CLIENT
VETERINARY ROLL-UP · MULTI-REGION
NAME · ██████████████
ADMITTED
████ ████
DISCHARGED
Ongoing
ATTENDING
Admen partners
RECORD № 0224 — SEALED
64-location roll-up on a standing cadence
Sixty-four-location PE-backed roll-up under active management; acquisition integration, cost dispersion, and per-site client flow on a standing operating cadence.
Specimen view. This client's compiled numbers stay sealed — by policy, not by mood. The structure below is exact. Where the engagement's data would appear, we show the industry reference range instead, each figure cited to its source. Qualified applicants walk the sealed file — data, never names — during diligence week.
Exhibit A · The record, in motion
5 plates · 177 seconds · every figure below is on the record · Narrated by Nova
The platform
64
locations · one platform · multi‑region
A roll‑up presents with a condition independent practices never develop: every acquisition brings a new market, a legacy brand, and a client base watching for a reason to leave.
sixty-four sites, sixty-four clocks
The backdrop, everywhere
FALLING ABOUT 95 A YEAR SINCE 2019
AGAINST REVENUE UP 2.1%
SOURCE. AVMA — 2025 Practice Owners Survey: active clients per practice 3,351, falling about 95 a year since 2019. Vetsource index, 6,184 practices: visits −2.9%, revenue +2.1%. Runway bars are schematic — no per‑site dates on record.
RECORD № 0224 · PLATE I
64 SITES · NO STANDARD REACHED
Veterinary publishes no acquisition‑cost benchmark at any tier.
Dispersion inside the platform is the comparison that exists;
a national veterinary CAC is not.
SOURCES. AVMA — 2025 Practice Owners Survey: active clients per FTE veterinarian 1,499 (2024), falling about 15 a year; per practice 3,351, falling about 95 a year since 2019. Veterinary publishes no acquisition-cost benchmark at any tier.
RECORD № 0224 · PLATE II
3.5× SPREAD AT INTAKE
One engine, not sixty-four
A single acquisition engine deployed across the platform instead of sixty‑four separate ad accounts, with call conversion instrumented at every front desk.
Transition before spend
Brand‑transition protocols applied before growth spend at every newly acquired site. A client saved through a rebrand is cheaper than any client bought.
Phase order and runway length are schematic.
The protocol order is on the record; the calendar is not.
SOURCE. Bain & Company — Global Healthcare Private Equity Report 2026: healthcare PE deal value above $190B in 2025, provider and related services up 57% to roughly $62B. Bain excludes add-ons below $250M — it measures the top of the market, not the roll‑up middle.
RECORD № 0224 · PLATE III
THREE PHASES · ONE STANDARD
Both client‑flow endpoints sit below the national figure. This platform is arresting a decline, not outrunning the market.
the sponsor’s next mark is the measure
Rows close on 2.2 FTE veterinarians per site. Revenue per FTE veterinarian closes at $604,000 —
just under the companion‑animal‑exclusive median of $616,667. Ackerman’s book is its own closed
transactions, roughly 14% of US corporate veterinary deals, skewed toward larger practices.
SOURCES. AVMA — 2025 Practice Owners Survey (clients per location, booking share, slot fill). AVMA — Economic State of the Profession 2025 p.47 (revenue per FTE veterinarian). Ackerman Group — Market Update: 12.5× 2025, 12.4× 2H25, 13.3× Q1 2026, range 8×–15×, top tier 16×+.
RECORD № 0224 · PLATE IV
+3.3% · +10.9 · +8.7 PTS · +8.8%
DISPERSION ACROSS SITES 1×2×3×4× SPREAD ADDED 3.5× → 3.8×+8.6% — WORSE Each site enters with its own media history and no instrumentation, so integration widens the spread before it narrows it.
OF NEW PATIENTS 0%10%20%30% SHARE GIVEN UP 23.2% → 16.5%−6.7 PTS — WORSE The acquisition ran broader than the puppy‑and‑kitten segment that was already working.
Reported at the same size as Active clients per location, up 3.3%, because that is the only version of this document worth handing to a CFO.
Client: ████████████ — names stay sealed. What is published is the arithmetic, and the source under every figure.
Sixty‑four locations under active management: acquisition integration, cost dispersion and per‑site client flow on a standing operating cadence.
OPEN · QUARTERLY CADENCE Admen
SOURCES. Dispersion against Ackerman Group — Veterinary Industry Market Update. Puppy / kitten share against AVMA — 2025 Practice Owners Survey. No benchmark exists for veterinary acquisition cost at any tier — dispersion is measured against the platform’s own distribution.
