Earn-Out 2026: The 5 Clauses to Avoid Financing Your Own Buyer

Introduction

In March 2026, a founder signs their LOI: headline price €18M. They receive €11M. The remaining €7M are contingent on targets set by the buyer, measured using the buyer's own accounting tools, in a company the founder no longer manages. This scenario is neither exceptional nor the result of a poorly conducted negotiation. It is the direct consequence of an earn-out signed without prior independent valuation, without a contractual definition of the metric, and without a governance clause. This is the norm in 2026 for French SME transactions.

An earn-out is a deferred and conditional price mechanism: a portion of the sale price is paid after closing, subject to the achievement of predefined objectives — revenue, EBITDA, operational milestones. It is not a guaranteed payment. Nor is it a simple price adjustment. It is a financially complex, legally exploitable, and tax-structuring mechanism — whose real value depends entirely on the clauses that frame it and the rigour with which it was valued prior to signing. Our business valuation service integrates this dimension into every M&A mandate.

"In 2026, the announced price is no longer the price received. The true price of a transaction is the sum of the fixed component and the earn-out — provided you have negotiated the right clauses."
— Hectelion, 2026.

On the French SME M&A market, earn-outs and vendor loans are now present in nearly 70% of deals in 2026. This figure is not the product of buyers' preference for complexity. It reflects a market where multiples are compressing, where sellers maintain valuation expectations shaped in a low-rate environment, and where buyers seek to transfer execution risk to the seller. The announced price is no longer the price received. The question is no longer whether to accept or refuse an earn-out — it is how to structure it correctly. Source: Les Echos, "Cessions de PME : le coup de frein", 23 April 2026.

Why is the French SME M&A market saturated with earn-outs in 2026? What are the non-negotiable clauses to avoid financing your own acquisition? And how do you value an earn-out before signing to understand its actual worth?

This article covers the origin and history of earn-outs, their precise definition, the 2026 context that made them the dominant mechanism, the 4 available structures, the financial valuation methodology using real options, the 5 non-negotiable clauses, the 5 negotiation mistakes to avoid, an anonymised real case, the Franco-Swiss angle, a 10-question FAQ, and Hectelion's positioning on these mandates.

Origin: Where Does the Earn-Out Come From and Why Does It Exist?

The earn-out first appeared in US M&A transactions in the 1960s as a solution to a structural problem: seller and buyer cannot agree on the value of the business. Neither is wrong — they simply hold different assumptions about the future. The seller believes in growth; the buyer is cautious. The earn-out was born from this disagreement: rather than blocking the transaction, risk is shared over time. The final price depends on what the future will confirm or disprove.

Founding Case — eBay / Skype (2005). The acquisition of Skype Technologies by eBay in 2005 is the reference example in M&A literature: eBay paid $2.6bn at closing, plus up to $1.5bn in additional earn-out if Skype exceeded revenue, gross margin and active user targets between 2006 and 2009. The earn-out actually paid was approximately $500M — one third of the maximum. The example illustrates the fundamental characteristic of an earn-out: the maximum contractual value and the amount actually received can diverge significantly. Source: IMAA Institute, Mergers & Acquisitions Worldwide Statistics, imaa-institute.org.

Expansion Into Continental Europe. For a long time, earn-outs remained an Anglo-Saxon practice. They spread gradually to France and Switzerland from the 2010s onward — first in transactions involving English-speaking PE funds, then in mid-market Franco-French deals. By 2026, earn-outs had become the rule, not the exception, in French SME transactions. Their prevalence coincides with the compression of valuation multiples post-2022 and the rise in interest rates, which created a systematic gap between sellers shaped by 2021 multiples and buyers constrained by a higher cost of capital.

Why the Mechanism Exists: The Valuation Gap. The earn-out is one of three contractual solutions that can bridge the valuation gap between buyer and seller — alongside staged financing and risk transfer. It respects each party's constraints: the seller receives their price if their projections materialise; the buyer only pays for value actually created. Source: Berk, J. & DeMarzo, P., Corporate Finance, 5th ed., Pearson, 2020.

Would you like to have your business valued, conduct financial due diligence or structure a transaction?

