Keep reading
Blog/Investment Banking
An indication of interest, or IOI, is a buyer’s preliminary, non-binding expression of intent to acquire a company or asset, usually submitted after reviewing a confidential information memorandum and limited financials. A letter of intent, or LOI, is a later-stage document that sets out the key economic, legal, and process terms under which a buyer proposes to sign and close a definitive acquisition agreement. The difference matters because it determines how much information the seller shares, when leverage shifts, and how much execution risk both parties carry at each point in the deal.
The practical distinction is not semantic. An IOI is a screening instrument. An LOI is a control instrument. Sellers use IOIs to decide which bidders receive deeper diligence access. Sellers use LOIs to select a preferred bidder, grant exclusivity, and test whether the buyer can actually close on the stated terms. For finance professionals, the payoff is cleaner bid comparison, more accurate proceeds modelling, tighter investment committee materials, and fewer surprises after exclusivity begins.
A typical sell-side mergers and acquisitions process starts with a teaser, buyer list, non-disclosure agreement, confidential information memorandum, virtual data room, management presentation, and process letter. The IOI arrives after the first wave of information and before full confirmatory diligence. At this stage, the buyer has enough information to express interest, but not enough to make a fully underwritten commitment.
The LOI arrives after the buyer has invested resources in price, structure, financing, and key risks. In a private equity process, that usually means the investment team has a preliminary investment committee view, debt providers have reviewed a lender package, and advisers have scoped quality of earnings, tax, legal, insurance, cyber, environmental, and commercial diligence.
Banker-led auctions use each document to narrow the field. The IOI usually reduces a broad buyer universe to a smaller second-round group. The LOI then narrows that group to one preferred party or a final limited set. Seller leverage usually peaks before exclusivity is granted, so the LOI is far more consequential than many buyers acknowledge.
| Document | Main Use | Seller Decision |
|---|---|---|
| IOI | Screen buyer interest and valuation range | Who receives deeper diligence access |
| LOI | Set price, structure, process, and exclusivity | Whether to take the company off the market |
The most important difference between IOI vs LOI is price specificity. IOIs typically state a range, such as $180 million to $210 million of enterprise value, subject to diligence and assumptions. That range is useful for ranking bidders, but weak as evidence of executable value.
LOIs should state a specific price or a narrow formula. A credible LOI should clarify whether the price is enterprise value vs equity value, cash-free debt-free value, or a per-share amount. It should also identify assumed debt, cash, transaction expenses, working capital target, and normalized EBITDA assumptions.
Proceeds leakage often hides behind headline value. If an LOI states a $200 million enterprise value, assumes $20 million of debt, $5 million of cash, $3 million of unpaid seller transaction expenses, and a $25 million working capital target, the implied equity proceeds are not $200 million. They are $182 million before any working capital shortfall, escrow, or holdback.
IOI pricing can reflect positioning rather than genuine underwriting. Buyers may submit an aggressive range to gain access to the next round, then retrade after diligence. Sellers should discount IOIs with wide ranges, vague assumptions, open-ended diligence outs, or no financing support. If a buyer cannot explain its valuation basis, financing plan, approval path, and diligence requirements, the high number is not a bid. It is an option on information.
LOI pricing should be close to an investment committee-cleared view. Conditions can remain, but they should be finite and identified. If the LOI says price is subject to “completion of satisfactory diligence” without naming the diligence categories, the seller has not received a real value commitment. Rollover equity also belongs in the LOI, including expected amount, security type, governance rights, vesting terms, and whether rollover value uses the same entry valuation paid to selling shareholders.
Most IOIs are expressly non-binding. They usually bind the buyer only through a separately signed non-disclosure agreement. LOIs are hybrid documents. The acquisition obligation is typically non-binding, while selected provisions are binding, especially exclusivity, confidentiality, access protocols, public announcement limits, expense allocation, governing law, and venue.
