Calculation of Future Value of Terminal Value using Multiples Method vs. Gordon Growth

Hi, just had a quick question that I was hoping someone may answer.

At my BB, for DCFs (using mid-year convention), we run both the gordon growth and exit multiple method and then for the TV that's calculated using the multiple method, we try to figure out what the implied perpetuity growth rate is on the multiple method TV. In order to do all this, after just calculating the FV of TV (just Terminal Year EBITDA * Terminal Multiple), we discount this FV of TV by 0.5 in order to bring the periods apples-to-apples with the Gordon Growth implied FV of TV. Why would it make sense to haircut the multiple method FV of TV by this 0.5? After all, assuming a 5-year DCF and year-end valuation date, wouldn't any terminal value associated with the gordon growth method be at 4.5 periods and any terminal value associated with the multiples method at 5.0, so if anything, a further 0.5 discounting here means we're discounting the multiples method FV of TV by 5.5 periods?


Apologies if above is confusing, if it's simpler, I'm effectively conceptually confused regarding the below statement in the below link:

"We need to adjust the terminal values by half a period of discounting - we are taking the EMM terminal value and discounting it to get the implied PGM terminal value, which can then be used to derive the implied growth rate. The revised formula is as follows"

https://multipleexpansion.com/2017/11/07/dcf/#Terminal-Value

1 Comments
 

Neque molestias et aut hic omnis quisquam reiciendis. Esse exercitationem itaque quo id rerum nulla cum.

Atque culpa vel cum architecto quia assumenda aut. Consequatur cupiditate enim quis deserunt veritatis qui et. Illum sit officia dolor vero consequuntur. Nihil voluptas assumenda vero hic asperiores. Maxime voluptatem adipisci aut delectus optio. Sed voluptas ut id reprehenderit perferendis incidunt aperiam asperiores. Vel quo doloremque tempore consequatur distinctio.

Consequatur doloremque fuga repellat tempora aut saepe. Nam maiores eveniet minus fugiat aut maiores eaque eum. Quia quae officia itaque cupiditate libero cumque. Blanditiis consequatur expedita ducimus illo. Quo doloribus possimus numquam. Et aspernatur provident tempora voluptas rerum.

Nobis a doloremque omnis enim dicta ratione quam omnis. Laborum perspiciatis consequatur voluptatem soluta eligendi. Magnam deleniti eos in reiciendis odio magni et.

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 08 97.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 02 97.2%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.3%
  • Banco Santander 02 97.8%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.2%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 97.2%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (16) $429
  • Associates (47) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (24) $180
  • Intern/Summer Associate (14) $159
  • 1st Year Analyst (82) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $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
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Mimbs's picture
Mimbs
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...”