A seller signs a letter of intent at one price. Months later, at the actual closing, the number on the wire transfer is different. Not because anyone renegotiated the deal, but because a working capital adjustment clause did exactly what it was written to do. For sellers unfamiliar with how these mechanisms work, the gap between the headline price and the closing price can feel like a surprise, even though it was sitting in the purchase agreement the entire time.
Working capital adjustments are one of the most common sources of post-signing friction in a business sale, and also one of the most misunderstood. This article walks through what the mechanism actually does, where disputes tend to originate, and the topics worth raising with your advisory team before you sign anything.
Photo by https://kaboompics.com/ on Pexels
Why Working Capital Adjustments Show Up in Nearly Every Deal
Most buyers are not just purchasing a business, they are purchasing a business with a certain amount of operating cushion already inside it. Accounts receivable, inventory, prepaid expenses, and accounts payable all shift the day-to-day cash position of a company, and a buyer wants to know that the level of working capital delivered at closing matches what was assumed when the price was negotiated.
If a seller quietly drew down inventory or delayed paying vendors in the weeks before closing, the buyer could end up needing to inject cash almost immediately just to keep operations running normally. The working capital adjustment exists to prevent that outcome by tying part of the final price to an agreed baseline.
What "Working Capital" Actually Means in a Sale Agreement
The term sounds standard, but its definition is negotiated line by line in nearly every deal. A working capital definition in a purchase agreement will typically specify which balance sheet accounts are included, which are excluded, and how each one is measured. Two deals in the same industry can define working capital differently enough that the resulting numbers are not comparable.
This is one of the topics worth clarifying early with your advisors rather than assuming a "standard" definition applies. The general concept traces back to how a purchase price adjustment works in any transaction, but the specific mechanics are set entirely by the language in your agreement. Ambiguity in this section is a frequent source of disagreement once the deal team starts reconciling numbers after closing.
How the Working Capital Peg Gets Set
The "peg" or "target" is the baseline number both sides agree the business should be delivering at closing. It is usually derived from a trailing average, often twelve months of historical monthly working capital balances, smoothed to account for seasonality.
Setting the peg is a negotiation in its own right. A seller in a seasonal business has good reason to want the calculation to reflect the full annual cycle rather than a single snapshot that happens to catch a low point. Reviewing how the peg was derived, and whether it fairly represents the business across a full operating cycle, is a topic to raise before the number gets locked into the agreement.
Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels
The Difference Between a Peg and a True-Up
The peg is the target. The true-up is the mechanism that reconciles actual working capital at closing against that target. If the actual number comes in above the peg, the seller typically receives an additional payment. If it comes in below, the buyer typically receives a credit, often paid out of an escrow holdback set aside specifically for this purpose.
Because the true-up happens after the deal has already closed, using a closing balance sheet prepared in the weeks following the transaction, it is one of the last major financial events in the sale process, and one that sellers sometimes forget is still pending once the closing dinner is over.
Common Disputes Over What Counts as Working Capital
Disputes tend to cluster around a small set of recurring issues: whether certain reserves or accruals were calculated consistently with how the seller historically calculated them, whether one-time items should be excluded from the trailing average used to set the peg, and whether inventory was counted and valued using the same method both before and after closing.
Because these disagreements often come down to accounting judgment rather than a clear right answer, purchase agreements usually specify a dispute resolution process, frequently involving a neutral accounting firm empowered to make a binding determination if the buyer and seller cannot agree. Professional standards bodies like the AICPA publish guidance that neutral accountants often draw on when asked to referee exactly this kind of disagreement.
GAAP vs Deal-Specific Accounting Methods
Many purchase agreements state that the closing statement will be prepared "in accordance with GAAP," but GAAP alone leaves room for different acceptable treatments of the same transaction. To close that gap, well-drafted agreements layer deal-specific accounting policies on top of GAAP, specifying exactly how contested items like bad debt reserves or accrued vacation should be treated.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board sets the broader GAAP framework these calculations sit inside, but the specific policies that resolve ambiguity live in the purchase agreement itself, not in the accounting standards. Reviewing that section of the agreement with your accountant, rather than assuming "GAAP" settles every question on its own, is worth the time before signing.
