ma-playbook

What this skill does

# M&A Playbook

Frameworks for both sides of M&A: acquiring companies and being acquired. Every M&A decision starts with strategic rationale -- without it, you are buying problems.

## Keywords

M&A, mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, acquisition, acqui-hire, integration, deal structure, valuation, LOI, term sheet, earnout, data room, strategic rationale, post-merger integration, buyer, seller, exit

---

## Acquiring: Decision Framework

### Strategic Rationale Decision Tree

```
START: Acquisition opportunity identified
  |
  v
[What are you really buying?]
  |
  +-- TALENT (acqui-hire)
  |     Cost: $1-3M per key engineer
  |     Timeline: 1-3 months
  |     Risk: Key people leave after lockup
  |
  +-- TECHNOLOGY (product/IP)
  |     Cost: Revenue multiple or technology valuation
  |     Timeline: 3-6 months
  |     Risk: Technology doesn't integrate, team leaves
  |
  +-- CUSTOMERS (market share)
  |     Cost: Revenue multiple (higher for sticky customers)
  |     Timeline: 3-6 months
  |     Risk: Customers churn during transition
  |
  +-- MARKET ACCESS (geographic or vertical)
        Cost: Strategic premium
        Timeline: 6-12 months
        Risk: Market assumptions wrong, cultural clash

For ALL types, ask:
  "Can we build this faster and cheaper?" If YES --> Don't acquire.
  "Is integration complexity worth the shortcut?" If NO --> Don't acquire.
```

### Buy vs. Build Analysis

| Factor | Buy | Build |
|--------|-----|-------|
| Time to market | Fast (months) | Slow (years) |
| Cost | Higher upfront, uncertain total | Lower upfront, predictable |
| Risk | Integration risk, culture clash, key person departure | Execution risk, market timing |
| Control | Lower (inheriting systems and culture) | Higher (building from scratch) |
| Team | Get experienced team immediately | Build team to your culture |

**Decision rule**: Buy when time-to-market matters more than cost. Build when control and culture matter more than speed.

---

## Due Diligence Framework

### Due Diligence by Domain

| Domain | Key Questions | Red Flags | Owner |
|--------|--------------|-----------|-------|
| **Financial** | Revenue quality? Customer concentration? Burn rate? Deferred revenue? | > 30% from 1 customer; declining margins; hidden liabilities | CFO |
| **Technical** | Code quality? Tech debt? Architecture fit? Security posture? | Monolith with no tests; no CI/CD; critical security gaps | CTO |
| **Legal** | IP ownership? Pending litigation? Contract assignability? | Key IP owned by individuals; active lawsuits; non-assignable contracts | Legal counsel |
| **People** | Key person risk? Culture fit? Retention likelihood? | Founders with no lockup; team wants to leave; culture mismatch | CHRO |
| **Market** | Market position? Competitive threats? Customer satisfaction? | Declining market share; commoditizing market; low NPS | CEO/CPO |
| **Customers** | Churn rate? NPS? Contract terms? Expansion potential? | High churn; short contracts; declining usage | CRO/CPO |
| **Product** | PMF evidence? Roadmap alignment? Technical overlap? | No retention data; divergent roadmap; redundant technology | CPO |
| **Security** | Compliance status? Incident history? Data practices? | No SOC 2; history of breaches; poor data handling | CISO |

### Due Diligence Priority Matrix

| Priority | Items | Timeline |
|----------|-------|----------|
| 1 (Deal-breaker) | Financial accuracy, IP ownership, litigation, key person risk | Week 1-2 |
| 2 (Valuation impact) | Revenue quality, churn, tech debt, customer concentration | Week 2-4 |
| 3 (Integration planning) | Culture assessment, technical architecture, process overlap | Week 3-6 |
| 4 (Post-close optimization) | Operational efficiency, vendor contracts, tool consolidation | Week 4-8 |

