The founder thinks it's an accounting concept. The buyer thinks it's a deal structure.
Working capital is one of the most reliably misunderstood concepts in founder-led transactions. Founders treat it as a financial metric. Buyers treat it as a negotiation instrument — a mechanism for adjusting the effective price of the transaction at settlement. The gap between those two positions costs founders money at settlement, not in the headline price.
The same operational reality. Four audiences. Four descriptions.
Each audience is technically accurate from where they sit. The language divergence is real — and in a transaction room, it costs value.
What the gap costs
The value consequence of speaking different languages in the same room.
The working capital peg is set at normalised levels based on historical trading. If the business delivers less working capital than the peg at settlement — through debtor deterioration, inventory build, or creditor acceleration — the founder receives less. This adjustment mechanism reduces effective proceeds without changing the headline enterprise value that was negotiated.
Connected Architecture
Frameworks, doctrine, and tools that close this translation gap.
Eight translations. One operating architecture.
Translation closes the gap. The mandate executes the close. If the operating question your business faces is on this page, the conversation starts here.
Discuss A Mandate →