What is documented.
And what is not.

The question is measurable, and it has been measured — with time logs rather than self-assessment.

• ABandiera, Hansen, Prat & Sadun (2020)

  "CEO Behavior and Firm Performance", Journal of Political Economy 128(4), 1325–1369

  Sample: 1,114 CEOs across six countries, weekly time capture with machine classification

  17 % of CEOs work in a behaviour profile that does not match their firm. The behaviour pattern correlates significantly with firm performance.

  Open source →
• ABandiera, Lemos, Prat & Sadun (2018)

  "Managing the Family Firm: Evidence from CEOs at Work", Review of Financial Studies 31(5), 1605–1653

  Sample: Family CEOs compared with professional CEOs

  Family CEOs work 9 % fewer hours. Those hours explain 18 % of the performance gap between the two groups.

  Open source →
• BPorter & Nohria (2018)

  "How CEOs Manage Time", Harvard Business Review, July–August 2018

  Sample: 27 CEOs, 60,000 hours of time logs over twelve years

  9.7 hours per working day. 79 % of weekends and 70 % of holidays spent on business. 36 % of time reactive, 43 % on their own agenda.

  Open source →

Limit: These studies measure listed and larger companies. For owner-led SMEs they are an indicator, not a transfer.

This is the question the whole method rests on. It has been answered experimentally, not merely asserted.

• ABloom, Eifert, Mahajan, McKenzie & Roberts (2013)

  "Does Management Matter? Evidence from India", Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1), 1–51

  Sample: Randomised field experiment in Indian textile firms

  Introducing structured management practices — documented procedures, performance monitoring — raised productivity by roughly 17 % within a year and produced measurable delegation to plant managers.

  Open source →
• ABloom & Van Reenen (2007)

  "Measuring and Explaining Management Practices Across Firms and Countries", Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(4), 1351–1408

  Sample: 732 medium-sized manufacturers in the US, France, Germany and the UK

  Structured practices in monitoring, targets and incentives are significantly associated with productivity, profitability and survival rates.

  Open source →
• AMabin & Balderstone (2003)

  "The performance of the theory of constraints methodology", International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23(5/6), 568–595

  Sample: Meta-analysis of more than 80 documented constraint-theory applications

  Median improvements in lead time and inventory. The methodological basis for identifying the constraint first instead of improving everywhere at once.

  Open source →

Limit: The Indian field experiment measures manufacturing. The direction holds; the 17 % is not a commitment for a DACH consulting firm.

Publicly available surveys and projections cover different years and markets. They are not a single current DACH survey.

• BDun & Bradstreet (2021), reported on kmu.admin.ch

  Dun & Bradstreet analysis of all Swiss SMEs

  Sample: 603,602 Swiss SMEs

  In August 2021, roughly 15 % of Swiss SMEs were seeking a successor for their owner aged over 60. For firms with 10 to 49 employees, the share was 15.4 %.

  Open source →
• CSchwartz (2025), KfW Research

  "Nachfolge-Monitoring Mittelstand 2024", Fokus Volkswirtschaft No. 481

  Sample: Representative survey of German SMEs

  215,000 businesses aiming to hand over by the end of 2025, against roughly 231,000 planned closures. Average owner age above 54, with 39 % already 60 or older.

  Open source →
• CIfM Bonn (2025)

  "Unternehmensnachfolgen in Deutschland 2026 bis 2030", Daten und Fakten No. 37

  Sample: Projection for the German Mittelstand

  Around 190,000 family businesses facing handover. 53 % go within the family, 18 % to employees, 29 % externally — and only the external route is examined like a purchase.

  Open source →
• BPwC (2021)

  US Family Business Survey 2021

  Sample: US family businesses; the linked summary does not state the sample size

  34 % reported a robust, documented and communicated succession plan. This does not measure whether any handover documents exist at all.

  Open source →

Limit: Different years, markets and methods are not directly comparable. The US survey is not a DACH rate. None of these figures determines an individual business valuation.

This is the question with no defensible percentage. Which is why this site states none.

• BDamodaran (2023), NYU Stern

  "The Difference Makers: Key Person(s) Value"

  Sample: Valuation practice, not a transaction sample

  Damodaran cites Pratt’s suggested 10 to 25 % for private companies, largely at the appraiser’s discretion. Not an empirical discount for public companies.

  Open source →
• BPratt & Niculita

  "Valuing a Business", 5th edition, McGraw-Hill

  Sample: Standard valuation reference

  Carries the key-person discount as an accepted position in valuation practice, with a range depending on how replaceable the person is.

Limit: Both are valuation practice, not empirical transaction studies. How strongly owner dependency bites depends on the buyer, the sector and the negotiation. Older internal CEOPRENEUR material stated 25 to 40 % here. That figure is unsupported and must not appear on this site.