Accounting that takes the transaction seriously.
Fundara's work is shaped by a set of beliefs about what good transaction accounting actually looks like — and what it requires from the people doing it. This page makes those beliefs explicit.
We don't think these beliefs are unusual. But we do think the gap between saying them and building a practice around them is wider than it often appears — and that the gap tends to show up precisely when a transaction is most demanding.
Back to HomeWhat drives the way we work.
Transactions are high-stakes events. The accounting work surrounding them carries real consequences — for buyers who rely on diligence findings, for finance teams building their first combined financial statements, for investors whose return assumptions rest on the accuracy of reported figures.
We take that weight seriously. Not in a way that creates unnecessary caution or slows a process down — but in a way that keeps our work calibrated to what actually matters in a deal context, rather than what's easiest to deliver within a standard engagement framework.
Precision
Numbers in a transaction carry downstream consequences. We work with the level of care those consequences warrant.
Relevance
Our scope is shaped by what the transaction actually requires — not by what a standard engagement template includes.
Usefulness
Deliverables should be actionable by the people who receive them — not documents that require additional interpretation.
Accounting that closes alongside the deal.
The gap between accounting and deal-making has historically been wider than it needs to be. Accountants produce reports; deal teams make decisions. The two processes run in parallel, and the output of one has to be translated before it can inform the other.
Fundara's approach is built on the premise that this gap can be narrowed — that accounting work can be structured, scoped, and delivered in a way that feeds directly into deal decisions rather than informing them only after the fact.
That means understanding the deal, not just the numbers. It means knowing what working capital treatment the purchase agreement uses. It means flagging findings as they emerge, not only when a report is finalized. It means being part of the process rather than adjacent to it.
A standard where specialized accounting is the default for transactions — not an optional addition.
Most mid-market transactions close without the benefit of accounting work that was purpose-built for the deal. That's not because buyers don't value it — it's because the option is less visible and the alternative is more familiar.
We think that's worth changing. Not by pushing a service — but by demonstrating, engagement by engagement, that transaction accounting done well produces outcomes that general practice simply isn't set up to match.
The convictions behind our practice.
Scope should follow the risk, not the template.
Every transaction carries a different risk profile. A company with complex intangibles and variable revenue recognition requires different accounting procedures than one with straightforward recurring revenue and tangible assets. The scope of accounting work should reflect that — not default to a standard checklist that covers every deal the same way.
Findings are most useful when they're timely.
An accounting finding surfaced before a purchase agreement is signed has real value — it can affect negotiation, pricing, or deal structure. The same finding delivered after closing is a problem to manage rather than a factor to leverage. The timing of when accounting work is done, and when results are communicated, matters as much as the work itself.
Reported numbers and deal-relevant numbers are different things.
Financial statements are prepared according to accounting standards — they are not prepared to answer the questions a buyer has about a business. Converting reported figures into deal-relevant analysis requires understanding what adjustments are appropriate and what a normalized picture actually looks like. That translation is the core of what diligence accounting does.
Post-closing accounting is not a lower priority than pre-closing.
The intensity of a transaction tends to peak around closing, and accounting attention sometimes follows that pattern — concentrated pre-close, then released. But the first months post-closing are when the foundation of combined reporting is built. Decisions made under time pressure in that window tend to persist, and undoing them later is more difficult than getting them right initially.
The accounting advisor should understand the deal.
Knowing the purchase agreement structure, the deal rationale, the seller's representation framework, and the buyer's strategic intent allows accounting work to be directed toward the areas where it's most needed. An accounting team that treats every engagement as a purely technical exercise — disconnected from the deal context — will miss things that a more integrated perspective would catch.
Deliverables should require no translation to be used.
A due diligence report that a deal team has to spend hours interpreting has not done its job. A PPA schedule that the auditor questions every assumption in has not been documented adequately. The measure of a good accounting deliverable is whether the people who receive it can act on it directly — without needing to reconstruct the reasoning that produced it.
How these beliefs show up in actual engagements.
Scope Calls Before Engagement Letters
We discuss the transaction structure, the known risk areas, and the deal timeline before we propose a scope. That conversation shapes the engagement — rather than a template being applied and adjusted later.
Interim Findings, Not Just Final Reports
We communicate material findings as they emerge during fieldwork. Deal teams don't wait until a final report to learn something significant — they hear about it when it surfaces, so they can factor it in while there's still time to act on it.
Deliverable Walkthrough at Close
When we deliver final work product, we walk the team through it — explaining the assumptions, the adjustments, and what the findings mean in the context of the specific deal. The document and the understanding travel together.
Advisor Access Throughout
Legal counsel, valuation specialists, and financial advisors have direct access to our team during the engagement. Questions get answered in real time — not buffered through formal update cycles.
