Working capital peg disputes are one of the most predictable sources of late-stage deal friction — yet most buy-side teams only engage with the mechanics after a seller's number has already landed on the table. This episode of VDR.ai reframes the peg not as a closing-week negotiation but as a diligence workstream that should begin the moment data room access is granted, with a defensible counter-position built before the seller's proposal ever arrives.

The episode walks through the structural reasons seller-proposed pegs systematically favor the sell side, and the specific analytical moves that give buyers the upper hand. Key topics covered include:

• Why seller-presented pegs are rarely neutral. The choices embedded in a trailing average — which months are included, how line items are classified — compound quietly and can shift the effective deal price in ways that look reasonable on a summary schedule.
• Seasonality as a negotiating lever. Month-by-month balance sheet analysis across at least 18–24 months exposes whether a proposed peg overweights high-receivable periods, an advantage buyers miss when they look only at annual figures.
• Classification drift and one-time items. Accruals that are genuinely operational versus those tied to litigation reserves or transaction-related bonuses can artificially depress the historical average peg — invisible unless the buyer rebuilds the calculation from underlying line items.
• Payables timing manipulation. Tracking days payable outstanding across the full monthly data series reveals whether a seller stretched vendor payments in the pre-signing window, inflating delivered working capital in a way the historical average never anticipated.
• Building a parallel framework before the seller's number lands. Teams that enter the peg conversation with their own classification definitions — not a reaction to the seller's — shift from defending a gap to comparing two legitimate methodologies.

The episode also touches on how diligence Q&A workflow discipline — logging payables anomalies and pressing on them directly — keeps the analysis on record and prevents findings from slipping through the cracks. For teams managing large volumes of financial documents across the monthly balance sheet series, cross-document reconciliation can surface inconsistencies across periods that manual review would likely miss. And for a broader framework on how buy-side teams structure the full diligence process, the M&A due diligence guide is a useful companion resource.

More from the show: if you found this episode useful, the earlier instalment Seller Management Accounts: How to Read the Numbers Behind the Numbers covers how to interpret the financial narrative sellers present before the peg conversation even begins — a natural precursor to the analysis discussed here.

VDR.ai