In financial services M&A, there is a natural desire for universal truths. Buyers and sellers alike look for patterns to guide decisions: what drives value, how risk is managed, and what separates a successful transaction from a regrettable one. Yet, as Growth Focus has observed from active mandates across Australia and the United Kingdom, markets rarely behave in identical ways. These are two mature, sophisticated arenas for financial planning practice sales, but they operate with distinct rhythms, shaped by history, regulation, and buyer psychology.

The differences are instructive. But what’s more interesting are the patterns beneath these differences — the behaviours and dynamics that apply far beyond the specifics of these two markets. This is not merely a comparison of Australia and the UK. It’s an exploration of what their differences reveal about deal-making itself.

Valuations: Price Reflects Confidence, Not Geography

The most immediately visible difference is price.

In the UK, top-tier financial planning practices frequently attract 3 to 4 times recurring revenue, particularly when they combine fee-for-service models, strong client demographics, and discretionary investment services.

Private equity-backed consolidators like Fairstone and 1825 (Standard Life) have injected capital and competitive tension into the market, bidding assertively for scale and integration opportunities.

Citywire reports that premium valuations have become commonplace for firms fitting this profile.

Australia, by contrast, operates at a more conservative 2 to 3 times recurring revenue.

Post-Royal Commission caution prevails. Buyers are keenly focused on compliance hygiene, adviser qualifications, and client retention risks.

As Professional Planner notes, acquirers are disciplined, favouring “clean books” and proven operational resilience over aggressive growth promises.

These pricing gaps are not explained by geography — they are expressions of market maturity and buyer confidence:

• UK buyers pay for potential and platform synergy.
• Australian buyers pay for certainty and clean compliance.

Payment Terms: The Risk Horizon Decides

Behind every headline price lies a second — often more telling — variable: the timing of risk transfer.

In the UK, transactions typically span 24 to 36 months, with structured earn-outs and phased payments linked to client retention and growth metrics.

As Citywire observes, sophisticated earn-out mechanics are embedded to balance higher headline prices with longer periods of risk control. Private equity investors, in particular, are comfortable with this delayed crystallisation of value.

Australian buyers lean towards faster settlements. Earn-outs usually sit in the 12 to 18 month range, with tight focus on short-term client retention.

The deal psychology is clear: fast confirmation of value, and early closure of risk exposure.

These are not cultural preferences; they are market realities:

• Higher multiples necessitate longer risk periods.
• Lower multiples enable shorter, cleaner deals.

Client Relationships: Trust, Transferred Differently

No matter the market, client retention determines the real value of an acquisition. What differs is how trust is built and transferred.

In Australia, relationships are typically adviser-led. Clients place deep personal trust in their advisers, viewing them as integral to family financial decision-making. Transitions require active involvement from the outgoing adviser, with joint meetings, personalised introductions, and visible handovers.

In the UK, client trust is increasingly institutionalised. The adoption of centralised investment propositions and platform-based advice models means clients are familiar with firm-level engagement. Acquirers invest heavily in client communication campaigns to reinforce stability and continuity — even as advisers change.

A UK consolidator quoted in Citywire put it well:

“What we buy is the client trust that’s already there. What we invest in is making sure that trust transfers.”

Both approaches succeed — but only when buyers match their post-acquisition strategy to client expectations:

• In Australia, retain the trusted face.
• In the UK, reinforce the trusted firm.

Regulation: The Quiet Architect of Deals

Few forces shape markets more profoundly than regulation.

Australia is still digesting the far-reaching impacts of the Royal Commission. Higher education standards, strict licensing, and legacy remediation programs have reshaped acquisition criteria.

Buyers prize firms with spotless compliance records and adviser continuity — and discount heavily where risks persist. The UK, having weathered its regulatory overhaul earlier via the Retail Distribution Review (RDR), enjoys greater predictability. Fee-for-service models are entrenched, adviser qualifications standardised, and recurring revenue streams stable.

As Professional Planner summarises:

“Australian buyers today are willing to pay, but they are paying for certainty — clean books, compliant advice, and transferable trust.”

Regulatory maturity is not just a backdrop — it is a key determinant of buyer confidence.

Negotiation Styles: Pragmatism vs. Consultation

Negotiation style also reflects local business culture.

In Australia, dealmaking is typically direct and commercially focused.

Key terms are addressed early, with an emphasis on clean execution and swift closure. Sellers often prioritise speed over incremental pricing gains.

In the UK, the process is more consultative and iterative, especially where private equity is involved. Due diligence is exhaustive, with early emphasis on cultural alignment and post-deal integration planning.

Both styles are rational. What matters is recognising them — especially in cross-border negotiations — to avoid misaligned expectations and unnecessary friction.

Patterns Beneath the Surface: What These Differences Reveal

Stepping back from the specifics, a clearer picture emerges.
While the structures and styles differ, the underlying themes are universal:

• Risk appetite dictates pricing and timing.
• Regulatory maturity underpins buyer confidence.
• Client trust, though expressed differently, is the cornerstone of value.
• Negotiation style follows business culture, not location.

What appears as market-specific behaviour is, in fact, a variation on shared themes.

Markets differ, but the architecture of a good deal remains constant.

The Deeper Insight: How Markets Mature — and What Buyers Should Anticipate

What’s particularly revealing in observing these two markets is how market maturity evolves deal priorities.

Australia’s market today is following a similar trajectory to where the UK was a decade ago — particularly in regulatory reform, adviser transition, and consolidation activity — though with its own nuances in pace and structure.
Yet in some respects, Australia may even be ahead:

• Adviser education standards have been aggressively elevated, with degree-level qualifications mandated across the profession.
• Fee transparency is enforced with rigour, requiring explicit client opt-ins and annual disclosures that go beyond the UK’s requirements.
• Structural conflicts of interest have been actively dismantled, with major banks exiting wealth management entirely, creating cleaner lines between product and advice.
• And culturally, the Royal Commission has driven a sharper, more visible shift towards client-first advice models.

As Australia continues to work through its reforms and generational adviser transition, we may well see payment structures extend, multiples lift, and firm-level trust deepen, as they have in the UK.

Buyers who anticipate these shifts and build strategies accordingly will find themselves ahead of the curve, prepared not just for today’s market conditions but for tomorrow’s opportunities.

Equally, UK buyers should not assume their market maturity shields them from future risks. Regulatory landscapes evolve, client expectations shift, and integration challenges remain real. The disciplined mindset Australian buyers apply today is a useful reminder that no market, however stable, is immune from the fundamentals of risk management.

Closing Reflection: Markets Vary, Principles Endure

So what, if anything, does the Australia–UK comparison really teach us?

Perhaps this: the context may change, but the fundamentals of effective deal-making do not.

Good deals, in any market, balance risk and reward thoughtfully. They respect the nuances of client relationships. They align buyer and seller expectations clearly. And they never confuse price with value — recognising that terms, transition, and trust transfer complete the picture.

At Growth Focus, advising clients across both Australia and the UK, we witness these dynamics daily.

And while we respect the differences between markets, we are consistently reminded of the enduring principles that underpin successful transactions.

In the end, deal-making is not about replicating structures.

It’s about understanding why they work — and applying that insight with precision, wherever the opportunity arises.

👉 Exploring M&A opportunities in Australia or the UK? Growth Focus offers grounded, cross-market insight to help you navigate pricing, structuring, and post-deal success. Contact us today to start the conversation.