### Financial Due Diligence Deep Dive

| Metric | What to Verify | Red Flag |
|--------|---------------|----------|
| Revenue recognition | Is revenue recognized properly? Deferred revenue accurate? | Aggressive recognition inflating ARR |
| Customer quality | Weighted average contract length and renewal rate | Short contracts, declining renewals |
| Cohort retention | Do older cohorts retain better or worse? | Worsening retention in newer cohorts |
| Burn rate | All-in cost including one-time items | Hidden costs, one-time items excluded |
| Cash position | Verified bank statements | Discrepancy between reported and actual |
| Liability inventory | All known and contingent liabilities | Undisclosed or underestimated liabilities |

---

## Valuation Methods

### Method Selection

| Method | When to Use | Pros | Cons |
|--------|------------|------|------|
| Revenue multiple | SaaS with growth | Simple, comparable | Ignores profitability |
| ARR multiple | Subscription businesses | Recurring revenue focus | Varies by growth rate |
| DCF | Profitable businesses | Theoretically sound | Highly sensitive to assumptions |
| Comparable transactions | Active M&A market | Market-validated | Finding true comparables is hard |
| Acqui-hire | Talent acquisition | Simple calculation | Ignores IP and customer value |
| Replacement cost | Technology acquisition | Practical baseline | Ignores market position |

### SaaS Revenue Multiple Ranges

| Growth Rate | NRR > 110% | NRR 100-110% | NRR < 100% |
|------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| > 100% YoY | 15-25x ARR | 10-18x ARR | 8-12x ARR |
| 50-100% YoY | 8-15x ARR | 6-10x ARR | 4-7x ARR |
| 25-50% YoY | 5-10x ARR | 4-7x ARR | 3-5x ARR |
| < 25% YoY | 3-6x ARR | 2-4x ARR | 1-3x ARR |

**Note**: Multiples vary significantly by market, vertical, and broader market conditions. These are indicative ranges.

### Valuation Adjustment Factors

| Factor | Premium (+) | Discount (-) |
|--------|-----------|-------------|
| Strategic fit | + 10-30% for high synergy | - 10-20% for low synergy |
| Competitive process | + 10-20% for multiple bidders | Baseline for single bidder |
| Key person dependency | -- | - 15-25% if founders critical and reluctant |
| Technical debt | -- | - 10-30% based on remediation cost |
| Customer concentration | -- | - 10-20% if > 25% from one customer |
| IP strength | + 10-20% for strong patents/moat | -- |

---

## Deal Structure

### Key Terms to Negotiate

| Term | Buyer Wants | Seller Wants | Typical Compromise |
|------|-----------|-------------|-------------------|
| Purchase price | Lower, more earnout | Higher, more cash | 60-80% cash, 20-40% earnout |
| Earnout | Long period, hard targets | Short period, easy targets | 12-24 months, achievable with effort |
| Lockup period | Long (24-36 months) | Short (6-12 months) | 18-24 months with milestones |
| Escrow/holdback | Large (15-20%) | Small (5-10%) | 10-15% for 12-18 months |
| Representations | Broad, long survival | Narrow, short survival | 12-18 month survival, materiality thresholds |
| Non-compete | Long (3-5 years), broad | Short (1-2 years), narrow | 2-3 years, reasonable scope |
| Employee treatment | Discretion on offers | Guarantees for team | Offers for key people, best efforts for team |

### Earnout Design Principles

| Principle | Why |
|-----------|-----|
| Metrics must be measurable and auditable | Disputes destroy the relationship |
| Seller must have meaningful control | Unachievable earnouts are disguised price cuts |
| Milestones should be achievable with effort | Too easy = buyer overpaid. Too hard = seller disengages. |
| Payment schedule aligned with milestones | Quarterly or semi-annual, not all at end |
| Dispute resolution mechanism defined upfront | How disagreements are resolved must be in the agreement |

---

## Integration: 100-Day Plan

### Integration Decision: Absorb, Preserve, or Hybrid

| Mode | Description | When | Risk |
|------|------------|------|------|
| Absorb | Fully integrate into acquirer | Product overlap, same ICP | Loss of acquired team culture |
| Preserve | Operate independently | Different market/product, brand value | Missed synergies |
| Hybrid | Shared backend