The LOI Is Signed. What Could Break the Deal?

SAI WHITE PAPER SERIES

The LOI Is Signed. What Could Break the Deal?

How Business Brokers Can Identify the Business Conditions Most Likely to Become Due-Diligence Surprises

Lawrence M. Schneider
Founder & CEO, Schneider Axiom Institute™

PUBLICATION IDENTITY

Permanent Publication Identifier: SAI-ACPP-13
Original Publication: June 2026
Current Editorial Revision: September 2026
Version: 2.0
Classification: Business Brokers & M&A Advisors
Subject: Due Diligence, Transaction Risk & Pre-Listing Diagnosis
Primary Audience: Business Brokers, M&A Advisors, Transaction Intermediaries & Business Owners Preparing to Sell
Primary Constraint Relevance: Cross-Class — All Seven Classes
SAI Discipline Stage: IDENTIFY → PRIORITIZE
Evidence Orientation: Interpretive Proposition Supported by M&A Due-Diligence, Information-Asymmetry, Financial-Reporting, Customer-Concentration, Deal-Structure, and Advisor-Role Research, Operating Observation, and Illustrative Scenarios

Executive Abstract

The LOI is signed. The seller is relieved. The buyer is serious. The broker can finally see the closing table.

Then due diligence begins. The buyer asks for customer data, employee information, contracts, working-capital history, tax records, inventory detail, management interviews, quality-of-earnings support, customer concentration, owner involvement, and capital expenditures. Suddenly, a transaction that felt nearly complete begins asking new questions.

The largest customer represents more revenue than the buyer expected. The owner controls relationships management cannot yet replace. The EBITDA contains adjustments the buyer interprets differently. Working capital requires more cash than the seller assumed.

A critical employee may leave. A contract may not transfer automatically. A growth forecast depends on assumptions that have not yet been demonstrated.

None of those findings necessarily ends the transaction. But any of them can change buyer confidence, price, structure, timing, or willingness to proceed.

The LOI establishes intent. Due diligence tests the assumptions behind it.

This paper examines how Business Brokers can identify and prepare for material business conditions before they become late-stage surprises.

THE CENTRAL PROPOSITION

A signed LOI does not eliminate transaction risk. During due diligence, a buyer may discover or reinterpret customer concentration, owner dependence, working capital, earnings quality, management depth, legal exposure, operational fragility, or other business conditions in ways that change price, structure, confidence, or the decision to proceed. The Business Broker’s opportunity is to identify and prepare for those conditions before they become late-stage surprises.

The objective is not to predict every diligence finding. That is impossible. Nor is it to convert the broker into an accountant, attorney, quality-of-earnings provider, environmental consultant, tax advisor, or buyer-side diligence team.

The objective is narrower:

Ask earlier what the buyer is likely to ask later.

Why This Paper Matters

An LOI changes the emotional character of a transaction. Before the LOI, the business is being marketed. After the LOI, the seller often begins imagining the transaction as completed.

A closing date appears. The family starts planning. The owner mentally begins leaving the company. The broker begins calculating the path to completion.

Then diligence challenges something important. That is when a technical finding can become an emotional event.

The buyer calls it diligence. The seller calls it a surprise. The broker is standing between them.

The problem is not that diligence asks hard questions. The problem is when the seller hears those questions for the first time after expectations have already hardened around the LOI.

The LOI Is Not the Finish Line

A signed LOI is meaningful. It demonstrates buyer interest. It establishes proposed economics. It typically frames key transaction terms. It may create exclusivity. But it does not complete the acquisition.

Research on the pre-deal phase of M&A describes valuation, negotiation, financing, diligence, and closure as interconnected activities rather than a single irreversible progression toward closing. [1]

The LOI therefore occupies an important middle position. Enough agreement exists to proceed. Enough uncertainty remains to investigate.

The LOI says, “We intend to do this deal.” Due diligence asks, “Does the business support the deal we intend to do?”

Those are different questions.

Illustrative Scenario: “We Already Have a Deal”

The seller tells the broker:

“The hard part is over. We have the LOI.”

The buyer begins diligence. Three weeks later, the buyer asks why the largest customer represents 39 percent of revenue.

