An Indication of Interest (IOI) plays an essential role in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as a preliminary and informal proposal issued by a prospective buyer, signaling their initial interest in potentially acquiring a target company. Unlike formal agreements, an IOI is non-binding, thus acting primarily as a method of early exploration and negotiation initiation without undertaking any enforceable obligation at this preliminary phase. It’s a way for both sides to get a feel for the deal before making deeper commitments.
Primarily utilized at the initial stages of transaction discussions, the IOI allows potential buyers and sellers to align their expectations and set fundamental deal parameters before moving further into detailed examinations and negotiations.
An IOI typically outlines the estimated purchase price, proposed deal structure (e.g. asset vs. share purchase), and what kind of due diligence the buyer plans to perform. It opens up the conversation without locking either party in — an efficient way to test alignment before diving into the details.
Early application of IOIs serves dual purposes: buyer screening and valuation benchmarking. From the seller’s perspective, IOIs help filter serious buyers from those testing the waters. From the buyer’s side, it’s a chance to put their hat in the ring without overcommitting.
For example, sellers may ask for proof of funds alongside the IOI to gauge whether the bidder can follow through. This saves time and ensures that the process moves forward with qualified parties.
Simultaneously, receiving multiple IOIs provides the seller actionable market intelligence, enabling comparison across different valuation methodologies, financing conditions, and associated transaction terms. Parkland Corporation’s recent strategic review is one such case: multiple IOIs gave the board leverage to push for better terms.
Source: buythenbuild.com
Despite frequent confusion, key differences distinguish the Indication of Interest (IOI) from the later-stage Letter of Intent (LOI). Think of the IOI as a handshake and the LOI as the blueprint. An IOI sketches out a ballpark valuation and general deal approach — non-binding and open-ended. The LOI, on the other hand, adds specifics: price, terms, timelines, and sometimes exclusivity clauses that prevent sellers from engaging other buyers.
This distinction is particularly clear in private equity and venture capital settings. Firms often lead with an IOI to open discussions, then follow up with an LOI once they’ve done more homework and want to get serious.
A well-crafted IOI strikes a balance between being concise and informative. At minimum, it should include:
For example, in healthcare M&A, valuation might reflect adjusted EBITDA that accounts for provider compensation or reimbursement differences. These adjustments help ensure apples-to-apples comparisons between bidders.
Other elements include:
Source: axial.net
In the healthcare field, private equity (PE) firms often use IOIs to signal interest while they assess platform potential. These preliminary offers help both sides determine if there’s enough strategic fit to proceed.
A significant example involved Midwest regional cardiology groups attracting multiple preliminary IOIs proposing varying structures related to provider compensation adjustments, rollover equity potential, and expected equity holder outcomes. This preliminary screening proved fundamental in allowing the healthcare groups to strategically align their transactional objectives and expectations ahead of detailed negotiations with shortlisted PE bidders.
For public companies, IOIs are often used during strategic reviews — especially when activist investors are pushing for change. Parkland Corporation serves as a solid example: it used IOIs to create competitive tension, raise bid quality, eventually secure better terms once due diligence began.
Even in the early stages, compliance is essential. Regulatory bodies like the SEC and FINRA monitor how interest is expressed and disclosed. FINRA requires firms to clearly differentiate between client-driven IOIs and proprietary trading activity, ensuring transparency. U.S. transactions over certain thresholds must also comply with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act — even at the IOI stage.
Across Europe, MiFID II and similar frameworks require the same level of care. That means firms need to treat IOIs not just as informal gestures, but as regulated communication.
While IOIs are useful, they’re not without risk. Some buyers may use the process to gather intelligence rather than pursue a deal. That’s why sellers must vet each bidder carefully before sharing sensitive data.
Another concern is the information gap between large institutions and smaller players. Without safeguards, this can tilt the playing field unfairly. Regulators and advisors have a role to play in maintaining fairness throughout.
Indications of Interest remain a central strategic tool in modern mergers and acquisitions. When applied effectively, they reduce transactional burdens, expedite productive dialogue, promote clarity among parties, and optimize resource allocation for subsequent detailed analyses. Simultaneously, awareness and strategic management of inherent limitations and regulatory expectations maximize value realization for stakeholders across transaction scenarios.
Future advancements, possibly incorporating technological tools like blockchain-enabled automated validations, promise further improvements in transactional verification. Until then, effectively managing existing documentation protocols and strategic adviser engagements remains crucial for successful outcomes in complex corporate transactions.
P.S. – Explore our Premium Resources for more valuable content and tools to help you break into the industry.
