Major Valuation Methods

I've heard of the "four valuation methods" but I haven't been able to find out what those are. Anyone have a link?

Types of Valuation Methods

When someone refers to four valuation methods, usually they are referring to a discounted cash flow, trading comparables, precedent transactions, and a leverage buyout analysis. We discuss these methods below.

However, User @Race" shared an alternative way of looking at it:

Race:
There are multiple Methods but 3 main approaches to Business Valuations
  1. Income Approach - DCF Method + All discounted Cash and Earnings models, including debt assumptions
  2. Market Approach - Transactions Multiples Method + Guideline Comparables Method
  3. Asset Approach - Replacement Methods + All related liquidation Models

The M&M theory says regardless of Debt added to the business the EV is still the same. In Leverage model, use the Ke for Equity CF, while in a Debt Free model use WACC, the PV should always be the same. LBO's, leverage leases, etc don't increase the EV, (Maybe the ROE).

This is only a theory and I have never gotten the same answer using Ke & WACC, regardless of the type of debt, Project Finance, LBO, Leverage Lease, Bank loan, etc. This is due to a static WACC in my Debt free model.

Discounted Cash Flow Analysis

A Discounted Cash Flow or DCF is one of the most important methods used to value a company. A DCF is carried out by estimating the total value of all future cash flows (both inflowing and outflowing), and then discounting them (usually using Weighted Average Cost of Capital - WACC) to find a present value of that cash.

The aim of a discounted cash flow is to estimate the total amount of cash you will receive from an investment, and if this value is higher than the cost of the investment, it is usually worth doing.

Put simply: A DCF looks at the intrinsic value of the business by finding the future cash flows and discounting them back to today.

You can read more about the steps of a DCF here.

Leveraged Buyout Analysis

LBO stands for Leveraged Buyout and refers to the purchase of a company while using mainly debt to finance the transaction. Leveraged Buyouts are usually done by private equity firms and rose to prominence in the 1980s.

User @bankbank” shared:

The "LBO method" isn't intended to give you the "intrinsic" value of the firm. All the LBO method does is tell you what valuation an LBO buyer could pay for the company to achieve a target equity return (usually around 20%+) assuming a leveraged capital structure. This valuation should be lower than a DCF because your discount rate (includes 20%+ "cost of equity") is higher. To calculate the LBO method value, all you do is build an LBO model with an equity IRR output and then goal seek the purchase price to target a 20% IRR.

Also, capital structure will affect TEV to some degree (that's why there's an "optimal capital structure" that minimizes the firm's WACC...minimizing WACC increases TEV). Modigliani Miller (M&M) makes some assumptions (e.g., companies don't pay tax) that aren't realistic.

You can learn more about LBOs in the video below.

Precedent Transaction Analysis

The precedent transaction method has you look at a group of companies similar to the one you are valuing, see what kind of prices they have been bought and sold for, and apply a similar valuation method to the target company.

In this example - we take three recent transactions and find the average Transaction Value / EBITDA. Then we take that average multiple and multiply it by the target companies EBITDA value to find an implied transaction value for the company.

In this case you are multiplying the EBITDA of $850 by the average industry TV/ EBITDA multiple of 11.1x to get an estimated transaction value of ~$9,741.

Comparable Analysis

The most common way to value a company is through the use of comparable analysis. This method attempts to find a group of companies which are comparable to the target company and to work out a valuation based on what they are worth.

The idea is to look for companies in the same sector and with similar financial statistics (Price to Earnings, Book Value, Free Cash Flow, EBITDA etc) and then assume that the companies should be priced relatively similarly. Comparable analyses are frequently referred to as "comps."

The process for how to do a comparable analysis is as follows:

  • Find a selection of comparable companies
  • Choose and calculate the appropriate multiples for each company
  • Find the average value of each multiple across the comparable companies
  • Use the multiples to determine a valuation for the target company

Comparable analysis can either be done using trading multiples (how the company operates) on public comparable companies or transaction multiples (at what relative level was the company bought or sold) on precedent transactions.