The seller responds:

“They have been with us for twelve years.”

The buyer asks whether the relationship is contractual. It is not.

Who owns the relationship? The seller. Who handles annual pricing? The seller. Who will preserve the relationship after closing? No one has formally been assigned.

The seller sees a twelve-year customer. The buyer sees a large concentration whose continuity may depend on the person leaving the business. Both can be looking at the same facts.

The surprise is not that the customer concentration exists. The surprise is that buyer and seller assign different meaning to it.

Due Diligence Is Designed to Change What the Buyer Knows

Before diligence, a buyer works from information supplied during the sale process. After diligence, the buyer knows more. That is the point.

Research on information asymmetry in acquisitions shows that buyers and targets do not enter transactions with identical information, and that information differences can affect bargaining position, transaction structure, and payment mechanisms. [2]

Research on private targets also suggests that stronger financial-reporting quality can influence how efficiently buyers process information and complete transactions. [3]

That does not mean every new finding should alter the deal. It means the buyer’s position after diligence may rationally differ from the buyer’s position before diligence.

The broker’s goal is not to prevent discovery. It is to reduce avoidable surprise.

Customer Concentration Can Look Different After the LOI

Customer concentration is one of the clearest examples. Before the LOI, the seller may describe a major customer as longstanding, profitable, stable, growing, and strategically important. All may be true.

The buyer may still ask:

How much revenue does the customer represent?

How much gross profit?

Is there a contract?

Can the contract be assigned?

When can pricing be reopened?

Who owns the relationship?

What happens if purchasing volume falls?

How difficult would replacement revenue be to generate?

Research has found that customer concentration can influence acquisition behavior and transaction structure, with the significance varying according to uncertainty surrounding major customer relationships. [4]

Customer concentration is not automatically a deal breaker. It is a condition the buyer may underwrite differently than the seller.

Illustrative Scenario: The Customer Everyone Loves

The largest customer has been with the company for eighteen years. They pay promptly. They rarely complain. Margins are strong. Revenue from the account has grown steadily. The seller is proud of the relationship.

During diligence, the buyer discovers that the customer represents 46 percent of EBITDA. Now the conversation changes.

The buyer still likes the customer. But liking the customer does not eliminate dependency. The buyer asks for retention protection.

The seller hears mistrust. The buyer sees risk allocation. The broker now has to reconcile two interpretations that should have been explored before the LOI.

The stronger the customer relationship, the easier it can be for the seller to stop seeing the concentration.

Owner Dependence Can Remain Invisible Until Someone Asks the Right Question

A seller may genuinely believe the business no longer depends on them. They have a management team. They take vacations. They work fewer hours. They do not process orders.

Then diligence asks who controls pricing exceptions, large customer negotiations, senior hiring, vendor terms, capital expenditures, bank relationships, strategic decisions, and unusual operating problems.

The answer may still be:

the owner.

That does not make the business unsellable. It changes the transferability discussion.

The buyer is not buying how few hours the owner works. The buyer is buying what happens when the owner stops working entirely.

Illustrative Scenario: “My Team Runs Everything”

The seller tells the buyer:

“My management team runs the company.”

The buyer interviews the team. The COO explains operations. The sales manager explains the pipeline. The controller explains reporting. The organization appears strong.

Then the buyer asks each executive:

“What decisions can you make without the owner?”

The answers reveal something different. Pricing over a threshold goes to the owner. Large hires go to the owner. Top customers go to the owner. Vendor disputes go to the owner. Capital decisions go to the owner.

The issue may not be management competence. It may be decision authority.

A strong management team can still operate inside an owner-dependent decision system.

That distinction matters because the remedy is different.

EBITDA Can Survive the LOI and Change in Diligence

The buyer and seller may agree on an enterprise value derived from adjusted EBITDA. Then quality-of-earnings work begins.

The parties may disagree about owner compensation, personal expenses, one-time professional fees, nonrecurring revenue, customer losses, replacement salaries, related-party rent, deferred maintenance, bonus normalization, inventory adjustments, or unusual working-capital patterns.

Accounting research has long emphasized that earnings quality depends on the decision context and on the underlying economic performance producing reported earnings. [5]

The seller may believe an adjustment is obvious. The buyer may believe it is recurring. The broker may believe both sides have a reasonable argument.