Deal-Formatted Schedules
Our working capital schedules, earnings bridges, and allocation tables are formatted for deal team use — not for an audit file. The structure of the output reflects how it will be used, not how it was produced.
Continuity Across Phases
The team that does diligence has the context to inform PPA. The team that supports PPA has the context to support integration accounting. That continuity reduces the information loss that typically occurs at handoff points.
The people on the other side of an engagement matter.
A transaction is always a high-pressure moment for someone. The CFO who has to defend the numbers to a board. The integration lead who has six months to make two reporting systems coherent. The investor whose models depend on the quality of the diligence that was run.
We think about who's receiving our work and what they need it to do. That shapes the level of documentation we provide, the way we structure our findings, and how much time we spend making sure the output is understood — not just delivered.
We explain our adjustments.
Every normalization item in a due diligence report is explained in plain terms — not just listed. The client should be able to explain each one to their investors.
We are honest about scope limits.
When something is outside the scope of our engagement, we say so — rather than leaving a gap that only becomes visible later.
We calibrate communication to the audience.
A conversation with a technical CFO and a briefing for a private equity partner require different things. We adjust without losing accuracy.
We update how we work when we find something that works better.
Transaction accounting has evolved — both in how standards treat business combinations and in how deal teams use accounting output. We follow those developments closely and adjust our procedures accordingly.
That doesn't mean chasing novelty. Some of the most reliable procedures in our work have been refined over many engagements and are deliberately unchanged because they produce consistent, defensible results. Innovation, for us, means being deliberate about when to update and when to hold course.
Better because of accumulated experience, not despite it.
Each engagement leaves us with a clearer view of where procedures hold up under deal pressure and where they don't. We carry that forward. The due diligence procedures we apply today are more refined than the ones we used five years ago — and for specific reasons we can identify.
That accumulated perspective is what distinguishes a team that has done many transactions from one that has done a few with sophistication. Both have their place. We're building the former.
We say what we find, even when it's inconvenient.
There is an inherent tension in advisory work: the client has a deal they want to close, and the advisor is surfacing information that could complicate it. We have one position on how to handle that tension — we surface the information, explain it clearly, and let the client decide what to do with it.
A diligence report that softens findings to avoid disrupting a deal is not a diligence report. It's a document that provides a false sense of confidence while leaving the risk in place. That's not a service we offer, regardless of how much pressure exists to bring the deal to close.
Complete Findings
We document what we find. Items are not omitted because they create friction for the deal.
Clear Assumptions
Every adjustment and allocation reflects documented assumptions — the reasoning is visible, not buried.
Honest Scope Limits
We are explicit about what was reviewed and what was not — and why.
Accounting works best when it works alongside — not separately from — the deal team.
A transaction involves multiple advisors working in parallel — legal, financial, strategic. Accounting is one input into a larger process. When accounting operates as an island, findings arrive too late to influence the decisions they should inform.
We structure our engagements to enable real coordination: shared timelines, direct access to our team for other advisors, and a clear understanding of how our output feeds into the broader deal process. The goal is integration — not just parallel work.
With Legal Counsel
We coordinate on working capital definitions, representations and warranties scope, and adjustment mechanisms — so the accounting treatment is consistent with the legal framework from the start.
With Valuation Specialists
For PPA engagements, we work directly with the valuation team — sharing normalized financial data, asset lists, and deal structure information so that the allocation process is built on a consistent foundation.
With Finance and Integration Teams
During post-merger integration, we work alongside the internal finance function — supporting their work rather than running a parallel process. Knowledge transfer is part of the engagement.
What gets built during a transaction lasts beyond it.
A purchase price allocation establishes goodwill figures and intangible asset balances that run through financial statements for years — through impairment testing, amortization schedules, and deferred tax accounting. Decisions made under the pressure of a closing deadline carry forward into every subsequent reporting period.
We work with that in mind. When we prepare an opening balance sheet, we're thinking about the audit that will review it twelve months later. When we document integration accounting decisions, we're thinking about the finance team that will use that documentation to explain their figures to investors three years from now.
The standard for accounting work in a transaction shouldn't be whether it holds up through closing. It should be whether it holds up through the life of the investment.
What this looks like in practice, from the client's side.
You know the scope upfront.
The engagement letter reflects the actual transaction — not a generic template. There are no surprises about what's included.
You hear findings when they matter.
Material items are communicated during fieldwork — not only in the final report. You can act on them while it's still relevant.
Your advisors can use the work directly.
Reports, schedules, and journal entries are formatted for deal team use — not for an internal accounting file.
The foundation is built to last.
Accounting work is documented with the next audit, the next reporting period, and the next investor question in mind.
If this approach fits what your transaction needs, we'd like to hear from you.
We're straightforward about what we do and don't do. A short conversation is usually enough to know whether we're a fit for your engagement.
Start a Conversation