The same asset, two offers, roughly 21% apart within six weeks. What had changed was not the company — it was the number of buyers.
In the summer of 2026, a London-listed oil and gas producer, Pharos Energy, had accepted a 28 pence per share offer in June. In late July, its board withdrew that recommendation and endorsed another offer, at 33.6 pence — from Serica Energy, which had stepped in against the first bidder. Roughly 21% more, for the same company, within six weeks. The underlying assets had not moved. What changed was the number of buyers at the table.
The case is public and documented; it stands as an illustration, not a promise. No sale process guarantees such a gap.
Owners who consult us about a sale often arrive with a buyer already identified. A competitor, a customer, a fund met at a dinner. Talks are under way; sometimes an offer is on the table. Going out to find other candidates then feels like needless complication — a longer timetable, more potential leaks, an irritated incumbent buyer.
Yet that is where much of the outcome is decided. A single buyer facing a single seller sets the pace and the level. It knows the seller has no alternative, and every passing week strengthens its hand: the owner has already pictured the deal done, information has circulated internally, walking away grows costly. The moment the buyer knows it is not alone, it loses part of that power — over price, but also over the warranties requested, the timetable, the share paid in cash.
The Pharos case is spectacular because it is public and listed. For an SME, the mechanics work the same way — with two or three serious candidates rather than ten. The goal is not volume: it is tension. Each candidate must know it is not alone, and the seller must be able to compare real offers — not expressions of interest.
Selection matters more than numbers: trade buyers seeking synergies, investment funds and individual buyers do not buy the same thing and do not pay for the same elements. Having them coexist in a process reveals what the business is really worth — to each of them.
The file must be ready before the discussion opens. A well-argued valuation, a solid information memorandum, a data room that anticipates buyers' questions: that is what makes it possible to hold the timetable and the competitive tension — instead of enduring them.
As for the fear of leaks, it is addressed by method, not by renunciation: the company is presented anonymously at first; its identity is revealed only to serious counterparties, under a confidentiality undertaking and with the owner's approval, at every step. Customers, employees and suppliers need not know about the project before the chosen moment.
An owner sells a business once in a lifetime. Acquirers buy several a year. An organised competitive process is the main tool for rebalancing that power ratio — and it is prepared well ahead of the first approach.
To go further: our sale & succession service. And upstream, the question that precedes any sale: What is my business worth?
Two or three serious candidates are usually enough to create genuine competitive tension. The goal is not volume: it is that every candidate knows it is not alone.
A serious buyer does not walk away because it has competitors — it adjusts its offer. One that withdraws at the mere idea of an organised process was counting on the absence of alternatives to impose its terms.
The company is presented anonymously at first; its identity is revealed only to serious counterparties, after a confidentiality undertaking has been signed and with the owner's approval, at every step.
That is precisely the right moment to organise the process. Thirty minutes to talk it through — with no commitment.
Let's discuss your project →