A Carve-Out Buyer's Standalone Model Understates Transitional Service Costs
Executive Summary
Illustrative Scenario
This case study is a composite, educational scenario built from patterns commonly observed in carve-out transaction reviews. It does not describe a specific, identifiable client engagement, and any resemblance to a particular transaction is coincidental.
Background¶
A private equity firm was acquiring a mid-sized division carved out of a large industrial parent, structured as a standalone entity for the first time as part of the transaction. The parent had agreed to provide IT infrastructure, finance and accounting support, and certain shared procurement functions to the carved-out division for eighteen months following closing under a transitional service agreement, after which the division would need to operate these functions independently.
The buyer's deal team built its standalone acquisition model using the division's most recent trailing twelve months of financial data as reported under the parent's consolidated accounts, adjusted for known one-off items identified during financial due diligence.
The Problem¶
The trailing financial data used as the model's base period fell entirely within the transitional service agreement's eighteen-month term, meaning the division's reported costs during that period reflected the TSA's negotiated service fees, not what the division would actually cost to operate once those services needed to be replaced with independent, standalone capability.
The acquisition model's forward cost forecast was built by escalating this TSA-supported cost base at a standard inflation assumption, with no explicit adjustment for the TSA's scheduled expiry or the cost of building out replacement standalone functions.
Findings¶
A financial model due diligence review, specifically scoped to carve-out mechanics rather than a general acquisition checklist, identified that the model contained no line item, schedule, or assumption addressing the TSA's expiry at all. The forecast simply continued the TSA-period cost trajectory indefinitely.
Comparing the TSA's actual service fee schedule (available in the data room) against management's own internal estimate of standalone IT and finance function costs, prepared separately for the parent's own planning purposes but not yet incorporated into the buyer's model, showed the standalone cost of these functions was materially higher than the TSA fees the division had been paying — as would be expected, since a shared-services arrangement generally achieves scale economies a smaller standalone entity cannot.
Root Cause¶
The deal team had built the standalone model directly from available historical financial data without a specific, dedicated step addressing the carve-out's transitional cost structure — a step that a general-purpose acquisition model checklist does not prompt for, since it is specific to carve-out transactions rather than acquisitions of an already-standalone target.
Risk¶
Had the gap gone unaddressed, the transaction's valuation and financing structure would have been built on a cost base that understated the division's true steady-state operating costs from month nineteen onward, once the TSA expired — a permanent, recurring cash flow shortfall relative to the model's own projections, material enough to affect the transaction's underlying return assumptions and the debt facility sized against those projections.
Resolution¶
The review findings were presented to the deal team ahead of signing. The buyer commissioned a focused standalone-cost build-out estimate from an operational advisor, incorporating the actual projected cost of independent IT and finance capability post-TSA, and revised the acquisition model to reflect a stepped cost structure — TSA-period costs through month eighteen, then a step-up to the estimated standalone cost level. The revised model's forecast informed a renegotiation of the purchase price ahead of signing.
Lessons Learned¶
- A carve-out target's cost structure during a transitional service period is not its true standalone cost structure, and a model that does not explicitly separate the two will systematically understate post-TSA operating costs, detailed further in Carve-Out Transactions.
- A general acquisition model checklist does not prompt for carve-out-specific mechanics, and a review scoped specifically to carve-out risk is necessary to catch this class of error.
- TSA expiry dates and scope are typically documented and available in the data room well before signing, making this a preventable, not merely a discoverable, gap.
- A standalone cost build-out estimate from an operational advisor, run in parallel with the financial model review, is the most direct way to validate whether a carve-out model's forecast cost base is realistic.
Continue Reading¶
Related Pillars¶
Related Technical Guides¶
Related Checklists¶
Related Products¶
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
Is this a real client engagement?
No. This is an illustrative, composite scenario built from patterns commonly observed in carve-out transaction reviews. It does not describe a specific, identifiable transaction.
What is a transitional service agreement, and why did it cause a problem here?
A transitional service agreement (TSA) allows a parent to continue providing services, such as IT or finance functions, to a carved-out business for a limited period after separation. In this scenario, the buyer's model treated the TSA-supported cost level as though it were the entity's permanent standalone cost structure, rather than a temporary arrangement scheduled to expire.
How is a TSA cost understatement different from an ordinary forecasting error?
An ordinary forecasting error misjudges a genuine future condition. This was a structural omission — the model simply did not build in the known, contractually defined cost step-up scheduled to occur when the TSA expired, a fact that was documented and knowable at the time the model was built.
How could this have been caught before signing?
A structural review specifically checking whether TSA costs were modelled as a temporary, declining expense with an explicit exit date, rather than folded into the ongoing standalone cost base, would have identified the gap directly, since the TSA's expiry date and scope were both documented in the transaction's own data room.
What audit stage typically catches this kind of error?
Buy-side confirmatory due diligence, specifically a review scoped to carve-out-specific mechanics rather than a general acquisition model checklist alone, since TSA cost treatment is a carve-out-specific risk not present in an ordinary standalone-target acquisition.
Does finding this kind of gap always indicate deliberate manipulation by the seller?
Not necessarily. The gap here originated on the buyer's own model-build side, where the deal team used trailing TSA-period financials as the standalone forecast base without adjusting for the TSA's known expiry, rather than any misrepresentation by the seller.
Related Articles
Carve-Out Transactions
A carve-out transaction separates a business unit, division, or subsidiary from its parent and sells it as a standalone entity — a structurally distinct challenge from an ordinary acquisition, because the carved-out business has typically never had its own standalone financial statements. Shared corporate costs, shared systems and infrastructure, and intercompany relationships with the remaining parent must all be explicitly disentangled and allocated, and a transitional service agreement typically bridges the gap between separation and full operational independence. This guide covers the specific modelling discipline a carve-out requires.
Financial Model Due Diligence
Financial model due diligence is the discipline of testing whether the financial model used to price, structure, or finance a transaction is itself structurally sound — a distinct question from whether the target business's historical financials are reliable (the domain of financial due diligence) or whether its commercial prospects are durable (commercial due diligence). A model can be structurally unsound — an untraceable synergy figure, a broken purchase price allocation link, a hardcoded override masking the true output of a formula — independent of whether the underlying business is fundamentally healthy, and this risk is what financial model due diligence is specifically built to catch. This page is the hub for the Knowledge Centre's model-risk-in-transactions content: how model review differs by audience (independent, lender, investor, vendor), how it differs from a quality of earnings review, and how transaction-specific model risk maps onto FMAE's own structural rule set.
Operational Due Diligence
Operational due diligence assesses a target's operating processes, supply chain, production or service delivery capacity, and management infrastructure — testing whether the business can sustain and scale its operations independent of the financial figures themselves. Its findings translate into cost driver assumptions in the standalone model and, in a strategic acquisition, into the integration cost and timeline assumptions that determine whether disclosed synergies are actually achievable.