→ Book a call — 30 minutes, confidential

Definition: What an Earn-Out Is — and What It Is Not

An earn-out is a deferred and conditional price mechanism embedded in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA). It differs from three instruments frequently confused in M&A transaction structuring. A vendor loan is a guaranteed loan repayable regardless of performance — it is not performance-contingent. An escrow is a partial holdback designed to secure representations and warranties. A price adjustment is a post-closing adjustment based on closing accounts — it is accounting in nature and not conditional on future performance. Sources: Berk & DeMarzo, Corporate Finance, Pearson, 2020; Damodaran, A., Investment Valuation, Wiley, 2012.

2026 Is the Year of Earn-Outs

Les Echos, 23 April 2026: "Cessions de PME : le coup de frein." Geopolitical slowdown and rising costs have cooled the M&A market. The direct consequence: buyers are imposing earn-outs and vendor loans in 70% of SME deals in 2026 to share risk. The announced price is no longer the price received.

Three structural mechanisms explain the dominance of earn-outs in 2026.

Information asymmetry. The seller knows their business infinitely better than the buyer. They project a normalised EBITDA of €3.2M in three years. The buyer, being more conservative, retains €2.4M. The earn-out allows each party to maintain their assumptions and let reality arbitrate.

Multiple compression. In Q4 2025, the acquisition price of unlisted European SMEs reached its lowest level since 2014, at 8.3× EBITDA. To maintain an acceptable headline price for the seller, buyers shift part of the value into a conditional earn-out. Source: Argos Index® mid-market Q4 2025 — Epsilon Research / Argos Wityu, 18 February 2026 — argos.fund/argos-index-4th-quarter-2025.

Founder dependency. In an SME whose value rests on the founder's commercial relationships or expertise, the earn-out also serves as a retention mechanism: the seller remains motivated to perform during the transition. Without an earn-out, post-closing incentives disappear on the day of signing. Source: Damodaran, A., Investment Valuation, 3rd ed., Wiley, 2012.

The 4 Earn-Out Structures: How They Work and Their Incentive Profiles

Structure 1 — The Linear Earn-Out. Payment is proportional to the metric, with no floor or cap. Advantage: simplicity. Drawback: it rewards the seller even if performance stagnates, and exposes the buyer to unlimited payments in case of outperformance.

Structure 2 — The Earn-Out With a Threshold. Payment is only triggered above a predefined threshold. This creates a strong incentive to exceed targets. Drawback: no upside limit.

Structure 3 — The Earn-Out With a Threshold and a Cap. Combines a trigger floor and a payment cap. This is the most balanced structure — the mid-market standard recommended for SME transaction mandates.

Structure 4 — The Milestone-Based Earn-Out. Payment is triggered by binary events: regulatory approval, signature of a key contract, product launch. Common in regulated sectors. Advantage: absolute objectivity. Drawback: all-or-nothing.

The Financial Valuation of an Earn-Out

The value of an earn-out is not its maximum contractual amount. It is the present value of the expected payment, adjusted for the probability that the metric is achieved. A seller who accepts a maximum earn-out of €5M without independent valuation may ultimately receive only €1.2M — and believe they negotiated well until the calculation date.

There are three complementary methods for valuing an earn-out before signing. They are not alternatives: they are hierarchical and convergent. The first yields a central expected value. The second refines this value by accounting for the optional structure of the mechanism. The third calibrates an earn-out with a threshold and cap to preserve economic balance between the parties.

Method 1 — Probability-Weighted Expected Value

This is the most direct approach. Three scenarios are modelled for the metric — low, central, high — assigned probabilities, earn-out payments computed for each scenario, and the resulting expected value discounted at the appropriate cost of capital.

Illustrative Case — Company A (adapted from real cases).

Company A is a French SME specialising in industrial components, acquired by a build-up fund.

The transaction is structured as follows: MCHF 2 in cash at closing, an annual payment of MCHF 1 over three years conditional on the founder-manager's retention, and an earn-out equal to 0.25× Year 3 revenue.

The cost of capital is estimated at 10%. Current revenue is MCHF 20, with an expected annual growth rate of 5%.

Expected Year 3 revenue: 20 × 1.05³ = MCHF 23.15. Expected earn-out: 0.25 × 23.15 = MCHF 5.79.

Its present value at 10% over 3 years: 5.79 / 1.1³ = MCHF 4.35.

The present value of the annual payment: 1/1.1 + 1/1.1² + 1/1.1³ = MCHF 2.49.

Total offer value: 2.0 + 2.49 + 4.35 = MCHF 8.84.