The LOI may contain a multiple. Diligence tests the earnings to which that multiple is being applied.

Illustrative Scenario: The Add-Back Everyone Agreed With—Until They Did Not

The seller adds back $300,000 of compensation and personal expenses. The broker accepts the normalization. The buyer uses it in the LOI.

During quality of earnings, the buyer concludes that $140,000 must be replaced with additional management compensation after closing.

The buyer does not dispute that the seller’s personal expense disappears. The buyer disputes whether the full economic benefit survives the transaction.

The seller says:

“You already agreed to the EBITDA.”

The buyer says:

“We agreed subject to diligence.”

That phrase matters.

A diligence dispute often begins not with different facts, but with different interpretations of what the facts mean after closing.

Working Capital Can Change the Deal Without Changing the Purchase Price

The headline purchase price remains the same. The seller thinks the economics are intact. Then the parties establish the working-capital target.

The buyer expects the company to deliver enough normalized working capital to operate the business after closing. The seller expected to retain more cash, collect more receivables, or reduce inventory before the transaction.

Now the seller’s expected proceeds change even though enterprise value has not. This can feel like a price reduction. Technically, it may be something else. Economically, the seller still experiences a difference.

A deal does not have to change its headline price to change what the seller receives.

That is why working-capital expectations belong in the preparation conversation before the LOI whenever practicable.

Management Retention Can Become a Transaction Issue Overnight

The buyer likes the company. The management team is part of the reason.

Then a key manager says:

“I am not staying after the sale.”

Now the buyer must reassess.

What does that person know?

Which customers depend on them?

What operating systems depend on them?

Can the role be replaced?

How long would replacement take?

What compensation would be necessary?

Does the seller need to stay longer?

Does the transaction need a retention agreement?

The issue may never have been a governing constraint in the operating company. It may become a major transaction risk.

A transaction risk can become critical to the deal without being the governing constraint of the business.

Deal Structure Is One Way Buyers Respond to Uncertainty

A buyer does not have only two choices: pay the original price; or walk away.

Uncertainty can be addressed through structure.

Earnouts. Seller notes. Escrows. Holdbacks. Rollover equity. Retention arrangements. Transition obligations. Purchase-price adjustments.

Research on acquisitions of privately held targets has found that earnouts are more common where information asymmetry is greater and can be used to address valuation uncertainty. [6]

That does not mean earnouts are always good or always bad. It means uncertainty can move from the valuation into the contract.

The transaction can survive while the risk moves somewhere else.

Illustrative Scenario: The Deal Did Not Die. It Became a Different Deal.

The LOI provides for $8 million at closing. Diligence reveals that two major customer relationships depend heavily on the seller. The buyer still wants the company.

But the buyer now proposes:

$6.5 million at closing; $1.5 million contingent on customer retention; and a longer transition period.

The headline value may still be $8 million. The seller does not experience those structures as equivalent. Neither should the broker.

The buyer has not necessarily cut the nominal price. The buyer has changed who carries the uncertainty.

Sometimes diligence does not break the deal. It changes where the risk sits.

Legal and Contractual Findings Can Matter Even When the Business Is Healthy

Not every due-diligence surprise comes from operating performance.

A buyer may discover contracts requiring consent, leases that cannot be assigned, intellectual property that was never formally transferred to the company, pending disputes, unusual employment arrangements, regulatory requirements, tax exposure, environmental concerns, or ownership issues.

Those are not automatically business constraints. They can still interrupt or terminate a transaction. That is why the governing-constraint framework must not be stretched to explain everything.

A strong business can have a serious transaction problem.

Those are different analytical domains.

Operational Fragility May Be Hidden by the Seller’s Experience

Some businesses perform well because experienced people quietly compensate for weak systems.

Orders are late—but one employee knows how to recover them. Scheduling is informal—but the owner can reorganize production in an afternoon. Inventory records are imperfect—but the warehouse manager knows where everything is. Customer problems are undocumented—but one service manager remembers every account.

This can function for years. Then diligence asks:

What happens when those people leave?

Where is the process documented?

How repeatable is performance?

