Skip to main content

How do you know if a company is siphoning value through related-party deals?

A company's officers, directors, and major shareholders have power. Sometimes that power gets used for personal gain at the expense of minority shareholders. Item 13 of the 10-K is where the SEC makes companies disclose these relationships and the transactions between them. It is rarely the headline news. But a pattern of generous related-party deals—especially those negotiated without true arm's-length scrutiny—is one of the clearest warnings that value is leaking.

Quick definition: A related party is anyone who can influence a company's policies: executive officers, directors, principal shareholders (usually >5%), family members of these people, and any company they control or have significant influence over. A related-party transaction is any deal between the company and a related party that wouldn't have happened on the same terms (or at all) if the parties weren't related.

Key takeaways​

  • Related-party disclosures reveal conflicts of interest that independent transactions don't. A director who sells property to the company they oversee, or an executive who pays below-market rent to a firm they control, is a red flag.
  • Transactions with high likelihood of self-dealing—loans to executives, real estate deals, service contracts with affiliate companies—require extra scrutiny. Look for fair-value or market-rate language; if it's absent, ask why.
  • The SEC requires disclosure of amounts, terms, and any independent review or approval process (audit committee sign-off, fairness opinions). Weak governance around related-party approvals is as damaging as the deal itself.
  • Related-party risk increases in private equity or founder-led companies, where incentive alignment is looser. It is also elevated in low-free-cash-flow or struggling businesses, where executives may be incentivised to extract value.
  • Many legitimate related-party transactions exist—employee share plans, standard executive compensation, ordinary course dealings with major customers. The key is transparency and fair terms, not their mere existence.

The SEC defines related parties in Regulation S-K and SEC Rule 3a-48. In practical terms:

  1. Executive officers and directors — anyone who reports to the CEO, anyone on the board, and anyone with executive authority.
  2. Principal shareholders — generally anyone owning more than 5% of the company's shares.
  3. Family members — spouses, parents, children, and siblings of the above, even if they don't work at the company.
  4. Controlled entities — any company, trust, partnership, or entity that an officer, director, or principal shareholder controls.

A founder who owns 8% of shares, for example, is a related party. Their spouse, a business partner, and any company the founder owns are also related parties. This creates an expansive net. Not all related-party transactions are improper, but all must be disclosed if material.

Real-world example: the management company​

Consider a real estate company founded by an executive who owns 15% of shares and is CEO. The company leases its headquarters from another company that the same executive controls. This is a classic related-party transaction. In the 10-K, Item 13 should disclose:

  • The identity of the related party (the executive and their real estate entity).
  • The nature and amount of the transaction (annual lease payments, square footage, lease term).
  • The business purpose (headquarters use).
  • Terms and conditions (rent per square foot, annual escalation, renewal rights).
  • Any independent review (was it appraised? Did the audit committee approve it?).
  • Comparison to arms-length alternatives (is the rent market rate for that location?).

If the disclosure vaguely says "the company leases office space from an entity controlled by our CEO at fair market value" with no independent appraisal and no audit committee sign-off, that's a yellow flag. If the rent is 40% above comparable office space in the area and the lease is tied to the CEO's tenure with no exit clause, it's a red flag.

Loans and credit facilities​

An executive borrows money from the company, often at a stated rate and with a repayment schedule. The SEC requires disclosure of the principal balance, interest rate, original terms, and any advances or repayments during the year. Permissible loans often carry interest rates tied to a market benchmark (prime rate plus a spread). Loans with below-market rates or no interest are warning signs.

Real estate transactions​

A company leases property from a director or buys land from a shareholder. These are high-risk areas because fair value is hard to benchmark and appraisals can be inflated. Look for independent appraisals, competitive bidding, and audit committee review. The absence of these is a concern.

Service contracts with affiliates​

An executive's other business provides services (consulting, logistics, management) to the company. These are common but vulnerable to overcharging or underperformance. Red flags include lack of competitive bids, rising fees year-over-year with no clear output improvement, or services that duplicate work done in-house.

Guarantee and insurance arrangements​

An executive guarantees a company loan or the company guarantees an executive's personal debt. These shift risk. Look for fair compensation or disclosure of the economic value at stake.

