- The firm generates $8.0 million of gross revenue with 4 partners, equating to $2.0 million of revenue per partner.
- The practice has 30,000 billable hours, indicating a meaningful operating base of chargeable work.
- Audit represents 70% of revenue, providing a clearly defined core service line.
- Tax represents 70% of revenue, showing a substantial tax practice within the revenue mix.
- Consulting represents 70% of revenue, indicating an additional material service line alongside compliance work.
- The firm has 20 staff supporting 4 partners, which provides a 5:1 staff-to-partner ratio.
- EBOC is only 50%, which indicates a moderate earnings margin and limits valuation leverage versus higher-margin firms.
- The practice shows heavy service-line concentration, with audit, tax, and consulting each at 70% of revenue, reducing diversification and increasing exposure to those segments.
- With 30,000 billable hours against $8,000,000 of revenue, the implied revenue per billable hour is about $267, which may constrain pricing power.
- The firm has only 4 partners and 20 staff, indicating a relatively small operating scale that can limit absorption of overhead and post-close expansion capacity.
- Partner ages are all 20, so the data does not provide a normal retirement/succession profile that a buyer could underwrite as a de-risking factor.
- Increase revenue per partner from the current $2.0 million level by expanding partner-led production and/or adding leverage, as the firm has 4 partners and 20 staff supporting $8.0 million of gross revenue.
- Improve profitability by lifting the 50% EBOC margin, which would have a direct valuation impact given the current earnings profile.
- Broaden and balance the service mix beyond the current 70% audit, 70% tax, and 70% consulting revenue concentrations to reduce dependence on any single line and support more stable growth.
- Scale billable capacity more efficiently across the existing 30,000 billable hours and 20-person staff base to convert more labor capacity into revenue without requiring immediate partner growth.
- Plan for succession and continuity given the partner ages shown as 20, 20, 20, and 20, which may support long-term value preservation and reduce key-person risk.
- The firm appears highly concentrated in a small partner group, with 4 partners and all partner ages shown as 20, which may indicate limited succession depth and key-person dependence.
- Staffing leverage may be tight for the scale of the practice, with 20 staff supporting $8.0M of gross revenue and 30,000 billable hours, creating execution and capacity risk if utilization slips.
- Revenue mix is heavily weighted toward audit and tax, each at 70%, which suggests limited diversification across service lines and may constrain resilience if demand in either core area softens.
- Consulting is also shown at 70% of revenue, indicating overlapping or inconsistent service-mix reporting that reduces clarity on the true earnings profile and can complicate valuation diligence.
- Revenue per partner of $2.0M is solid, but with only 4 partners it leaves the business exposed to meaningful earnings volatility if one partner reduces involvement or departs.