Are Carve Outs the way to go for turn-around deals?

August 12, 2025

by an investor from University of California, Santa Barbara in Los Angeles, CA, USA

Seems like carve out sales where the selling party is a larger parent entity have more favorable terms for the buy side party. Typically, if it's a large entity, they are less concerned with what the Enterprise Value of the company is and more focused on closing the sale and having a clearly laid out transition agreement. Realizing this as I've been dealing with private party transactions and encountering too many inflated EVs and emotional deal processes.

0 Likes

5 Replies

147 Views

Replies

Reply by a searcher
in Los Angeles, CA, USA

Agree with Kevin’s points above. Their reason for selling can be commercially sound — e.g., the asset is non-core, they want to reallocate capital and focus on higher-growth lines (or lines that reflect their brand), and the carve out business is dragging down group growth metrics. That said, carve-outs come with structural complexity: Deal perimeter risk: Sellers often can’t fully define the true boundaries, making diligence longer and more difficult. Key people risk: The parent will try to keep their top talent; those people may not transfer and it could result in a material change in how the business performs. Standalone build-out costs: If finance, HR, IT, or other functions were shared services, you’ll need to stand these up — plus budget for TSA fees during transition. TSAs are challenging, they typically don't want to provide them and service levels can dip, despite being agreed in a contract. True cost vs. headline EV: Even with a good headline price, time and capital outlay to complete the carve-out can materially change the effective purchase price. The opportunity can be attractive, but execution risk and cost is materially higher than a standalone acquisition (depending on scale).

Reply by a searcher
from Stanford University in Healdsburg, CA 95448, USA

I've both acquired carved-out businesses and also carved businesses out from larger enterprises and while they all have their nuances, the one common thing is always that the seller thinks they're better off without that line of business. On rare occasions I've seen an enterprise recapitalize itself by selling a healthy, valuable line of business, but that's the exception. Most of the time, there's some fundamental challenge, most often with marketing/sales/revenue, that the enterprise has decided they either don't know how to fix or it isn't worth their time. In CPG, this scenario comes up when the enterprise has a portfolio of brands and decides to do something like an 80/20 analysis and offload the smaller or slower performers. These can be great candidates for standing up a new business or even a portfolio of brands, but there are significant challenges in defining the deal perimeter to either provide interim services or resources from the enterprise or to populate the acquisition with enough working capital, inventory, etc., to make sure it’s a viable business post-acquisition. Another common challenge is getting clear financials and metrics for the carve-out if the enterprise is running a shared services back-of-house. Overall, I tend to like the opportunities you can find with carve-outs, but there's some significant execution risk in negotiating the scope of the acquisition and standing up the business with a viable near-term operating plan. Happy to talk about any of this or be a sounding board if it's helpful to you. Cheers and good luck.

+3 more replies.

Join the discussion