Method 2 — Option-Based Valuation Using Black-Scholes

When an earn-out includes a trigger threshold, its payoff profile is identical to that of a call option on the future metric: zero if the metric remains below the threshold, increasing above it. This optional structure is fundamental: it means the earn-out has value even if the probability of reaching the threshold is below 50%, and that this value depends on the volatility of the metric as much as on its expected level.

The Black-Scholes model (Black & Scholes, 1973) applies directly. The five required parameters are: S, the current value of the metric discounted at the cost of capital; X, the earn-out trigger threshold; t, the earn-out duration in years; r, the risk-free rate in continuous compounding; σ, the annualised volatility of the metric, estimated from comparable sector data.

Illustrative Case — Company A, earn-out with threshold.

The fund acquiring Company A proposes a variant: the earn-out is only paid if Year 3 revenue exceeds a threshold of MCHF 25, with a payment equal to 2× the excess. This is an earn-out with a threshold and no cap, paying 2 × Max[0 ; Revenue₃ − 25].

This payoff is equivalent to two call options on revenue with a strike price of MCHF 25.

Black-Scholes parameters:

• S = 23.15 / 1.1³ = MCHF 17.39;
• X = MCHF 25;
• t = 3 years;
• r = 3% (continuous risk-free rate);
• σ = 30% (sector revenue volatility estimated from comparable sample).

The value of one call option computed by Black-Scholes: MCHF 1.94.

Since the earn-out is equivalent to two options, total value: 2 × 1.94 = MCHF 3.87.

This value (MCHF 3.87) is lower than Method 1 (MCHF 4.35): this is mathematically consistent. The threshold of MCHF 25 is above the expected revenue of MCHF 23.15 — the earn-out is more demanding, and its option value reflects this additional risk for the seller.

Method 3 — The Call Spread: Valuing an Earn-Out With a Threshold and Cap

An earn-out with a threshold and cap generates a payoff profile identical to a bull call spread: it decomposes into a long call position at strike = floor and a short call position at strike = cap. The value of the earn-out is the difference between the two calls valued by Black-Scholes. Source: Black, F. & Scholes, M., op. cit., 1973; Berk, J. & DeMarzo, P., Corporate Finance, Pearson, 2020.

Illustrative Case — Company A, earn-out with threshold and cap.

The fund agrees to cap its exposure: the earn-out is only paid if Year 3 revenue falls between MCHF 25 (floor) and MCHF 35 (cap), with linear payment over this range. Above MCHF 35, the fund considers outperformance to reflect favourable market conditions rather than the seller's managerial performance.

Decomposition as a bull call spread:

Long call (strike = MCHF 25): valued by Black-Scholes with:

• S = MCHF 17.39
• X = 25
• T = 3 years
• r = 3%
• σ = 30%
• Value = MCHF 1.94 (identical to Method 2)

Short call (strike = MCHF 35): same parameters, value = MCHF 0.71

Unit spread = 1.94 − 0.71 = MCHF 1.23

The multiplier n is then calibrated so that the total earn-out value equals the target value from Method 1 (MCHF 4.35): n = 4.35 / 1.23 = 3.55×.

The contractual earn-out is therefore: 3.55× Year 3 revenue if that revenue falls between MCHF 25 and MCHF 35, with a maximum payment of 3.55 × (35 − 25) = MCHF 35.5.

The Central Lesson From This Comparison.

The three earn-out structures yield close but distinct financial values: M1 = M3 = MCHF 4.35 (M3 calibrated equal to M1 by construction); M2 = MCHF 3.87, slightly lower because the MCHF 25 threshold is more demanding than the expected revenue of MCHF 23.15.

Their incentive profiles are, however, radically different. The linear earn-out rewards stagnation. The earn-out with a threshold creates a strong incentive to exceed targets but exposes the buyer to unlimited payments in case of exceptional outperformance.

The earn-out with a threshold and cap aligns interests, caps the buyer's exposure, and preserves the economic balance of the transaction. This is the structure best suited to the objectives of a Franco-Swiss SME transaction in 2026.

Sources: Damodaran, A., Investment Valuation, Wiley, 2012; Berk & DeMarzo, Corporate Finance, Pearson, 2020. → Normalised EBITDA — Valuation Premiums and Discounts.

The 5 Non-Negotiable Clauses

Clause 1 — The Cap and the Floor. Without a cap, the seller is not protected against unremunerated outperformance. Without a floor, the seller bears the risk of deliberately degraded performance. Both must be expressed in absolute value (kCHF/k€), not as a percentage of the price.