What does the buyer inherit?

A business can perform well while remaining structurally fragile.

That does not automatically justify a price change. It is evidence the buyer may want to understand.

The Governing Constraint Is Not the Same as the Deal Breaker

This distinction is essential.

A governing constraint is:

the condition currently limiting the business’s required performance.

A deal breaker is different. It is a condition that prevents the parties from reaching acceptable transaction terms or proceeding to closing.

A tax issue might break a deal. That does not make tax the governing constraint. A landlord refusing assignment might break a deal. That does not make the lease the governing constraint.

A customer concentration could affect both business performance and transaction risk. Or only one.

The governing constraint explains what is limiting the business. The transaction issue explains what is limiting the deal.

Sometimes they are the same. Often they are not.

The Seven Classes Help Organize Competing Business Explanations

The Seven Classes of Business Constraint™ are:

Market · Operational · Financial · Organizational · Strategic · Leadership · Credibility

They can help a broker and seller ask whether a performance issue being discussed in diligence may have a deeper business explanation.

A revenue issue could reflect Market demand. Or Strategic positioning. Or Operational capacity. Or Credibility with customers.

Owner dependence could involve Leadership. Or Organizational authority. Or Operational systems that were never institutionalized.

Working-capital pressure could be Financial. Or the downstream result of inventory, billing, collection, growth, or operational problems.

The classes organize competing explanations. They do not convert every diligence finding into a governing constraint.

What Research Adds—and What It Does Not

The M&A literature supports several relevant ideas.

The pre-deal process is dynamic rather than static, with valuation, negotiation, diligence, financing, and closing affecting one another. [1] Information asymmetry can influence bargaining position and transaction structure. [2]

Financial-reporting quality can affect diligence and transaction timing in private-target acquisitions. [3] Customer concentration can influence acquisition behavior and structure. [4]

Earnings quality must be interpreted in context. [5] Earnouts and other contingent mechanisms can be used to address uncertainty between buyers and sellers. [6]

Research on advisors also recognizes that their role can extend beyond valuation into expectation management and coordination among transaction participants. [7]

None of that establishes that the Business Constraint Discipline™ predicts deal failure. It does not. The evidence supports the context.

The SAI proposition remains interpretive:

Earlier identification of relevant business conditions can improve the quality of seller preparation before diligence begins.

The Business Broker’s Role Is Not to Replace Due Diligence

The broker should not become the buyer’s diligence team. The broker should not issue legal opinions. The broker should not perform quality of earnings without the appropriate expertise.

The broker should not predict every buyer objection. The broker should not diagnose every transaction issue as a governing constraint.

But the broker can ask:

What is the buyer likely to question?

What assumptions support the price?

Where does the seller depend on relationships or people that may not transfer automatically?

Which customer or supplier relationships deserve explanation?

What working-capital expectations should be understood?

What operational processes depend on undocumented knowledge?

Which management roles are genuinely independent of the owner?

What known weakness will be easier to discuss before the LOI than after it?

Those questions improve preparation without pretending to replace professional diligence.

The Business Constraint Diagnostic™ as One Structured Input

The Business Constraint Diagnostic™ is SAI’s structured instrument for examining the probable governing constraint class and the condition indicated by the information supplied.

It costs $89, contains 81 questions, typically requires about 30 minutes, and produces a 2,200+ word written finding within 72 hours.

The finding addresses the probable governing constraint class, the condition indicated by the evidence supplied, why that condition appears limiting, why prior efforts failed, and the corrective direction suggested by the diagnosis.

For a Business Broker, the Diagnostic can serve as one additional pre-listing input when the broker and seller want a structured view of what condition may be limiting the business before a buyer begins diligence.

It does not replace valuation, quality of earnings, financial diligence, legal review, tax review, environmental diligence, customer diligence, working-capital analysis, management assessment, or professional transaction judgment. It also does not predict whether a deal will close.

The Diagnostic identifies a probable governing constraint. The broker must still determine whether that condition is relevant to the transaction and test it against the available evidence.

Which of those assumptions have not yet been independently tested?

What business condition is most likely to look different under diligence?

What transaction risk could change structure even if price stays the same?

What would materially affect buyer confidence?

