The French mid-market is currently navigating a paradox of high demand and heightened scrutiny. While the landscape of modest and mid-cap companies remains a primary target for investors, the path to closing a deal has become significantly more arduous. For many entrepreneurs, the process of selling their business has evolved into what is being described as an “audit tunnel”—a period of exhaustive and multiplying due diligence that is fundamentally altering the economics of small-business acquisitions.
This shift is particularly evident for French small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with valuations under €50 million. Throughout 2025, these companies have seen a surge in the variety and intensity of due diligence requirements. This trend has not only lengthened the time between the initial letter of intent and the final closing but has also begun to exert downward pressure on sale prices, as buyers employ the expanded audit process to uncover risks that justify valuation adjustments.
For the 160,000 PMEs (small and medium enterprises) and 6,800 ETIs (intermediate-sized enterprises) that comprise the backbone of the French economy, this environment represents a challenging transition according to data from PwC. The investment terrain is vast, but We see increasingly demanding, requiring a level of formalization that many smaller structures are simply not equipped to provide.
The Structural Gap: Corporate Rigor vs. SME Reality
The friction in the current M&A market stems largely from a clash of cultures. In the world of large corporate acquisitions, due diligence is a standardized machine. Buyers expect comprehensive electronic data rooms, financial statements certified by Big 4 accounting firms, and documented internal procedures for every department from HR to legal. In these scenarios, the audit is a process of verification.
In the SME sector, however, the reality is often far more pragmatic and informal. Many small businesses operate with accounting handled by external providers rather than internal departments, and reporting is often intermittent rather than monthly. More critically, the “procedures” governing the business are frequently oral or reside exclusively in the mind of the founder. This creates a significant gap where the auditor must not just verify information, but actively reconstruct it through interviews and field observations as noted by Diligenz.
When a buyer applies “large-cap” audit standards to a small business, the result is often a discovery of “lacunae”—missing documentation or informal processes—that are then flagged as high-risk. This is where the “audit tunnel” becomes a liability for the seller; the lack of formal structure is often misinterpreted as a structural weakness, leading to the valuation pressures currently seen in the market.
The Risk of Founder Dependency
One of the most critical points of attention in current SME due diligence is the evaluation of founder dependency. In a large corporation, the departure of a single executive is a manageable transition. In a TPE (exceptionally small enterprise) or PME, the founder often embodies the company’s strategic vision, key client relationships, and operational knowledge.
Modern due diligence has shifted from a purely quantitative exercise—checking the numbers—to a qualitative assessment of whether the business model can survive the departure of its creator. Auditors are now focusing heavily on identifying “key persons” and evaluating the transferability of the founder’s tacit knowledge. If the audit reveals that the company’s success is too closely tied to the personality or specific network of the owner, buyers are increasingly likely to demand “earn-outs” or holdbacks, ensuring the founder remains involved for a set period to guarantee stability.
Key Differences in Audit Approaches
| Feature | Large Corporation Audit | SME/TPE Audit |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | Structured electronic data rooms | Often limited or informal |
| Accounting | Certified by Big 4 firms | Often managed by external accountants |
| Processes | Written, audited procedures | Often oral or founder-led |
| Focus | Quantitative verification | Qualitative & contextual understanding |
| Key Risk | Regulatory/Financial compliance | Founder dependency & knowledge transfer |
Impact on Market Valuations and Timelines
The multiplication of these “due diligence in all genres” has created a bottleneck in the French mid-market. For companies valued under €50 million, the extended audit period does more than just delay the transaction; it creates “deal fatigue.” As the process drags on, the seller’s motivation may wane, or the business’s performance may fluctuate, providing the buyer with further leverage to renegotiate the price.
the increased reliance on external audit firms to navigate these informal structures has added a layer of cost and complexity to the process. The “audit tunnel” has essentially become a tool for risk mitigation in an uncertain economic climate, where buyers are less willing to accept the “trust-based” transactions that were more common in previous decades.
Key Takeaways for SME Sellers
- Formalize Early: Transitioning from oral procedures to written documentation can reduce the “risk” perceived by auditors.
- Address Dependency: Identifying and empowering second-in-command leaders reduces the “founder risk” that often suppresses valuations.
- Expect Longer Timelines: For deals under €50 million, the 2025 trend indicates a longer, more intrusive audit phase.
- Prepare for Qualitative Scrutiny: Be ready to explain how the business functions, not just what the balance sheet says.
As the market continues to evolve, the ability of an SME to present a “corporate-ready” structure—even if it remains a small company—will likely be the deciding factor in achieving a premium valuation. The era of the “handshake deal” for the French mid-cap is being replaced by a rigorous, evidence-based methodology that prizes transparency and institutionalization over entrepreneurial intuition.
The next phase of this market shift will likely be observed in the upcoming quarterly M&A reports for the French mid-cap sector, which will reveal if these extended audit timelines are leading to a higher rate of failed deals or simply a fresh, lower baseline for valuations.
Do you believe the current level of due diligence for small businesses has become excessive, or is it a necessary evolution for investor protection? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Worth a look