Recent insights reveal that adjustments in quality of earnings often redefine deal value, while new research questions the traditional narrative of operational improvement driving returns, highlighting the importance of valuation timing over operational excellence in the lower middle market.
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
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on May 1, 2026, making it current. However, the content references discussions from a Searchfunder forum and a study by Yale’s A.J. Wasserstein and Jacob Thomas, which may have been published earlier. The earliest known publication date of the Searchfunder forum discussion is not specified, and the Yale study was published prior to May 1, 2026. This suggests that the article is summarising existing discussions and research, which may affect its originality.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from a Searchfunder forum discussion and a study by Yale’s A.J. Wasserstein and Jacob Thomas. However, the earliest known usage of these quotes is not specified, making it difficult to verify their originality. The lack of specific dates raises concerns about the freshness and originality of the content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article originates from The Business Inquirer, a Substack publication. While Substack allows for independent publishing, the platform’s content quality can vary, and the publication’s reach and influence are limited compared to major news organisations. The reliance on a single source for the article’s content further raises concerns about the source’s reliability and independence.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article discusses the impact of Quality of Earnings (QoE) reports on deal valuations and references a study by Yale’s A.J. Wasserstein and Jacob Thomas. While the claims are plausible, the lack of specific dates for the forum discussion and the study makes it difficult to assess the timeliness and relevance of the information. Additionally, the article’s reliance on a single source for the study’s findings raises questions about the robustness of the evidence presented.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article presents a summary of existing discussions and research related to Quality of Earnings reports and their impact on deal valuations. However, the lack of specific dates for the forum discussion and the study, combined with the reliance on a single source for the information, raises concerns about the freshness, originality, and reliability of the content. The absence of independent verification sources further diminishes confidence in the article’s accuracy and independence.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