What finding would be easier to disclose now than defend later?

The questions are not complicated. The timing is what gives them value.

IDENTIFY → PRIORITIZE → RESOLVE → CONFIRM

The Business Constraint Discipline™ uses the sequence:

IDENTIFY → PRIORITIZE → RESOLVE → CONFIRM

Applied before a sale process:

IDENTIFY

asks what condition appears to be limiting the business.

PRIORITIZE

asks whether that condition deserves attention before market or before the LOI.

RESOLVE

applies corrective action when doing so makes strategic and economic sense.

CONFIRM

determines whether the condition and relevant performance actually changed.

The sequence does not determine whether the buyer will proceed. It improves the seller’s understanding of the business being presented.

If owner dependence was reduced, can management now operate independently?

If customer concentration was addressed, did concentration actually change?

If working-capital pressure was reduced, did the cash cycle improve?

If an operational weakness was corrected, did performance become more repeatable?

A completed improvement project is not proof that the underlying condition changed. Confirmation requires evidence.

What This Paper Does Not Claim

This paper does not claim that most deals fall apart in due diligence. It does not claim that every late-stage transaction issue was identifiable before the LOI. It does not claim that every diligence finding is a governing constraint.

It does not claim that customer concentration, owner dependence, working-capital needs, or management risk automatically change price or structure. It does not claim that resolving a governing constraint guarantees that a transaction will close.

It does not claim that a pre-listing diagnosis prevents price changes, earnouts, retrading, deal termination, or buyer disagreement. It does not claim that the Business Constraint Diagnostic™ predicts buyer behavior or deal outcomes.

It does not claim that the Diagnostic replaces valuation, quality of earnings, legal review, tax review, financial diligence, or buyer-side due diligence.

And it does not claim that external scholarship independently validates the Business Constraint Discipline™, the Seven Classes of Business Constraint™, the governing-constraint proposition, or the Business Constraint Diagnostic™.

The proposition is narrower:

Before an LOI becomes a seller’s expectation of closing, identifying and preparing for material business conditions can improve the quality of the transaction conversation and reduce avoidable due-diligence surprises.

Implications / Applications

A signed LOI should be treated as an important milestone—not proof that transaction risk has disappeared. The seller should understand which assumptions remain subject to diligence.

Customer concentration should be evaluated in context. Owner dependence should be tested through decision authority and relationship transferability.

EBITDA adjustments should be understood as assumptions the buyer may revisit. Working-capital expectations should be discussed before they become closing surprises.

Transaction risks and governing constraints should remain conceptually separate. Known weaknesses should be disclosed, prepared for, resolved, priced, structured, or accepted—not ignored.

The broker’s job is not to guarantee the deal. It is to reduce the number of important things the seller learns for the first time from the buyer.

Limitations and Questions for Further Examination

The scenarios in this paper are illustrative. They are not presented as verified SAI transaction histories.

Transactions vary substantially by business size, sector, buyer type, financing, geography, deal structure, tax treatment, legal environment, advisor composition, and market conditions.

The external research cited here supports the importance of information asymmetry, financial reporting, customer concentration, deal structure, and advisor involvement in acquisition processes. It does not establish the effectiveness of SAI’s diagnostic framework.

Further examination should test whether structured pre-listing diagnosis changes the number of material issues first identified after LOI, seller preparedness for diligence, buyer requests for economic changes, transaction timing, seller expectation accuracy, deal-structure changes, or broker-client alignment.

The central empirical question is:

Does identifying material business conditions before the LOI reduce avoidable diligence surprises and improve transaction decision quality?

That should be tested. Not assumed.

Conclusion

The LOI is signed. That matters. But the buyer has not finished learning about the business.

The seller may believe the important negotiations are behind them. In many transactions, some of the most important questions are still ahead.

Who owns the customers?

Who makes the decisions?

How durable are the earnings?

What working capital must stay?

Which employees are essential?

Which contracts transfer?

What operating knowledge lives only in someone’s head?

What growth assumptions have actually been demonstrated?

What business condition is limiting performance?

And what transaction issue could matter even if it has nothing to do with the governing constraint?

Those are different questions. They belong in the process before the buyer is the first one asking them.

