I would think that the due diligence would be carried out by the prospective buyer's accountants and lawyers. If 2 buyers used the same set of accountants and or lawyers then I would guess some saving of time might me made. However, it is highly unlikely that they would use the same, so it would probably take the same time.
Really? If due diligence flags up a mortgage then surely that then needs fixing which takes time. If no mortgage is flagged then it obviously doesn't need fixing. That must reduce the time scale surely?
I wasn't suggesting it will make no difference, only that they'll still do their own full due diligence and it will still take weeks. It's all a bit irrelevant, as far as we know, we haven't actually picked the party we're selling to yet.
Fair enough my point was that when it comes to it we could see a reduction from 6 weeks say to 5 1/2 weeks. Not a huge difference but everything helps.
Yes the piece in quotes is Googled, but having sold a business using Reverse Due Diligence I can assure you it is commonplace and not rocket science.
Again, this is what i said: "The Due Diligence for the first wil be pretty much mirrored by any subsequent ones, so time is saved by prior preparation; how much is dufficult to say, but quite a bit." Any two acts of Due Diligence will be very similar. If the second buyer accepts an acreddited third-pary's asset audit then that, in itself, is a big time and resource saving. Of course it depends on the business, which id why I qualified it with "how much is dufficult to say, but quite a bit". I don't think that is unreasonable. At least my detractors now seem to be accepting it is possible and only arguing the level - something that is dependent on a number of variables. But you have now changed tack; you tried to ridicule my post because you only looked at it from the buyers perspeçtive and that was wrong. FACT as you like to say. It was a simple, innocuous comment that I made in innocent discussion and you decided to be an authority and GLP reverted to charactor.