Some of the most commonly used multiples are:

  • Price to Earnings
  • Enterprise Value / EBITDA
  • Return on Equity
  • Return on Assets
  • Price to Book Value

Read More About Valuation on WSO

Preparing for Investment Banking Interviews?

The WSO investment banking interview course is designed by countless professionals with real world experience, tailored to people aspiring to break into the industry. This guide will help you learn how to answer these questions and many, many more.

Investment Banking Interview Course Here

 

Trading comps: market data on where peers trade, the metrics change as market prices change Precedent comps (aka, acquisition comps, transaction comps): shows at what valuation other peers were acquired in the past, the metrics do not change as the data is all historical

 

What about DCF wacc, DCF APV, RIM and DDM?

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 
El_Mono:
What about DCF wacc, DCF APV, RIM and DDM?

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but I think DDM is just something they like to teach in school and not really used much in the real world (not IBD at least).

Isn't APV useful for an LBO?

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger
 

There are multiple Methods but 3 main approaches to Business Valuations 1. Income Approach - DCF Method + All discounted Cash and Earnings models, including debt assumptions 2. Market Approach - Transactions Multiples Method + Guideline Comparables Method 3. Asset Approach - Replacement Methods + All related liquidation Models

The M&M theory says regardless of Debt added to the business the EV is still the same. In Leverage model, use the Ke for Equity CF, while in a Debt Free model use WACC, the PV should always be the same. LBO’s, leverage leases, etc don’t increase the EV, (Maybe the ROE).

This is only a theory and I have never gotten the same answer using Ke & WACC, regardless of the type of debt, Project Finance, LBO, Leverage Lease, Bank loan, etc. This is due to a static WACC in my Debt free model.

 

The "LBO method" isn't intended to give you the "intrinsic" value of the firm. All the LBO method does is tell you what valuation an LBO buyer could pay for the company to achieve a target equity return (usually around 20%+) assuming a leveraged capital structure. This valuation should be lower than a DCF because your discount rate (includes 20%+ "cost of equity") is higher. To calculate the LBO method value, all you do is build an LBO model with an equity IRR output and then goal seek the purchase price to target a 20% IRR.

Also, capital structure will affect TEV to some degree (that's why there's an "optimal capital structure" that minimizes the firm's WACC...minimizing WACC increases TEV). Modigliani Miller (M&M) makes some assumptions (e.g., companies don't pay tax) that aren't realistic.

Race:
There are multiple Methods but 3 main approaches to Business Valuations 1. Income Approach - DCF Method + All discounted Cash and Earnings models, including debt assumptions 2. Market Approach - Transactions Multiples Method + Guideline Comparables Method 3. Asset Approach - Replacement Methods + All related liquidation Models

The M&M theory says regardless of Debt added to the business the EV is still the same. In Leverage model, use the Ke for Equity CF, while in a Debt Free model use WACC, the PV should always be the same. LBO’s, leverage leases, etc don’t increase the EV, (Maybe the ROE).

This is only a theory and I have never gotten the same answer using Ke & WACC, regardless of the type of debt, Project Finance, LBO, Leverage Lease, Bank loan, etc. This is due to a static WACC in my Debt free model.

 
bankbank:
The "LBO method" isn't intended to give you the "intrinsic" value of the firm. All the LBO method does is tell you what valuation an LBO buyer could pay for the company to achieve a target equity return (usually around 20%+) assuming a leveraged capital structure. This valuation should be lower than a DCF because your discount rate (includes 20%+ "cost of equity") is higher. To calculate the LBO method value, all you do is build an LBO model with an equity IRR output and then goal seek the purchase price to target a 20% IRR.

Also, capital structure will affect TEV to some degree (that's why there's an "optimal capital structure" that minimizes the firm's WACC...minimizing WACC increases TEV). Modigliani Miller (M&M) makes some assumptions (e.g., companies don't pay tax) that aren't realistic.