The LOI should create momentum. It should not create false certainty.

The buyer calls it diligence. The seller calls it a surprise.

The broker’s opportunity is to narrow that gap.

Ask earlier. Prepare earlier. Diagnose what belongs to the business. Separate it from what belongs to the transaction. Then let diligence test what remains.

Diagnosis before prescription.

Evidence Boundary

This paper advances an SAI interpretive proposition concerning the distinction between business conditions that may be examined before a transaction and due-diligence findings that may affect buyer confidence, price, structure, timing, or willingness to proceed.

The proposition is informed by research on M&A due diligence, information asymmetry, financial-reporting quality, customer concentration, earnings quality, contingent consideration, transaction negotiation, and advisor roles, together with operating observation and illustrative scenarios.

The paper does not establish that a governing constraint determines whether a transaction closes, that every material diligence finding is identifiable before an LOI, or that resolving a governing constraint prevents transaction changes.

The Seven Classes of Business Constraint™ remain Market, Operational, Financial, Organizational, Strategic, Leadership, and Credibility.

The scenarios are illustrative and are not presented as verified SAI transaction histories.

External scholarship supports the intellectual context surrounding transaction uncertainty, diligence, information asymmetry, deal structure, financial reporting, and advisor involvement. It does not independently validate the Business Constraint Discipline™, the Seven Classes of Business Constraint™, the governing-constraint proposition, SAI credentials, or the Business Constraint Diagnostic™.

The Business Constraint Diagnostic™ is a business diagnostic instrument. It is not a valuation, quality-of-earnings analysis, legal review, tax opinion, environmental assessment, financial diligence report, working-capital study, transaction forecast, or substitute for professional M&A advice.

References

[1] Welch, X., Pavićević, S., Keil, T., & Laamanen, T. (2020). The Pre-Deal Phase of Mergers and Acquisitions: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 46, 843–878. DOI: 10.1177/0149206319886908.

[2] Borochin, P. A., Ghosh, C., & Huang, D. (2018). Target information asymmetry and takeover strategy: Insights from a new perspective. European Financial Management. DOI: 10.1111/eufm.12199.

[3] Gill-de-Albornoz, B., Maffei, M., & Spagnuolo, F. (2025). Does the financial reporting quality of private targets matter for deal timing? Evidence from European M&A. Research in International Business and Finance. DOI: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2025.102794.

[4] Cheng, M., Jaggi, J., & Young, S. (2021). Customer concentration of targets in mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. DOI: 10.1111/jbfa.12587.

[5] Dechow, P., Ge, W., & Schrand, C. M. (2010). Understanding Earnings Quality: A Review of the Proxies, Their Determinants and Their Consequences. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 50, 344–401. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2010.09.001.

[6] Ragozzino, R., & Reuer, J. (2009). Contingent Earnouts in Acquisitions of Privately Held Targets. Journal of Management, 35, 857–879. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308328503.

[7] Santana, D., & Mirc, N. (2023). Deal Shapers: The Roles of Sell-side M&A Advisors in the Pre-acquisition Phase. Academy of Management Proceedings. DOI: 10.5465/amproc.2023.19015abstract.

Related SAI Resources

Business Constraint Diagnostic™

What Is a Business Constraint?

The Seven Classes of Business Constraint™

How the Seven Classes of Business Constraint™ Work Together

Why Diagnostic Credentials Matter

CAS — Certified Axiom Strategist

About the Author

Lawrence M. Schneider is the Founder and CEO of the Schneider Axiom Institute and the founder of U.S. Lock Corporation, now owned by The Home Depot. He brings more than five decades of CEO-level operating experience across manufacturing, distribution, land development, residential and commercial construction, franchising, and multi-entity businesses. He developed the Business Constraint Discipline™ to help owners, executives, and advisors identify what is limiting a business, determine what deserves priority, and confirm whether corrective action worked.

About the Schneider Axiom Institute

The Schneider Axiom Institute is an Institute for Business Constraints.

Its work is organized around a disciplined premise:

Diagnosis should precede prescription.

Through research, practitioner education, diagnostic instruments, and credentials, SAI develops the capability to identify, prioritize, resolve, and confirm the governing constraint.