Share transactions​

Insider share sales, buybacks, or issuances to related parties require disclosure. Unusual terms—like shares sold to an insider at a discount to market—are signals of potential value leakage.

Regulatory or advocacy work​

A company pays an affiliate law firm for regulatory work or a related party's consulting firm for strategy. These are often hard to price fairly because the output is subjective. Scrutiny is warranted if the payments are growing or if the work seems redundant.

How the company reviews and approves related-party transactions matters as much as the transaction itself.

Audit committee review: Many companies require their audit committee (composed of independent directors) to review and approve material related-party transactions. Item 13 should disclose whether this happened. If it didn't, the red flag goes higher.

Fairness opinions: For large or sensitive deals, some companies commission independent fairness opinions from investment banks or valuation firms. This is a strong governance signal. Its absence in a large transaction is a weakness.

Recusal: Related parties should recuse themselves from approving their own transactions. Item 13 should explain who approved the deal and confirm that conflicted parties didn't participate.

Competitive review: For contracts, was there competitive bidding? If an executive's law firm got the work without a bid process, scrutiny is higher.

Disclosure to shareholders: Were shareholders informed about material related-party transactions before they were approved? In some cases, shareholder votes occur on large acquisitions from related parties. The process matters.

Reading Item 13 in the 10-K: step by step​

The first section of Item 13 typically lists every officer, director, and principal shareholder, plus entities they control. Scan this list for size. If there are 20 related parties, the company has higher governance overhead. If there are 3, the power structure is simpler (though not necessarily cleaner).

2. Identify material transactions.​

Not all related-party transactions are disclosed in Item 13—only material ones. The SEC has no bright-line threshold, but generally material means enough to influence an investment decision. A $50,000 loan to a director is material if the company has $10M in net income; it may not be material if net income is $500M. Look at the transaction amount as a percentage of company revenue, net income, or total assets.

3. Check amounts and terms.​

For each transaction, look for:

  • Total amount transacted (e.g., "Paid $3.2M in rent in 2023").
  • Outstanding balance if it's a loan, guarantee, or other obligation (e.g., "CEO loan balance: $500K as of December 31").
  • Stated terms: interest rate, maturity, conditions.
  • Change from prior year: Is the amount growing, shrinking, or stable?

4. Look for arm's-length language.​

Good disclosure includes phrases like "at fair market value," "on terms comparable to those offered to unaffiliated third parties," or "consistent with market rates." This signals that the company benchmarked the transaction. Absence of such language is a concern.

5. Verify governance review.​

Scan for evidence that a real process happened:

  • "The transaction was reviewed and approved by the audit committee."
  • "An independent valuation was obtained."
  • "The board determined that the terms were fair to the company."

If the disclosure says only "The transaction was disclosed to the board and management approved it," governance is weaker.

6. Cross-reference with other sections.​

Related-party transactions often appear in other footnotes:

  • Compensation footnote: Salaries, bonuses, stock grants, and pension benefits to officers.
  • Debt footnote: If a shareholder loaned the company money.
  • Lease footnote: If the company rents from a related party.
  • Segment footnote: If related parties own significant business segments.

A pattern of related-party dealings across multiple footnotes is more suspicious than an isolated transaction.

Common mistakes when reading Item 13​

Not every related-party transaction is a self-dealing scheme. A company may lease a building from a shareholder because it's genuinely the best available space at the best price. Employees often receive discounts on company products, and this is normal. The question isn't whether a transaction is with a related party, but whether it was done on fair terms with proper governance.

Mistake 2: Missing cumulative exposure.​

A single $2M deal may not be material. But if the company has five related-party contracts totaling $10M and no clear governance process, the cumulative exposure is significant. Read Item 13 holistically, not transaction by transaction.

Mistake 3: Ignoring family relationships.​

A director's daughter owns a consulting firm that bills the company $1M per year. The company may not list the daughter as a related party if she doesn't work there. But if the director profits from her daughter's firm (through inheritance or guarantees), it's still a conflict. Read the fine print about family connections.