Clause 2 — The Contractual Definition of the Metric. The earn-out EBITDA is not the EBITDA reported in the accounts. Without a precise definition, the buyer can recharge head office costs, modify depreciation policy, include new entities in the perimeter, or change intra-group transfer prices. The clause must define: perimeter, excluded adjustments, capped recharged costs, frozen accounting methodology.

Clause 3 — The Independent Audit Right. The clause most frequently absent from French SME SPAs. The seller must have the right to appoint an independent third party to verify the metric calculation. Our financial due diligence service fulfils precisely this verification role. To specify: notification period (30 to 60 days), cost allocation, dispute procedure, arbitration mechanism.

Clause 4 — The Governance Maintenance Clause. If the buyer can modify strategy, pricing, headcount or investment during the earn-out period, they indirectly control the metric. The clause must specify: list of decisions requiring prior approval, mechanism to neutralise the impact of buyer decisions on the earn-out calculation. → Shareholders' Agreement and Exit Clauses.

Clause 5 — Acceleration Upon Resale. If the buyer sells the company during the earn-out period, the entire outstanding balance must become immediately due and payable. Without this clause, the seller becomes a creditor of a new acquirer they did not select — a common scenario in PE fund build-up deals. Transaction structuring must anticipate this case from the LOI stage.

The 5 Mistakes to Avoid When Negotiating

Mistake 1 — Accepting a Reported Metric Without a Contractual Definition. EBITDA "as presented in the accounts" is not a defensible earn-out metric. It is an open invitation to accounting manipulation — common among buyers when the seller negotiates without dedicated M&A advice.

Mistake 2 — Confusing Maximum Value With Real Value. A maximum earn-out of €5M with a demanding metric may be worth only €1.2M in present expected value. Accepting without prior independent valuation amounts to signing without knowing the true price of your transaction.

Mistake 3 — Underestimating Duration. The longer the period, the greater the uncertainty and the lower the discounted value. A period exceeding 3 years is rarely justified for an SME.

Mistake 4 — Remaining as Manager Without a Governance Framework. A seller who remains as CEO without a governance clause is held responsible for results while the buyer controls resources, investment and strategy.

Mistake 5 — Ignoring the Tax Treatment. In France, an earn-out qualifying as a price supplement is taxed at the PFU flat rate of 30% in the year of receipt (Article 150-0 A, CGI). Risk of reclassification as deferred salary: marginal rate up to 45% plus social contributions. → Apport-Cession LF 2026.

Advantages and Limitations

The earn-out is one of the most effective mechanisms for unlocking a transaction in a context of divergent valuations — provided it is used correctly by both parties. It offers real advantages, but imposes significant constraints that many sellers underestimate at signing.

Advantages for the Seller. The earn-out first allows the valuation gap to be bridged without sacrificing the headline price: the seller who believes in their business plan can monetise it contractually, without conceding on the fixed price. It maintains exposure to value created post-closing, which can be particularly attractive when a growth lever identified during financial due diligence has not yet been activated at the transaction date. An earn-out also signals confidence in the seller's business plan vis-à-vis the buyer: a seller who refuses any earn-out implicitly signals doubt in their own projections. Finally, it can serve as a negotiating tool to maintain a higher reference price in official transaction disclosures.

Advantages for the Buyer. The mechanism shares execution risk with the seller, who remains exposed to the financial consequences of a gap between the business plan and reality. It aligns the seller's interests with post-closing performance, particularly when the seller remains as manager during the transition period. It reduces immediate capital exposure, freeing up investment capacity for other acquisitions or for financing post-closing financial structuring.

Limitations and Risks for the Seller. Contractual complexity is high: rigorous earn-out negotiation requires significant legal and financial resources. The risk of disputes over metric calculation is present whenever definition clauses are insufficient. Total dependency on the buyer's execution is the central risk: if the seller does not remain as manager within a contractualised governance framework, they have no leverage over the variables that determine their own payment. The tax impact, finally, is structurally penalising in France when the earn-out is reclassified as deferred salary, and must be anticipated before signing.

The Systemic Limitation. A poorly structured earn-out is worse than no earn-out at all. It creates a price illusion, generates post-closing disputes, and undermines the relationship between seller and buyer at precisely the moment when operational transition requires collaboration. The value of an earn-out is not its maximum amount — it is the quality of the clauses that make it legally enforceable rather than merely contractually promised.

