiligence #InformationAsymmetry #MergersAndAcquisitions #EntrepreneurshipThroughAcquisition #BusinessAcquisition #OperationalRisk