Race:
There are multiple Methods but 3 main approaches to Business Valuations 1. Income Approach - DCF Method + All discounted Cash and Earnings models, including debt assumptions 2. Market Approach - Transactions Multiples Method + Guideline Comparables Method 3. Asset Approach - Replacement Methods + All related liquidation Models

The M&M theory says regardless of Debt added to the business the EV is still the same. In Leverage model, use the Ke for Equity CF, while in a Debt Free model use WACC, the PV should always be the same. LBO’s, leverage leases, etc don’t increase the EV, (Maybe the ROE).

This is only a theory and I have never gotten the same answer using Ke & WACC, regardless of the type of debt, Project Finance, LBO, Leverage Lease, Bank loan, etc. This is due to a static WACC in my Debt free model.

Wouldn't an LBO valuation give you a higher valuation than a DCF? Here is my reasoning, you assume a purchase premium in the purchase price of an lbo, you assume that you can increase the CF's of the company when a PE firm acquires it by making management changes / rolling over other companies / imrpoving ops etc, so the CF's alone will grow at a higher rate than when oing a DCF. I am only a recent grad about to start as an analyst next month, but this is my understanding and was an answer I gave an interviewer and he moved on.

Just would like some clarification.

 

[quote= Wouldn't an LBO valuation give you a higher valuation than a DCF? Here is my reasoning, you assume a purchase premium in the purchase price of an lbo, you assume that you can increase the CF's of the company when a PE firm acquires it by making management changes / rolling over other companies / imrpoving ops etc, so the CF's alone will grow at a higher rate than when oing a DCF. I am only a recent grad about to start as an analyst next month, but this is my understanding and was an answer I gave an interviewer and he moved on.

Just would like some clarification.[/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up bank. Would you be able to comment on if an LBO can ever have a higher valuation than a DCF based on the above thought process? Thanks again.

 
Best Response
SHORTmyCDO:
[quote= Wouldn't an LBO valuation give you a higher valuation than a DCF? Here is my reasoning, you assume a purchase premium in the purchase price of an lbo, you assume that you can increase the CF's of the company when a PE firm acquires it by making management changes / rolling over other companies / imrpoving ops etc, so the CF's alone will grow at a higher rate than when oing a DCF. I am only a recent grad about to start as an analyst next month, but this is my understanding and was an answer I gave an interviewer and he moved on.

Just would like some clarification.

Thanks for clearing that up bank. Would you be able to comment on if an LBO can ever have a higher valuation than a DCF based on the above thought process? Thanks again.[/quote]

I'm going to try and explain this simply, but it would be better explained with some math and modeling... Apologies in advance for being long-winded.

Also, a "financial sponsor" is a financial buyer (a private equity or VC firm, as opposed to a strategic/corporate buyer). So when I mention "financial sponsor" or "sponsor," I am referring to the PE firm doing the LBO.

An LBO valuation is akin to a DCF valuation, except the costs of capital are higher. When bankers talk about the LBO as a valuation method, they are thinking of the "valuation" in terms of the financial sponsor's ability to buy the company and generate a 20%+ IRR (most sponsors/PE firms are targeting ~20% or more). This 20% IRR is sort of the cost of equity financing from the sponsor. Because of this high cost of capital for the LBO'd company (i.e., high discount factor in the PV calculation), the PV of the company is going to be lower. For this reason, when bankers compare the 4 valuation methods (ignoring for now any liquidation/replacement value measure), the LBO is usually going to spit out the lowest valuation.

You are correct when you say that to complete an LBO of a public company, a sponsor will have to pay a premium to the market price. However, an LBO doesn’t make sense and a sponsor won’t do an LBO (and pay the takeover premium) unless they expect to earn a 20% IRR on the deal. Private equity doesn’t price deals based on the public market prices – it prices deal based on the expected IRR. We actually talk about deals like this at my firm…if we presented a 20% IRR deal to our investment committee and the company was more risky than the normal 20% deal we would show the committee, they might say something like “a 20% IRR is pricing this deal too low for the risk we’re taking…we need to see at least 25-30% IRR to do this deal.” When they say 20% IRR is priced too low, they’re saying the IRR is too low which means that the purchase price we’re assuming is too high. This is similar to how fixed income is quoted in terms of yield - a low yield means a bond is expensive…like a low IRR means that a LBO target is expensive, and a high yield means that a bond is cheap…like a high IRR means that you are buying the LBO target on the cheap.