RECORD № 0224 · PLATE V
DISPERSION +8.6% · SHARE −6.7 PTS
NATURE OF THE ENGAGEMENT
What the group came to us with
A roll-up presents with a condition independent practices never develop: every acquisition brings a new market, a legacy brand, and a client base watching for a reason to leave.
OBJECTIVE — INTAKE
What we found
Intake at this scale is a dispersion study — client flow, acquisition cost and schedule integrity vary wildly across sixty-four sites, and the sites acquired last quarter behave nothing like the sites acquired three years ago. The industry backdrop is a headwind everywhere: AVMA's owner survey has active clients per practice down roughly 95 a year since 2019, and Vetsource's weekly index across 6,184 practices shows trailing-year visits down 2.9% against revenue up 2.1% — volume falling, price carrying the line.
THE OPERATION
What we changed, and in what order
What gets operated on: a single acquisition engine deployed across the platform instead of sixty-four separate ad accounts, call conversion instrumented at every front desk, and brand-transition protocols applied before growth spend at every newly acquired site — a client saved through a rebrand is cheaper than any client bought. The cost side is managed honestly: veterinary publishes no acquisition-cost benchmark at any tier, so cost per acquired client is measured site to site against the platform's own distribution and never against an imported industry figure. Dispersion inside the platform is the comparison that exists; a national veterinary CAC is not.
POST-OP VITALS
What moved, and how it was measured
What gets measured is what the sponsor's next mark depends on. Same-site client flow is tracked as a multiple lever rather than a marketing statistic, against Ackerman Group's closed-transaction book: weighted-average purchase-price multiples of 12.5× EBITDA for 2025 and 12.4× in the second half, inside an 8×–15× market range with a top tier above 16×. The rows below close on 2.2 FTE veterinarians per site. This record remains open on a quarterly operating cadence.
AGAINST US
What did not work, or moved the wrong way
What this engagement gave up to get the above: Cost-per-new-client dispersion across sites, +8.6% — each site enters with its own media history and no instrumentation, so integration widens the spread before it narrows it. Puppy / kitten share of new patients, −6.7 pts — the acquisition ran broader than the puppy-and-kitten segment that was already working.
LIMITS OF THE RECORD
What this record does not prove
Reported at the same size as Active clients per location (+3.3%), because that is the only version of this document worth handing to a CFO.
VITALS — INDUSTRY BASELINE vs ADMEN TARGET
| MEASURE | INDUSTRY | TARGET | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active clients per location 1 | 3,117 | 3,220 | +3.3% |
| Purchase-price multiple, EBITDA basis 3 | 11.3× | 12.3× | +8.8% |
| Online booking share of appointments 1 | 19.5% | 30.4% | +10.9 pts |
| Appointment slot fill rate 1 | 63.7% | 72.4% | +8.7 pts |
| Cost-per-new-client dispersion across sites 3 AGAINST US | 3.5× | 3.8× | +8.6% — worse |
| Puppy / kitten share of new patients 1 AGAINST US | 23.2% | 16.5% | −6.7 pts — worse |
Every endpoint above sits inside a published distribution recorded in the sources below, and none of them is a top-decile figure presented as a normal result. Rows marked AGAINST US moved the wrong way — they are on the record because an engagement in which every number improves at once is not an engagement, it is a brochure. These are planning references, not promises; the examination sets the real numbers.
SOURCES — REFERENCE RANGES
- 1. AVMA — 2025 Veterinary Practice Owners Survey — Active clients per FTE veterinarian 1,499 (2024), falling about 15 per year; active clients per practice 3,351, falling about 95 per year since 2019. Both endpoints above sit below the national figure — this platform is arresting a decline, not outrunning the market.
- 2. AVMA — 2025 Economic State of the Profession, p.47 — Gross revenue per FTE veterinarian: all US practices $554,982 (2024); companion-animal-exclusive Q1 $411,111 · MEDIAN $616,667 · Q3 $867,901. The $604,000 endpoint sits just under the companion-exclusive median.
- 3. Ackerman Group — Veterinary Industry Market Update — Weighted-average purchase-price multiple 12.5× EBITDA (2025), 12.4× in 2H25, 13.3× in Q1 2026; market range 8×–15×, top tier 16×+. Ackerman's own closed book, roughly 14% of US corporate veterinary transactions, skewed toward larger practices.
- 4. Bain & Company — Global Healthcare Private Equity Report 2026 — Global healthcare PE deal value exceeded $190B in 2025; provider and related services up 57% year over year to roughly $62B. Recorded with its limit stated: Bain excludes add-ons below $250M, which is essentially every tuck-in a roll-up at this scale would do. Bain measures the top of the market, not the rollup middle.
FILED BY
Admen '26