Answers / Financial Due Diligence

What is the difference between an LTM adjustment and a run-rate adjustment in QoE, and why is run-rate the more dangerous one to accept?

An advanced Financial Due Diligence question — expect it in final rounds and case-heavy interviews (IB, PE, Big-4 Transaction Services).

THE SHORT ANSWER

An LTM adjustment restates the last twelve months for things that actually happened — removing a one-off cost or annualizing a contract that was live for part of the period. A run-rate adjustment projects forward, reflecting the full-year effect of a change as if it had been in place all year — e.g., a price increase taken in month 10, or headcount cuts not yet fully realized. Run-rate is more dangerous because it credits EBITDA for benefits that haven't been earned and may never fully materialize: it relies on management's assumption that the change sticks, with no historical proof. So I scrutinize the evidence — is the price actually invoiced, are the cuts executed and irreversible — and I'd quantify and ring-fence run-rate add-backs separately so the buyer sees how much of 'adjusted EBITDA' is real history versus forward promise.

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LISTEN FOR

  • LTM = restate actual history; run-rate = annualize forward effect
  • Run-rate credits unearned, unproven benefits
  • Demand evidence the change is executed/irreversible
  • Ring-fence run-rate add-backs separately

COMMON MISTAKES

  • Accepting run-rate add-backs without execution evidence
  • Mixing run-rate and historical in one EBITDA figure
  • Not distinguishing the two

Reading isn't the same as answering under pressure.

Interviewers don't hand you the model answer — you deliver yours on a clock. Practice this and 1,000+ questions with AI feedback on every answer.

TRY QUICKFIRE →Or train full Financial Due Diligence case simulations →

RELATED QUESTIONS