Most deal teams spend weeks negotiating valuation and warranties, then treat fees as an afterthought. That’s risky. Advisory, legal, financing, and transaction costs can erode proceeds, slow momentum, and create misaligned incentives at the worst possible time. Research cited by EY suggests integration and transaction-related costs often land in the 1% to 4% range of deal value, depending on complexity. For you, that can mean the difference between a strong outcome and a disappointing net result, even when the headline price looks good.
This article applies to founders, CFOs, corporate development leads, and advisors working on private-company acquisitions and divestitures. You’ll see the main fee categories, practical structures that align incentives, and a short negotiation checklist to reduce surprises before signing.
Viewed correctly, an M&A fees guide is not about minimising advisor costs, but about structuring fees so timing, valuation, and risk are properly balanced.
Structuring M&A fees to protect value
A smart fee structure does two things: it rewards outcomes you actually want and limits the cost of outcomes you want to avoid (dragging timelines, weak buyer quality, or constant re-trades). The goal is not to minimise fees at all costs, but to create a pricing model that supports disciplined execution.
What “M&A fees” typically include
In most mid-market deals, “fees” are not a single line item. They usually combine advisor compensation, professional services, and occasionally deal-protection payments. At a minimum, you should map which items are fixed, which are variable, and which are triggered only at closing.
A useful way to think about it is to separate costs into three buckets:
- Advisor compensation (retainers, success fees, milestone fees; for example, monthly retainer plus a closing success fee).
- Professional and regulatory costs (legal, tax, accounting, specialist diligence such as IT or environmental reviews).
- Financing and deal protections (arrangement fees, commitment fees, termination fees where applicable).
This matters because each bucket behaves differently under stress. If the timeline extends, fixed retainers and professional costs can keep rising even if success fees do not.
Fee structures that align incentives
The best fee models reduce friction between “closing quickly” and “closing well.” Three approaches are especially effective in mid-market transactions.
1) Retainer plus success fee
This is the classic model: a monthly retainer to ensure sustained effort, plus a closing success fee. It works well for sell-side mandates and buy-side searches where consistent execution matters.
To make it work in your favour, define what the retainer covers (buyer outreach, CIM drafting, management presentation prep, diligence support) and agree on a clear reporting cadence. Where possible, negotiate for the retainer to be creditable against the success fee so the advisor is not effectively paid twice for the same workstream.
2) Tiered success fee
A tiered structure increases the advisor’s percentage once the deal reaches higher value thresholds. It is especially useful when you want disciplined negotiation rather than quick acceptance.
Conceptually, you apply a lower percentage up to a baseline valuation, then higher percentages above that level. This creates a direct incentive to defend price and terms, since both you and the advisor benefit more from incremental value.
3) Milestone-based fees
Milestone fees are effective when regulatory approvals, financing conditions, or operational carve-outs can extend the process. Instead of paying mostly at closing, you pay for measurable steps such as shortlist delivery, LOIs received, and signing achieved.
This reduces the risk of paying heavily for a process that stalls due to external factors, while still rewarding real progress.
Managing deal-protection fees and timing risk
Some fee mechanics are designed to protect the deal itself. Termination fees are more common in public-company transactions, but they still influence expectations and negotiation posture across markets. A large-scale analysis by Houlihan Lokey shows termination fees in completed transactions can vary widely, with reported averages in the low single digits as a percentage of deal value.
For private-company transactions, the broader lesson is this: any clause that triggers payments based on time, exclusivity, or termination should be treated as a risk-allocation tool, not boilerplate.
A practical checklist for negotiating fees
Use this short checklist before you sign an engagement letter or term sheet:
- Define the fee base (enterprise value vs equity value; gross vs net proceeds; treatment of earn-outs and rollovers).
- Clarify success timing (signing vs closing; partial asset sales; staged closings).
- Set scope boundaries (buyer type, geography, sector focus, and whether financing support is included).
- Limit tail provisions (how long fees apply after termination and which buyers are covered).
- Cap pass-through expenses (travel, third-party research, data services) with pre-approval thresholds.
- Tie reporting to performance (weekly pipeline updates, outreach logs, and buyer feedback summaries).
A small amount of precision here prevents the most common disputes later.
Common mistakes that inflate costs
Most fee blow-ups come from unclear definitions and mismatched incentives, not from “expensive advisors” alone. Watch for these patterns:
- Success fees applied to non-cash value without clear rules (earn-outs, seller notes, rollover equity).
- Open-ended “administration” or expense language that becomes a blank cheque.
- Long exclusivity periods without minimum activity requirements.
- No clarity on who owns work product (buyer lists, CIM materials, diligence trackers).
Conclusion
Fee design is a strategic part of deal execution. The right model keeps advisors motivated, protects your economics, and reduces the chance of last-minute surprises. Start by mapping your full fee landscape, then choose a structure that matches the realities of your deal: tiered incentives when valuation is the priority, milestones when uncertainty is high, and well-defined retainers when execution intensity matters. Done properly, fee terms become a control system for speed, quality, and risk, rather than another negotiation that only gets attention when it is too late.

Leave a Reply