Mistake 4: Confusing disclosure with fairness.​

A transaction can be fully disclosed and still be unfair. "We paid our affiliated law firm $5M for regulatory work at fair market rates" might be true, but if competitive bids were never obtained, you can't verify fairness. Disclosure is the starting point, not the end of scrutiny.

Mistake 5: Not checking the audit opinion.​

If the auditors flagged a related-party transaction as a critical audit matter (CAM) in their opinion, it signalled extra risk. Flip to the auditor's report and check if any related-party transactions or governance got called out.

FAQ​

Is a loan from the company to an executive always a red flag?​

No. Many public companies offer executive loans as part of compensation packages, often at rates tied to market benchmarks (e.g., prime rate + 2%). The red flag is below-market rates, forgiving terms, or absence of a written repayment schedule. A 5-year, interest-bearing loan to an executive at prime-plus-2% with monthly payments and a personal guarantee is normal. A 10-year, interest-free "loan" that can be forgiven upon retirement is a red flag.

Fair-market-value language is good, but it's not proof. Did they get independent appraisals? Competitive bids? Or did they just assert fair value? Look for evidence in footnotes. If the company bought real estate from a shareholder "at fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser," that's stronger than "we believe it was at fair market value."

A strong audit committee (all independent, experienced financial experts) reduces risk, but doesn't eliminate it. Audit committees approve related-party transactions, but they rely on management for information. A clever management can still hide unfair terms or mislead a committee. The committee is a check, not a guarantee.

First, re-read the disclosure to make sure you understand the terms and governance. Second, check prior years' disclosures to see if this is a pattern or a one-time deal. Third, cross-check against the audit opinion—did the auditors flag it? Fourth, if it still looks suspicious, you can file a comment with the SEC (via the comment feature on EDGAR) or contact the company's investor relations directly. You can also discuss it with other shareholders or consider it in your investment thesis.

No, but similar. IFRS requires disclosure of related-party transactions under IAS 24. The definition of related parties is slightly different (e.g., key management personnel is broader), and the disclosure format differs. If you're analyzing a foreign company or a cross-listed firm, check both the 10-K and the 20-F (for foreign private issuers) to see all related-party disclosures.

Technically, yes—if the transaction is truly immaterial. But courts and regulators have shown that companies sometimes game materiality thresholds. If a transaction is large in dollars (even if small as a percentage) or sensitive in nature (loans, real estate, personal services), it should be disclosed unless it's truly trivial. When in doubt, companies are expected to err on the side of disclosure.

Conflict of interest: A situation where a person's personal interests conflict with their duty to others. Item 13 disclosures reveal whether conflicts exist, but governance structures (audit committees, recusal, independent review) determine whether they're managed fairly.

Self-dealing: When a fiduciary uses their position to benefit themselves or allies at the expense of beneficiaries. Related-party transactions are the most common form of self-dealing in public companies.

Fairness opinion: An independent assessment of whether a transaction's terms are fair to the company and its shareholders. Common in M&A, less common in routine related-party deals, but their absence in large deals is a weakness.

Affiliate: Any entity related to the company through common ownership, management, or control. Unlike "related party," which has a regulatory definition, "affiliate" is used more broadly in business language.

Arm's length (or arm's-length): A term meaning the transaction terms are comparable to what two unrelated parties would negotiate. The IRS uses this standard for transfer pricing; companies use it to defend related-party deal terms.

Principal shareholders: Shareholders owning more than a certain threshold (usually 5%) of voting shares. They are presumed to have influence and are treated as related parties for disclosure purposes.

Summary​

Item 13 of the 10-K requires companies to disclose all material related-party transactions. These transactions are inherently risky because the parties have conflicting incentives, and the terms may not reflect what independent parties would negotiate. Strong governance—audit committee review, independent appraisals, competitive bidding, and arm's-length pricing—reduces but doesn't eliminate risk. Investors should read Item 13 carefully, looking for material amounts, weak governance, below-market terms, and patterns of self-dealing. A single related-party transaction can be benign; a pattern of generous deals to insiders, approved without scrutiny, is a clear warning that minority shareholder value is at risk.

Next​

Read Item 14 of the 10-K, which discloses the fees the external auditor charges: Item 14: Principal accountant fees and services.