Due Diligence Deposits

searcher profile

January 18, 2026

by a searcher in United States

I wanted to share a recent experience I had with a broker. I submitted an LOI for a business in November. I flew to meet the owner pre-LOI as a way to potentially win the deal. It was fresh to the market and a decent company. The deal dragged on into December which is when I received the first counter offer. I submitted my second offer which mainly met them in the middle on the price ask. The second counter offer came in January. The broker now added a request for a non-refundable $35k due diligence deposit. They also wanted to negotiate the non-compete from 5 years to 2. I told the broker that both of those changes are 100% deal breakers for us. He went back to the seller and then got back to me. He called me on the phone to tell me that they are granting the request to remove the dd deposit and keep the non-compete at 5 years. He said ‘congratulations’. We hang up the phone and I read the marked up LOI he sent. The markup outlines a 30-day window of no deposit. Then deposits begin in order to continue diligence. Non-refundable $15k every 15 days after the 30-day window. I told the broker that these deposits are in no way market and walked away. The good news is I had another LOI recently signed, so walking away was emotionally easier. I wanted to share my story for the benefit of other searchers out there that may encounter situations like this. Run from dd deposits. Also run from people who play games like this. They present themselves as untrustworthy. Walking away from LOIs is difficult emotionally, but don’t allow yourself to get walked on.
3
21
322
Replies
21
commentor profile
Reply by an intermediary
from University of Chicago in Orlando, FL, USA
The broker definitely should have clearly communicated the "revised" terms on the phone vs sliding terms into the agreement. That said, it isn't accurate to say that dd deposits are never market. Deposits (like contingent payments) are just tools. They can be appropriate depending on deal-specific risks. In this case, seller was probabaly worried about buyer's commitment or ability to close in a reasonable timeframe. A modest deposit after a defined diligence period is a pretty reasonable way to mitigate that risk. In many deals, if a buyer can't reach an in-or-out decision within 30 days, it points to a bad diligence process (or maybe a business that wasn't actually ready to transact). Of course, it is absolutely right to walk away from terms that feel misrepresented or like you're getting walked on. At the same time, please recognize that sellers often feel very exposed post-LOI. Buyers gain significant leverage and some do slow-roll diligence or retrade unfairly while pursuing other options. Even if this wasn't the case here, these are real risks that sellers have to consider. Anyway, I'm just responding to fill up my meter. Hope all goes well with your deal.
commentor profile
Reply by an intermediary
from University of Texas at Tyler in Tyler, TX, USA
If the seller really likes a particular buyer and/or the buyer is a perfect fit operationally for a business BUT hasn't provided proof of funds and insists on getting an agreed-upon price beforehand, I would ask for something resembling earnest money and an option period to obtain an approval letter from a lender. Otherwise, as others have stated already, there's no reason. This particular one sounds like the seller pushing for these things and not the broker.
commentor profile
+19 more replies.
Join the discussion