Buying a store is a data problem before it is a financing problem. We build the workspace that carries a target from broker package through evaluation, diligence, and integration — with an earnings bridge that separates what the store earns from what the add-backs claim it earns.
Package, evaluation, diligence state, and decision in one place
Reported profit separated from what survives scrutiny
The effect of adding a target to the group, computed rather than estimated
Live packages under NDA stay out of every view that does not need them
One acquisition is a spreadsheet. Three at once, at different stages, with different brokers and overlapping diligence lists, is how a group ends up making a decision against a workbook that somebody last updated a week before the meeting.
The failure mode is specific and expensive: the number in the model, the number in the memo, and the number the lender was given have quietly diverged, and nobody knows which one is current. By the time that surfaces you are either renegotiating or explaining.
We build the workspace that keeps one record per target, with the model attached to it, so the answer to a question about a deal is a lookup rather than a reconstruction.
Every target with its stage, its broker, its economics, and its next action. The pipeline view is a working list, not a status report assembled for a meeting.
Financials normalized to your own line definitions, so a target is compared to your stores and to its brand-tier benchmark on the same basis rather than on whatever the broker package happened to present.
An earnings bridge from reported profit to adjusted profit, with each add-back itemized and marked by how well it holds up. A bridge you can walk a lender through line by line is worth more than a single adjusted figure.
Where the target sits against benchmark on each operating line, which is what turns a purchase price into a thesis: you are not buying current earnings, you are buying the distance to the playbook.
Floorplan assumption, contracts in transit, parts and inventory valuation, and the cash actually required on day one — the number most often discovered late and financed badly.
Add the target to the group model and see the consolidated effect: earnings, leverage, covenant headroom, and equity requirement. The question is never whether a store is good, it is whether it is good for this group at this price with this debt.
Request lists, what has been received, what is outstanding, and what came back different from what the package claimed. Findings attach to the deal rather than living in one person's email.
LOIs, NDAs, and purchase agreements generated, signed, countersigned, and retained against the deal record, so the executed set is complete without an assembly exercise at closing.
Every broker package adjusts earnings, and many of the adjustments are legitimate: an owner's above-market compensation, a personal vehicle, a one-time legal matter. Others are aspirational — a run-rate on three good months, a cost saving that assumes an integration nobody has done yet.
The system does not decide which is which. What it does is force each adjustment to be entered as its own line with a category and a note, so the bridge shows what the adjusted number is actually made of. An adjusted EBITDA presented as a single figure invites you to accept or reject the whole thing; a bridge lets you accept eight adjustments and argue about two.
We build the tooling, not the opinion. This is a diligence system, not a diligence service. Your accountants, your counsel, and your operators reach the conclusions. What we remove is the reconstruction work between them.
Live broker packages are almost always under NDA, and they are exactly the thing a curious stakeholder should never stumble into. Access is role based and the pipeline is excluded from every stakeholder view by default. Routes a role cannot see are routes it cannot open, so a page kept out of a menu is genuinely unreachable rather than merely unlisted.
Groups already running a consolidated dashboard with us move considerably faster, since the group model and the definitions are in place before the first target is loaded.
Software, and the process around it. We build the system your team and your advisors work in. We are not accountants and we do not issue an opinion on a target — what we remove is the reconstruction work that sits between the package arriving and your people being able to look at it properly.
Probably not as a standalone build, and we would say so. At that cadence the evaluation model and the earnings bridge are worth having as modules within a dashboard platform you are running anyway; the full pipeline and diligence tracking machinery earns its keep when several deals are live at once.
By default, no — deliberately. Live packages under NDA are excluded from every stakeholder view. Where a specific partner needs visibility into a specific deal, that is granted explicitly rather than by opening the pipeline as a whole.
During diligence you are working from packages and exports rather than a live feed, so the evaluation model ingests statements and normalizes them to your definitions. Post-close, integrating the acquired store's DMS is the standard integration work and is usually scoped as part of the deal's integration plan.
Yes. Acquisition debt, floorplan, equity calls, and the resulting leverage and covenant position are part of the roll-up, because a target that is accretive on earnings and breaks a covenant is not a deal you want to discover after signing.
That is usually the point where the spreadsheet stops holding. Let's talk about what replaces it.
Schedule a Consultation
K Auto Tech