Anonymised Real Case: €18M Announced, €11M Received

Context. French SME, B2B SaaS sector, Year N EBITDA of €2.8M, negotiated multiple of 6.5× = €18.2M. Three-year earn-out, metric = reported EBITDA, no cap, no audit right, no governance clause.

What Happened. From M+6, the buyer recharges head office costs of €0.6M per year. In Year 2, it integrates a loss-making subsidiary into the perimeter. Earn-out EBITDA reduced to €1.4M in Year 3, versus €3.8M in the seller's business plan. Earn-out actually paid: €3.5M out of the €7M provided.

The Missing Clause. A contractual definition of normalised EBITDA excluding recharged costs and freezing the perimeter would have neutralised most of the gap. Cost of the missing clause: €3.5M. Source: Hectelion, internal observation, 2026.

The Franco-Swiss Angle

France. An earn-out qualifying as a price supplement is taxed at the PFU flat rate of 30% (Article 150-0 A, CGI) in the year of receipt. Risk of reclassification as deferred salary if the seller maintains a paid employment relationship. Source: CGI Art. 150-0 A — legifrance.gouv.fr; BOFiP BOI-RPPM-PVBMI-30. → Business Sale FR vs CH.

Switzerland. Art. 16 para. 3 FDTA: capital gains on private assets are exempt for individuals. Risk: reclassification as employment income (Art. 17 FDTA) if linked to continued managerial activity. Source: FDTA — fedlex.admin.ch; FTA — estv.admin.ch. Our Franco-Swiss positioning allows us to analyse both dimensions as part of our business valuation service.

Locked-Box vs. Earn-Out. In France, both mechanisms coexist in mid-market SPAs. In Switzerland, the locked-box remains the dominant standard — the earn-out remains the exception.

Founder's Note

Of ten transactions we reviewed in 2026, seven include an earn-out. Of those seven, three are structurally fragile — not because the amounts are poorly calibrated, but because essential clauses are missing. The metric is not contractually defined. There is no audit right. The buyer can modify operational governance without triggering any neutralisation in the earn-out calculation. These three gaps combined can cut the amount actually received by the seller in half.

What we consistently observe is that founders enter negotiation with a price in mind — and leave with a mechanism whose real value they do not know. A maximum earn-out of €7M over three years may be worth €1.5M in present expected value if the threshold is too high, the metric is manipulable, and the duration is excessive. The difference between €7M and €1.5M is a question of financial structuring — not of the buyer's good faith.

This is first and foremost a valuation question, not a legal one. Before signing, three questions must be answered: what is the present expected value of this earn-out, under which structure (linear, with threshold, with threshold and cap), and which clauses make it legally enforceable rather than simply contractually promised?

Hectelion's role is precisely that: independently valuing the earn-out before negotiation, modelling all three structures using real options, identifying critical clauses, and coordinating with M&A counsel to ensure the SPA accurately reflects the negotiated structure. We do not provide tax advice — we provide independent valuation and financial structuring. That is precisely what an earn-out needs to be worth what it promises.

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D. — Founder & CEO, Hectelion

FAQ — 10 Questions on Earn-Outs in SME Transactions

Q1 — What exactly is an earn-out?

A deferred and conditional price mechanism: part of the price is paid after closing subject to predefined objectives. It is not a guaranteed payment — it is a conditional promise whose value depends entirely on the contractual clauses.

Q2 — What is the difference between an earn-out and a vendor loan?

A vendor loan is a guaranteed loan repayable regardless of performance. An earn-out is conditional: if the metric is not achieved, it is not paid. The risk profile is structurally different.

Q3 — Which metric is better: revenue or EBITDA?

EBITDA measures operational performance but is more susceptible to manipulation. Revenue is simpler. In both cases, a precise contractual definition matters more than the choice of metric.

Q4 — What is the typical duration of an earn-out?

12 to 36 months in the vast majority of SME deals. Beyond 3 years, the discounted value deteriorates and execution risk becomes difficult to manage.

Q5 — How is an earn-out taxed in France?

In principle at the PFU flat rate of 30% (Article 150-0 A, CGI), in the year of receipt. Risk of reclassification as deferred salary if the seller remains as a paid manager during the period. This should be secured before negotiation.

Q6 — Is an earn-out taxed in Switzerland?

In principle, no (Art. 16 para. 3 FDTA). But if the earn-out is reclassified as employment income (Art. 17 FDTA), it becomes taxable. The structuring of post-closing retention is determinative.

