I totally accept what you say. I also know that it is possible to do it the way you wanted to do it and that it can and does happen that way, just not for everyone, as seems to have been the case for you.
No it doesn't. This is one instance and not the rule. I really am surprised you cannot see that sometimes an accredited and professioally ŕecognised report on some elements of a sale cannot be shared and trusred by more than one prospective buyer.
That's my point. Due diligence is subject to the needs of both firms and it is likely that they will have lots to look at and investigate but not all the same info. The firm I pulled on the face of it were fine. It took four meetings to get to the bottom of the funding and how this was to happen. The idea was good and in my industry quite unique however further digging found that it was not sustainable which was very important to me as the payments were over a period of years
I don't jnow if you're taking to me but, again, when it come to investigsting funding, finance, accounts and any other such matters, buyers are best advised to do their own detailed legwork. But, depending on the company, there will be land, properties (owned/leashed), equipment, machinery, furniture; all the sort of thing that takes times and effort to make a thorough inventory of - these are exactly the areas where a professional surveyor/auditor can compile a full and credible report that can be shared. Some, but not all, buyers will welcome this as it will establish a common factor to all prospective buyers that can speed up the sale process.
You are just over emphasising the easy bits. In reality, due diligence is about the fine details of accounts. So, you aren't wrong but in reality it makes no difference if someone else has done theirs. Think about it, of you wanted to buy a house and a sale had fallen through, would your lawyers call the aborted purchasers and ask for their work? Lists may be drawn up, but as a business with accounts and company law issues, they will have all this whatever. Nah. It's not really significant at all.
You haven't offered a reasonable argument to support your usual pathetic attempt at being knowledgeable. I've reasoned my point fully and will withdraw as you seem unable to understand and seperare the elements that might or might not be available to some types of sale.
This is your usual ****ish response. What a ****ing know nowt knobhead you are. Just **** off you ****ing plankton.
Scuse me for butting in, but plankton is a collective noun like 'people'...so perhaps it would be better to say ''you ****ing piece of plankton." Carry on....
Ah, so you accept I have a point. I have never, not once wished to discuss investigation into the accounts, only compiling the information that will come into play in those accounts. Depending on the nature of the business, it could be a very long and expensive task to compile inventories, etc. My only point was that, in some cases, an accredited inventory, that can be trusted over a certain time-line, can be used by more than one party as a means of moving forward more quickly that would have been rhe case for the first, initiating enquiry. My point was misunderstood by OLM (and jumped on by GLP), who, bizarrely seemed to think that I was saying that a second buyer should trust the Due Diligence of the first buyer. Utter nonsense and to pursue that point is denying they made a mistake, which is clearly the case.
How long before we reach the arbitrary cutoff point where they start saying talks are on hold until the summer because we need to know what division we'll be in. And then the cycle restarts.
I wasn't talking to you. You're best maintaining your usual braindead insults that are your signature. Try going back and reading what I actually posted and not what you and OLM thought or seem to want to make out I posted. It happens too often on here.