Exclusivity is the most important LOI term for deal leverage. It restricts the seller from soliciting or negotiating alternative transactions for a fixed period. Once exclusivity begins, the buyer’s threat to walk often becomes more powerful than the seller’s threat to reopen the process. Middle-market exclusivity periods often fall in the 30 to 60 day range, but the right period depends on financing complexity, audited financials, regulatory approvals, management rollover, and third-party consents.
Financing certainty should appear directly in the LOI. A sponsor-backed buyer should identify equity sources, expected debt financing, whether debt is committed or only under discussion, and whether closing is conditioned on financing. Sellers should treat a financing-out as a valuation discount, especially when credit markets are volatile or the target has cyclicality, customer concentration, or weak collateral coverage.
Lenders use the signed LOI as a framework, not as credit approval. They still need quality of earnings, pro forma capitalization, purchase agreement terms, lien structure, management projections, and customer concentration analysis. If debt is critical, sellers should ask for evidence of lender engagement, such as a debt term sheet, highly confident letter, or named lenders with indicative leverage and pricing.
Transaction structure usually stays loose at the IOI stage. A buyer may express a preference for stock purchase, asset purchase, merger, or hybrid structure, but it often has not yet assessed tax, contract assignment, license, labor, or liability implications.
The LOI should be more explicit because structure affects economics. In a stock purchase, the buyer acquires the equity of the target and indirectly assumes liabilities unless carved out by indemnity or restructuring. In an asset purchase, the buyer selects assets and assumed liabilities, but may need more third-party consents and may trigger transfer taxes, contract assignment restrictions, and employee transfer issues. A merger can help where there are many shareholders or a statutory squeeze-out is needed.
Diligence access should expand only as buyer credibility improves. IOI-stage diligence usually includes a CIM, selected financials, summary customer and vendor information, and a curated management presentation. LOI-stage diligence is more intrusive and may cover revenue backup, customer-level files, tax returns, legal contracts, employee census data, IP schedules, environmental reports, insurance claims, cyber assessments, and bank statements. Sellers should use a secure virtual data room, preserve privilege, and use clean teams for competitively sensitive data when strategic buyers are involved.
Regulatory risk can change the closing calendar. If a Hart-Scott-Rodino filing is required in the United States, the parties need to allocate filing responsibility, timing, cooperation obligations, and delay risk. The FTC set the 2025 HSR size-of-transaction threshold at $126.4 million, effective February 2025. That number is a process trigger, not an antitrust risk proxy, but it affects certainty. Cross-border deals may also require foreign direct investment approvals, sanctions analysis, export controls, competition filings, and works council consultations.
A practical review starts by separating headline value from executable value. Bankers should maintain a bid comparison matrix that adjusts for financing, diligence, regulatory, structure, escrow, working capital, earnout, and documentation risk. The highest IOI is not necessarily the best bidder. The best LOI is the one that maximizes probability-weighted proceeds.
Junior and mid-level professionals can add value by translating bid language into model inputs. For example, if a buyer offers $200 million of enterprise value but adds a $10 million escrow, a $5 million working capital peg above historical norms, and a financing condition, the model should show base proceeds, downside proceeds, and timing risk. That analysis is often more useful to an IC than another page of buyer logos.
Common failure modes are predictable. The most common IOI failure is an inflated range unsupported by financing or diligence. The most common LOI failure is granting exclusivity before resolving economic leakage. Other red flags include undefined purchase price basis, open-ended diligence outs, financing conditions that shift credit market risk to the seller, deferred management rollover terms, no protocol for strategic buyer data access, and binding language accidentally inserted into non-binding economics.
IOIs preserve optionality, while LOIs allocate leverage. Finance professionals should treat the IOI as a test of buyer seriousness and the LOI as the last major chance to protect price, structure, timing, and negotiating power before exclusivity. The career-relevant skill is not knowing the labels. It is knowing when stated value has become executable value.
P.S. – Check out our Premium Resources for more valuable content and tools to help you advance your career.
Join 80,000+ readers
One email a week: markets and finance news, the latest M&A deals and reports, investor biographies and deep dives.
Free forever. Unsubscribe anytime.