Q7 — What happens if the buyer resells the company during the earn-out period?

Without an acceleration clause, the seller becomes a creditor of a new acquirer they did not choose. With the clause, the entire outstanding balance becomes immediately due and payable upon resale.

Q8 — How do you value an earn-out financially?

Three methods: probability-weighted expected value; Black-Scholes for earn-outs with a threshold; call spread for earn-outs with a threshold and cap. The real value is often significantly below the maximum contractual amount. See our article on real options valuation.

Q9 — Can you refuse an earn-out in a transaction?

Yes — but in 2026, in a context of multiple compression, an outright refusal can block the transaction. The alternative: negotiate a tightly structured earn-out rather than refusing it entirely.

Q10 — When should you call in an independent financial expert?

Before negotiation — not after. The valuation of the earn-out, the choice of structure, and the identification of critical clauses must all be completed before the SPA is engaged. Our M&A advisory service can intervene at this stage.

Would you like to have your business valued, conduct financial due diligence or structure a transaction?

→ Book a call — 30 minutes, confidential

Conclusion: Earn-Out 2026 — The Price You Negotiate Is Not Always the Price You Receive

The French SME M&A market in 2026 has structurally repositioned itself around the earn-out. This is not a passing trend. It is the lasting consequence of multiple compression, rising cost of capital and the persistent gap between sellers' valuation expectations and buyers' financial capacity. In this context, systematically refusing an earn-out often amounts to blocking one's own transaction. The question is not whether to accept it — it is how to structure it as an enforceable right, not as a promise contingent on the buyer's goodwill.

Three elements are inseparable in any rigorous approach: the independent valuation of the earn-out before negotiation, which is the only way to know its true worth; the choice of structure — linear, with threshold, with threshold and cap — based on the risk profile and objectives of both parties; and the negotiation of the five non-negotiable clauses that transform a promise into a right: the cap and the floor, the contractual definition of the metric, the independent audit right, the governance maintenance clause, and acceleration upon resale.

Their cumulative absence shows up in the numbers: a headline price of €18M can translate into a real receipt of €11M. The missing €7M are not the product of the buyer's bad faith. They are the cost of absent clauses — invisible at signing, irrecoverable afterward.

Hectelion provides financial and valuation services on these structuring mandates — independently, in coordination with our clients' M&A lawyers and tax advisors. Our business valuation service, our expertise in financial due diligence, and our positioning in M&A advisory converge precisely on this type of mandate. This is where the value of an earn-out is determined.

Sources

• Federal Tax Administration (FTA) — estv.admin.ch
• Argos Index® mid-market Q4 2025 — Epsilon Research / Argos Wityu, 18 February 2026 — argos.fund/argos-index-4th-quarter-2025
• Autorité des normes comptables (ANC) — PCG France — anc.gouv.fr
• Berk, J. & DeMarzo, P. — Corporate Finance, 5th ed., Pearson, 2020 — ISBN 978-0-13-518380-9
• Black, F. & Scholes, M. — "The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities", Journal of Political Economy, vol. 81, no. 3, 1973, pp. 637–654 — DOI 10.1086/260062
• Bulletin Officiel des Finances Publiques (BOFiP) — BOI-RPPM-PVBMI-30 — bofip.impots.gouv.fr
• Code général des impôts (CGI) — Art. 150-0 A, Art. 200 A — legifrance.gouv.fr
• Damodaran, A. — Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset, 3rd ed., Wiley, 2012 — ISBN 978-1-118-13073-5
• Hectelion SA — Internal observation, Franco-Swiss SME M&A market, 2026
• IMAA Institute — Mergers & Acquisitions Worldwide Statistics — imaa-institute.org
• Les Echos — "Cessions de PME : le coup de frein", 23 April 2026 — lesechos.fr/pme-regions/actualite-pme/cessions-de-pme-le-coup-de-frein-2227968
• Federal Act on Direct Federal Tax (FDTA) — Art. 16 para. 3, Art. 17 — fedlex.admin.ch
• Ruot, A. — Valorisation d'entreprises : Comparaison des méthodes de valorisation traditionnelles et des options réelles dans l'industrie pétrolière, Doctoral thesis, CY Cergy Paris Université, Laboratoire THEMA, defended 13 December 2024 — theses.fr/2024CYUN1313
• Swiss GAAP FER — fer.ch

Author

Aristide Ruot, Ph.D.
Founder | Chief Executive Officer