Why Net Working Capital Matters in M&A Transactions (And How Buyers Can Get Burned)

professional profile

June 08, 2025

by a professional from University of Central Florida in Chicago, IL, USA

Net working capital (NWC) isn’t the most glamorous part of an M&A deal, but it’s one of the most important. It’s the capital required to keep the business running including receivables, inventory, payables. If you don’t pay attention to it, you can end up overpaying or walking into a liquidity mess on Day 1. In a deal, NWC is usually normalized and pegged as part of the purchase agreement. The idea is to ensure the buyer receives a business that’s properly capitalized to operate post-close. But here’s the catch: it’s a negotiation and sellers know how to play the game. Example 1: Inflated Receivables, Deflated Reality In one deal I saw, a buyer inherited a receivables balance that looked healthy on paper. But buried in the detail was a chunk of slow-paying customers that hadn’t paid in 120+ days. The seller had been aggressive in counting these as collectible, and the buyer didn’t push back hard enough during diligence. Without our help, the buyer would have ended up eating a six-figure write-off and scrambed for working capital to fill the gap. Example 2: Inventory Games and Payables Stretching In another case, a seller pumped up inventory just before close by over-ordering to create the illusion of strong operational momentum. At the same time, they delayed paying suppliers to make the cash balance look stronger. If the Buyer didn't exclude this temporary spike when calculating the peg, they would have been left with excess stock, strained vendor relationships, and a shortfall in liquidity. These kinds of tactics aren’t rare. They’re part of the playbook. That’s why diligence around NWC isn’t just about crunching numbers. It’s about understanding behavior: how the business manages cash flow, what’s normal versus manufactured, and what’s sustainable. The takeaway? NWC adjustments can make or break the economics of a deal. If you don’t get the peg right, and look past the surface, you’re not just leaving value on the table. You’re potentially walking into a working capital trap that’ll cost you long after the ink is dry. DM me if you're interested in learning more about financial due diligence.
3
5
102
Replies
5
commentor profile
Reply by a professional
from University of Pennsylvania in Washington, DC, USA
Great article, Joseph. With regards to the receivables inflation, one thing to point out is that the purchase agreement should include a representation from the Seller that receivables are from valid sales and are collectible, etc. Similarly, the purchase agreement should have a rep that the inventory is sellable in the ordinary course, doesn't include slow moving items, etc.
commentor profile
Reply by an intermediary
from The University of Chicago in Chicago, IL, USA
It is ultra risky to disagree with FGMK. With that in mind, the buyer is better off with example 1 as long as 120+ AR is not a fake AR or if its ha been outstanding for 1+ year. Buyers pay for profit, not for the amount of AR. Value does not go up b/c AR is high. So, price should have been the same if the long AR did not exist. Under this scenario, buyer would come out ahead if he/she had a rep as pointed out by ^redacted‌. Also, a leveraged buyer would get a write-off which will save taxes (however, a large company management that is measured by "earnings" would not like to defend lower earnings to higher-ups). Now what is the risk of 120+ uncollectible AR? Or for that matter the risk of even any shorter bad AR? Buyer is paying a multiple of earnings associated with the AR. If the value impact of such bad AR is high, then buyer has overpaid.
commentor profile
+3 more replies.
Join the discussion