Anyway, long story short, the “input” for the “LBO method” of valuation used in banking is the IRR which is ~20%. From that 20% IRR you back into a purchase price. You ignore the current market price in determining the value. If your LBO at a 20% IRR spits out a value that is way, way lower than the current market price, then the LBO doesn't make sense.

As far as increasing the value of the company through operational changes, it is true that you can do this but in reality, most PE returns are determined by the price you pay and not by the changes you make to the cash flows. The CEO of the public company could also make most of these operational changes and get the same results. Most large public companies are pretty sophisticated and will make these operational changes if the opportunities exist and are identifiable, so there won’t be a lot of easy fixes for the PE buyer. In general, when you are running these valuation models at a bank, the cash flow projections you will use for the public company DCF and the LBO are going to be pretty similar (you, or your banking MD, won’t know what sort of changes the PE firm could realistically make and if you really did know, you’d be running PE firms instead of banking)

 

Ya people are retarded and use this forum to talk about everything they learned 5 mins ago in financial managment. Just use exactly what Race said and you will be golden in interviews. Don't over analyze because i promise they are looking for those exact three answers, they don't want you to talk about a DD model or an LBO, and if you do that will open pandora's box of questions you are certainly not prepared for.

 
HFFBALLfan123:
Ya people are retarded and use this forum to talk about everything they learned 5 mins ago in financial managment. Just use exactly what Race said and you will be golden in interviews. Don't over analyze because i promise they are looking for those exact three answers, they don't want you to talk about a DD model or an LBO, and if you do that will open pandora's box of questions you are certainly not prepared for.

That's not true, I've been asked what the 4 valuation methodologies are in multiple interviews and the answer they were looking or was an LBO analysis to back into a purchase price. What would you use as the 4th if they asked for 4 and you don't want to mention an LBO?

 

Race's answer is what an accountant would say. Give that answer if they ask you for 3 (OP said 4) methods and you are interviewing at E&Y. Race's answer is what the accountants at my firm say when I tell them to do the FAS 157 valuations for my portfolio companies (afterwards, I take those valuations and throw them in the trash because they don't mean anything outside of the back office).

If you are interviewing with an investment bank and they ask for 4 methods, they are probably asking for 1) DCF; 2) public equity trading comps; 3) comparable precedent transactions; and 4) LBO (as said in the first reply).

Liquidation value makes sense and is good to consider if you are trying to make an intelligent investment with your own money. However, no M&A banker is going to go pitch an acquisition and show a football field with replacement/liquidation value on it because it's going to show a low-ass valuation and imply that the value of the acquisition target is way, way less than the seller's asking price. If the value of the acquisition target is way, way less than the asking price, then the deal doesn't make sense and the client should not do the deal and not pay the banker fees (oh yeah, banker's are always telling clients NOT to do the deal and not to pay them fees. sarcasm). This does not consider distressed/restructuring type situations where liquidation value would be more relevant.

HFFBALL, you should pause and think a bit before you call people retarded. I have never in my life taken a financial management course, but I have worked in banking and private equity. If you are interviewing for a job in investment banking, you should absolutely mention LBO in your response to the question in the OP because LBOs are very relevant in investment banking. It would also make sense to mention liquidation/replacement value as a 5th method (or as the 4th method if you are grouping equity trading comps and comparable transactions into one "market approach" method), but you won't be dealing much with that method in your day-to-day IB analyst job unless you work in a restructuring group.

HFFBALLfan123:
Ya people are retarded and use this forum to talk about everything they learned 5 mins ago in financial managment. Just use exactly what Race said and you will be golden in interviews. Don't over analyze because i promise they are looking for those exact three answers, they don't want you to talk about a DD model or an LBO, and if you do that will open pandora's box of questions you are certainly not prepared for.
 

