Home  /  Insights  /  Analysis

Where EBITDA leakage actually hides in a mid-market business

Leakage is not random. It concentrates in three structural pockets that standard financial reporting cannot see, because each is distributed across thousands of individually immaterial transactions.

Analysis by Lalit Kumar · First published June 2026

The first pocket is SG&A and administrative process inefficiency — manual, exception-heavy back-office work such as accounts payable, reconciliations, and reporting that quietly inflates cost per transaction. APQC's data shows bottom-quartile AP functions cost four to five times the top quartile for the same task. The second is pricing and contract drift — margin lost to unmanaged discounting, unenforced terms, and renewals that are never repriced. The third is supply-chain and vendor concentration — overspend hidden in single-source dependencies and maverick buying, plus working capital trapped in extended days-sales-outstanding.

Each pocket is invisible on a standard P&L because it is spread across hundreds or thousands of small transactions, none material on its own. Traditional analysis samples; it cannot examine every invoice, contract line, and purchase order. This is precisely the structural advantage of agentic AI: it can interrogate the full transaction population rather than a sample, which is why it surfaces leakage that periodic audits and consulting reviews miss. It also explains why MIT found value accrues to workflow-level integration — the leakage lives in the workflow, not in the headline numbers.

The disciplined first move is therefore not deployment but diagnosis: a structured assessment that scores all three pockets against external benchmarks and produces a baseline before any technology is purchased.

Sources APQC process benchmarks; MIT Project NANDA (2025); SEAS reference model.