Jay Aldebert: Your Business Looks Successful. It May Still Deliver a Bad Exit

Jay Aldebert: Your Business Looks Successful. It May Still Deliver a Bad Exit
Photo Courtesy: Jay Aldebert

The exit is the finish line. For most small business owners, it is the event the entire enterprise is supposed to be building toward, the moment when decades of risk and reinvestment convert into a transferable asset. Jay Aldebert has spent much of his career delivering an uncomfortable finding: most owners are not building toward that finish line. They are building parallel to it.

The issue is not effort or intention. It is measurement. Exit funding, the capital that must accumulate within or alongside the business to make a transition viable on the owner’s terms, is almost never included in how a business measures its own performance. It is treated as a future event rather than a present requirement. That treatment has consequences.

“When you exclude exit funding from your financial model, you might run a business for twenty years that looks successful by every conventional measure and then discover at the transaction table that the proceeds do not actually produce the outcome you were working toward,” Aldebert says. “The business was optimized for the wrong target.”

Valuation multiples in the sectors Jay Aldebert works in, trades, construction, manufacturing, and trucking, are sensitive to variables that owners frequently underestimate: gross margin consistency, overhead as a percentage of revenue, working capital adequacy, and owner dependency. A business that has never measured these dimensions against a defined standard is difficult to value accurately, and a business that is difficult to value accurately almost always sells at a discount.

The Return to Owner system incorporates exit funding as a line item in the Minimum Mandatory Profit calculation from day one. This forces the question forward rather than deferring it. The business is then structured, priced, and operated to produce that outcome over time rather than hoping a future transaction will compensate for years of underfunding.

For Aldebert, the shift is a matter of treating the exit as an engineering problem rather than a negotiation. The businesses positioned to exit well are the ones that built toward it methodically, with a defined target and a system designed to hit it.

Spread the love

This article features branded content from a third party. Opinions in this article do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of CEO Weekly.