I'm editing this to be less harsh because I don't want to be mean, and as the other people on the thread are showing it's not 100% cut and dried.

But I am seriously recommending you spend less time posting on WSO and more time trying to actually learn. The major issues with your posts about 13-Fs could have been solved with 5 minutes on wikipedia and google.

There have been many great comebacks throughout history. Jesus was dead but then came back as an all-powerful God-Zombie.
 

SHORTmyCDO......are you a Dec. grad starting as an analyst early? Curious because I will be graduating in Dec. and hope to start early if possible (if I have an offer). If so is it a boutique or BB?

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger
 

Yes I am. I am starting at a boutique, but was able to land two BB interviews for early start dates within the last month, they are just taking forever to move forward in the process and my agreed start date is coming up at the boutique. I would recommend graduating early. I didn't really interview with many BB's during recruitment because I targeted more MM banks since I have a 3.3 from a nontarget, but had 3 super days for MM firms to start in July. Graduating in December, if anything will leave you with more options because a lot of banks will realize they under hired that year, people quit and you can always start in July.

 
wanderlvst:
Right, but even WITHIN each of the categories I listed there are multiple methods, leaving us with more than four. I just didn't understand why he'd ask for a definitive 4.

He asked for 4 because there were 4 he wanted...wtf man. Listen to the question, it's not rocket science. Give him the main 4 (trading comp, transaction comp, dcf, lbo) and move on. Don't try to get fancy with theory, they'll push you if they want it.

 

In quia quaerat sint sit est et dolor. Itaque similique aliquid assumenda deleniti et eum quaerat. Molestias qui et deserunt harum praesentium. Harum distinctio consequatur ut laudantium reiciendis. Illo ut consequuntur sit et quis. Dolores eum maiores repudiandae voluptatem eum rerum.

Non qui repudiandae quo reprehenderit atque similique. Saepe voluptas ab hic itaque eius.

Magnam est dolor accusamus laboriosam non culpa. Dolorum dolores deserunt fugit ab. Qui enim voluptates accusamus blanditiis delectus. Porro consequatur aut itaque unde accusamus sed eligendi. Labore natus unde expedita corrupti excepturi. Magnam quisquam velit odit sit in explicabo illo.

 

Explicabo blanditiis architecto fugit quis neque soluta. Voluptas similique quis molestiae dolorem repellendus placeat quos quia.

Praesentium eius dicta rem dolores expedita delectus. Quia ea qui autem sed aut. Quaerat quisquam cupiditate exercitationem voluptatibus adipisci.

Quidem est occaecati magnam architecto et ipsam. Facere accusantium voluptates minus quo tempore nesciunt nostrum praesentium.

Quam sed minus illo in est rerum. Animi maiores ut dolor officia soluta dolor quaerat quae. Rerum autem alias fuga qui consequuntur quia tempora.

Currently: future neurologist, current psychotherapist Previously: investor relations (top consulting firm), M&A consulting (Big 4), M&A banking (MM)
 

Corrupti consequuntur minus et illo. Nam illo est deleniti qui aliquid tempora illum. Cumque qui ut id aliquid ut quo dolorum. Rem et consequatur nulla minima. Ratione quia possimus doloremque minima.

Tempora repudiandae asperiores qui eum voluptatum. Suscipit dolorem molestias illum necessitatibus quae eius sapiente. Eum sed voluptate eaque expedita dolores ipsam.

Sint numquam vitae occaecati accusamus. Nesciunt ut quam tempore quam dolores distinctio.

Quae ut aliquam ratione qui necessitatibus. Nostrum quis fugiat temporibus qui quod in. Alias nam voluptatibus architecto dolorem laborum reprehenderit. Incidunt temporibus fugiat dolorem illo reprehenderit in dolor. Dolor animi recusandae similique deserunt aliquid vel cupiditate dignissimos. Eveniet quia dolores est excepturi excepturi est itaque. Quam ipsum repudiandae maiores vel commodi.

in it 2 win it

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (143) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”