Photo by Bia Limova on Pexels
Escrow Holdbacks and How They Interact With the Adjustment
Many deals set aside a portion of the purchase price in escrow specifically to cover a working capital shortfall discovered during the true-up. The escrow period, the release schedule, and what happens to any remaining balance after the adjustment is finalized are all separate negotiating points from the working capital definition itself.
It is worth understanding whether the escrow amount was sized based on a realistic estimate of potential adjustment swings, or set at a round number without much analysis behind it. A holdback that is too small can leave a seller exposed to disputes beyond what escrow can cover, while one that is too large simply ties up proceeds longer than necessary. The Small Business Administration publishes general background on the mechanics of selling a business that is a reasonable starting point if escrow terms are new territory for you.
Timing: Estimated vs Final Closing Statements
Most deals use a two-stage process. An estimated closing statement, prepared shortly before closing, sets the initial purchase price adjustment. A final closing statement, prepared over the following weeks or months using actual post-closing data, triggers the true-up payment in either direction.
The interval between these two statements, and the deadline for either party to dispute the final numbers, should be clear in the agreement. Sellers sometimes assume the deal is fully complete at closing, only to find a working capital dispute surfacing months later. Clarifying this timeline in advance avoids that surprise.
Photo by Md Jawadur Rahman on Pexels
Why Sellers and Buyers See the Same Number Differently
A buyer's team, often unfamiliar with the seller's historical bookkeeping habits, may flag items as inconsistent that the seller considers standard practice. A seller's team, close to the business for years, may not realize how a particular accounting choice looks unusual to an outside accountant reviewing the numbers cold.
Neither side is necessarily acting in bad faith. The gap usually comes from two different vantage points on the same set of books. Bringing in an advisor who has reviewed working capital disputes before, on either side of a transaction, tends to shorten this back-and-forth considerably. Groups like the International Business Brokers Association train intermediaries specifically on these deal mechanics, which is part of why an experienced broker or advisor can flag a disputed item faster than a generalist reviewing it for the first time.
This is also why the working capital section of a purchase agreement rewards a second set of eyes before signing rather than after a dispute has already started. A buyer's diligence team reviews the target company's books once, under time pressure, and builds a definition around whatever they saw during that window. If the seller's own advisor never reviewed that definition against several years of the company's actual working capital pattern, gaps that seem obvious in hindsight can slip through simply because nobody compared the two side by side before the number was locked in.
Questions to Raise With Your Advisory Team Before Signing
A short list worth working through with your accountant and deal counsel before the purchase agreement is finalized: How is working capital defined, and does that definition match how the business has historically tracked its own numbers? How was the peg calculated, and does it fairly reflect a full operating cycle? What is the dispute resolution process if the parties disagree on the final number? How large is the escrow holdback relative to a realistic range of adjustment outcomes?
These are not questions with a single universal answer. They are topics to review carefully within the specific facts of your transaction, ideally with advisors who coordinate with each other rather than working in separate silos.
A related question worth adding to that list: who on your side actually has authority to sign off on the final closing statement, and what happens if your accountant and your deal counsel read a disputed line item differently from each other? Clarifying that internal process before the true-up period begins saves time later, when a response deadline in the agreement may only give you a few weeks to review the buyer's calculation and raise an objection.
Coordinating Your Deal Team Around the Adjustment Mechanism
Working capital adjustments sit at the intersection of accounting, legal drafting, and deal strategy, which is exactly why they cause friction when the people handling each piece are not talking to each other. An accountant reviewing the definition without input from deal counsel might miss a drafting ambiguity that becomes a dispute later. Counsel drafting the escrow terms without input from the accountant might size the holdback without real data behind it.
If you are heading into a sale process and want a business sale advisor who can help coordinate that conversation, free advisor matching by Capivise connects sellers with vetted advisors who work through exactly this kind of mechanism regularly. You can also review questions to ask an advisor before your first meeting, or start directly with Capivise's advisor match to find a fit for your specific transaction.
Working capital adjustments are a normal, expected part of most business sales, not a red flag on their own. Understanding how the peg, the true-up, and the escrow mechanism fit together, and raising the right questions with your advisory team early, is what keeps the process from becoming a dispute months after you thought the deal was done.
