By Ishtah Kadel, Partner & Head of Europe, Finatal
The difference between a good exit and a great one is rarely decided in the final 12 months. More often, it’s set years earlier through the strength of the management team, the clarity of the strategy, and how deliberately the business is built with a buyer in mind.
In this article, Ishtah Kadel reflects on a recent panel she moderated at the PEI Operating Partners Forum Europe in London, where she was joined by Guillaume de Montchalin (Eurazeo), Marko Maschek (Marondo Capital) and Ana Sabbag (ICON Infrastructure).
The discussion focused on a central question: what does exit readiness really look like and what role do operating partners play in achieving it?
Four themes emerged, each pointing to a more deliberate, front-loaded approach to exit readiness.
1. Exit readiness is built, not switched on
Exit thinking has shifted significantly.
In today’s market, it’s no longer sufficient to “get ready” 12 months out. Longer hold periods, tighter markets, and a greater reliance on operational performance mean readiness has to be embedded early.
Ana Sabbag pointed to this explicitly. In infrastructure, where holding periods often extend beyond seven years, exit preparation starts long before a process is even considered.
But the underlying dynamic is broader. Across private equity, the playbook has shifted from timing and packaging to consistency and proof. And that comes down to a simple question: would you buy this business on the terms you’re presenting to market?
If the answer isn’t clearly yes, the work starts much earlier than the exit process.
2. Buyers back trajectory and the teams that can deliver it
Another shift is what buyers actually value.
As Guillaume de Montchalin outlined, buyers aren’t underwriting static performance or even well-built business plans. They’re underwriting future relevance: the ability of a company to adapt as markets, technologies and competitive dynamics evolve.
That reframes the investment case. It’s no longer ‘Is this business strong today?’; it’s ‘Will this business still be relevant tomorrow and does the team know how to get it there?’
That distinction brings the focus firmly onto management.
There was no real debate on this point: management quality is now non-negotiable. The idea that leadership can be fixed late in the hold period is increasingly unrealistic. Changing a CEO mid-cycle costs time, disrupts momentum, and often undermines value creation at exactly the wrong moment.
Instead, strong, credible teams need to be in place early – teams that understand and own the investment thesis and can articulate a forward-looking strategy that stands up to scrutiny.
Put simply, there is no longer a dividing line between value creation and exit preparation. Both are driven by the same thing: the strength of the management team.
3. Exit readiness requires a buyer’s lens, early and often
If exit readiness is about discipline, one of the hardest things to maintain is objectivity.
Ana described it as pattern recognition. Buyers, reviewing multiple opportunities, quickly identify gaps, inconsistencies, or weak points in a story. Sellers, by contrast, are often too close to see them.
That blindness shows up in familiar ways: overconfidence in the equity story, underestimating execution risk, or missing obvious strategic gaps.
Marko Maschek added another layer. Sellers often fail to properly account for the risk a buyer is taking, whether that’s technology risk, integration complexity, or market positioning.
The implication is straightforward: exit readiness isn’t just about improving the asset, it’s about continually pressure-testing it from the outside in.
4. Execution still matters: where exits are ultimately won
Exit readiness is built over time, but outcomes are still determined in the detail.
The final 18 to 24 months remain critical. What’s changed is how structured that period has become.
Guillaume pointed to a more systematic approach, centred on independent executive team assessments, early technical diligence to remove risk, and focused work on the equity story, often shaped with external advisors.
These steps don’t just optimise the process, they remove uncertainty. And in a more selective market, clarity and credibility are often what separate a good exit from a great one.
Stepping back, Marko’s perspective highlights a more foundational layer. Before any of this, businesses need alignment: on incentives, timelines and what success actually looks like. Without it, even strong assets can struggle to convert performance into exit outcomes.
Closing perspective
Exit readiness has evolved. It’s no longer about preparing a business for sale in the final stretch.
As the panel discussed at the PEI Operating Partners Forum Europe, it’s about building a company that is consistently credible, operationally, strategically and commercially, at any point in its lifecycle. That requires early intent, ongoing discipline, and a willingness to view the business through a buyer’s lens long before the process begins.
For operating partners, that shifts the role materially, from driving performance in-year to shaping exit outcomes over time.
My thanks to Guillaume de Montchalin, Marko Maschek and Ana Sabbag for such a thoughtful and pragmatic discussion. What came through clearly is that the best exits don’t come together at the end; they’re built, deliberately and consistently, over the life of the investment.