Key takeaways
- PE buyers at $10M+ EBITDA almost universally require audited financials for at least two historical years; strategic buyers vary more by size and sophistication.
- An audit costs 3 to 10x more than a review and takes 8 to 16 weeks to complete; plan for at least one full fiscal year of audited statements before launching a process.
- A sell-side quality of earnings report supplements but does not replace audited statements; QoE analyzes adjustments while an audit provides assurance on the underlying numbers.
- Businesses with reviewed or compiled statements that plan to sell in 2 to 3 years should consider upgrading now, while the cost is an operating expense rather than a transaction-window sprint.
- Lender requirements for acquisition financing often drive audit requirements independent of buyer preference; if your buyer will use debt financing, audited statements are nearly always required.
The three levels of financial statement assurance
Financial statements can be prepared with three levels of CPA involvement, each providing a different level of assurance to the reader. Understanding the difference is essential for M&A preparation because buyers use the assurance level as a proxy for financial statement reliability.
Scroll to see more →
A compilation provides no assurance. The CPA is simply organizing numbers the management team provided. Buyers understand this distinction, and compiled statements from a small regional firm with no M&A-adjacent credibility signal very limited financial statement reliability.
What different buyer types require
Buyer financial statement requirements are not universal. They vary by buyer type, deal size, and financing structure. Understanding what your likely buyers require before you upgrade saves significant time and cost.
PE buyers at $10M+ EBITDA typically require
2-3 years audited statements
Strategic buyers (corp dev) at same size
Often accept reviewed for 1-2 years + audited most recent
Family offices
More variable; reviewed often accepted at $5M-$10M EBITDA
SBA-financed deals
Audited typically required by lender
Asset-based lenders
Audited typically required at deal closing
A distribution business with reviewed financial statements received interest from a well-resourced PE buyer at a targeted enterprise value of $22M. The buyer's LOI contained a condition requiring audited statements for the three most recent fiscal years. The seller had never been audited. The audit took 14 weeks and cost $85K. More significantly, two historical adjustments surfaced during the audit that required restatement, which delayed the process by 6 additional weeks. Had the seller upgraded to audit 18 months earlier, both the cost and the restatement delay would have been avoided in the transaction window.
The relationship between audit and sell-side QoE
Founders frequently confuse an audit with a quality of earnings report. They serve different purposes and neither replaces the other. An audit provides assurance that the financial statements are presented fairly under GAAP. A QoE analyzes the EBITDA adjustments, revenue quality, working capital normalization, and operating metrics that are not addressed in an audit.
Audit vs. QoE Function
Audit
Provides assurance that historical statements are accurate; tests transactions and confirms balances; required for lender financing; completed by licensed CPA firm.
Quality of Earnings (QoE)
Analyzes EBITDA add-backs and normalizations; assesses revenue quality and customer concentration; evaluates working capital; provides a buyer-ready EBITDA bridge; typically commissioned by buyer or seller as part of M&A diligence.
Buyers who receive a sell-side QoE on reviewed (not audited) financials will still commission their own QoE and will often require audited statements before closing. The QoE does not substitute for audit-level assurance in institutional deal processes.
Cost of upgrading and timing
Upgrading from reviewed to audited financials is not simply additive. The first-year audit is the most expensive because the auditor must establish opening balances, test prior periods, and build familiarity with the business. Subsequent-year audits at the same firm are typically 30 to 50% less expensive than the first year.
The optimal timing: engage an audit firm 24 months before your target process launch. This gives you two completed audited fiscal years before the process starts, which is what most PE buyers require, and avoids the compressed-timeline premium that audit firms charge for rushed engagements.
Selecting an audit firm for M&A readiness
Not all audit firms are created equal for M&A purposes. A small local CPA firm that handles your tax returns may not have the M&A credibility to satisfy an institutional buyer's diligence team. Buyers pay attention to who audited the statements.
For businesses targeting PE buyers at $10M+ EBITDA, the audit firm should have: experience with middle market M&A transactions, familiarity with the GAAP treatments relevant to your industry, and a reputation the buyer's diligence team will recognize. Regional firms with M&A practices can work well; small local firms with no M&A experience create friction.
First-year audits in the $25M-$100M revenue range take an average of 11 weeks from engagement to signed report.
The most common audit finding in first-time audits of founder-owned businesses is inadequate segregation of duties in accounts payable and payroll processing, which requires compensating control documentation.
Auditor changes within 12 months of a transaction are a yellow flag in buyer diligence; buyers prefer continuity of audit firm through the transaction close.
Work with Glacier Lake Partners
Assess your financial statement readiness before going to market
We help founders understand financial preparation requirements for their target buyer type.
Start a Conversation →Research sources
Explore adjacent topics
