The founder's research indicates a clear financial threshold for a viable exit in the restaurant industry. Private equity firms typically aren't interested in smaller operations, setting a target of 8-figures in profit for any restaurant group planning an acquisition strategy.
Related Insights
The margins of a single restaurant are too thin to justify the operational complexity and stress. Profitability and a sustainable business model emerge only when you scale to multiple locations, allowing you to amortize fixed costs and achieve operational efficiencies.
When owned by multiple private equity firms with varying exit horizons, IFS mitigates conflicting priorities by ensuring acquisition targets, even strategic ones, have a robust business plan to achieve profitability within 18 months to two years.
The mid-market offers the best risk-reward by targeting profitable, regional leaders. This segment is less competitive and process-driven, allowing for better valuations and sourcing compared to the overcrowded large-cap space or the hit-or-miss venture capital scene.
A restaurant can survive with one of these three elements, has a good chance of success with two, and a very high likelihood of success with all three (barring financial mismanagement). This provides a clear framework for evaluating and building a hospitality concept.
Unlike tech, where exits are common and founders share their journeys, the restaurant world has few acquisitions. Successful operators rarely disclose their numbers or strategies, creating a "super opaque" environment for newcomers trying to learn the business of hospitality.
An exit that provides a significant financial win but isn't enough to retire on can be a powerful motivator. It acts as a 'proof point' that validates the founder's ability while leaving them hungry for a much larger outcome, making them more driven than founders who are either pre-success or have achieved a life-changing exit.
The founder's uni importing business was profitable, but he discovered seafood distribution has even lower margins (3-5%) and requires massive scale to be viable. He pivoted to a restaurant model, which offered a clearer, albeit more complex, path to significant growth and a potential exit.
Investors in restaurants typically receive 70-80% of profits until their initial investment is returned. Afterward, this flips, and they retain a smaller percentage (e.g., 20%) in perpetuity. This structure prioritizes cash flow distribution over a distant, uncertain exit.
A profitable business that requires the founder's constant involvement is just a high-paying job, not a valuable asset. Enterprise value, which makes a business sellable, is only created when systems and employees can generate profit independently of the founder's direct labor.
Contrary to the popular search fund model of targeting $1M+ EBITDA businesses, a less risky path is to start with smaller companies ($100k-$250k earnings). This lowers complexity, reduces the potential for catastrophic failure, and provides invaluable hands-on experience for first-time acquirers.
