Question About Range on Sensitivity Tables

I have a sensitivity table that is showing a very wide range of outputs/implied share prices based on the perpetuity growth rate and WACC. If this happens and the range of outputs is too wide, is it better practice to only include 3 columns of PPG or would it be better practice to decline the change in PPG for each column. For example, say I have a sensitivity table that has PPG starting from 2.5% declining .5% from both sides creating a range of 1.5% to 3.5%. Would it be better to only provide the range of PPG from 1% to 3% Or should I decrease the incremental change from .25% to make the range go from 2.25% to 2.75%. I’ve only seen sensitivity tables that have PPG change by .5% which is why Imn not sure if the latter is best practice/is too little of change. Also, I have another sensitivity table for the EBITDA exit multiple & WACC which has 5 columns for the exit multiple which is why I’m not sure if I can only provide 3 columns for the PPG sensitivity table

11 Comments
 

So I can show a sentivity table for PPG with only 3 columns (starting @ 2% and +/- .5%) and also show an EBITDA exit multiple sensitivity table with 5 columns (starting at 20x and +/-1x)? Or would it be better to show PPG also with 5 columns with a .25% step instead of .5%?

 

This is just for practice. How should you come to an appropriate ebitda exit multiple? Wouldn't you find comps for the ev/ebitda multiple? Which year's ebitda multiple should you use as your exit multiple if you are doing a 5 yr dcf?

 

Is this for a LBO? In that case you normally take entry multilpe = exit multilpe. You could work with +/- 1.0x in total. You could also work with low/high multiple of peers. You use the multilpe that fits the EBITDA you use (so a LTM or a NTM multiple depending if you make a 5 of 6y forecast in this case).

If for DCF, exit multiple is not very common. Often you just calculate a terminal value based on last years FCF. Personally I prefer value driver method over grodon growth as the latter completely overstates value in most cases. If you choose to use an exit multiple, same story as with the LBO multiple (LTM vs NTM).

 
Most Helpful

This is for a dcf. I am calculating terminal values based on 1) perpetuity growth rate and 2) ebitda exit multiple. I'm surprised to hear that ebitda exit multiple isn't common because I'm basing my dcf off of the rosenbaum & pearl model (which takes the last years projected ebitda i.e. 2025 ebitda) and this method has also been used in the modeling courses I've taken. Would you be able to explain what the value driver method is? I havent heard of that before

 

Corrupti animi dolore rem voluptates natus. Ut minus doloribus non sit voluptatum qui sed. Quo et quibusdam quis expedita hic eligendi quas. Amet ipsum voluptas culpa. Vero tenetur ad eligendi impedit id. Dolorem sapiente quia tempora numquam. Tempora et enim repellendus adipisci fugit ullam.

Quo vel doloribus cupiditate iusto autem. Ipsa aspernatur officia totam recusandae et aliquid omnis. Et sapiente aut hic. Eaque sunt minima commodi laborum sed asperiores. Sit incidunt tempore maxime cupiditate dignissimos repellendus dolor. Voluptatum eveniet maxime minus provident aperiam est qui. Ut dolor vel aperiam dolores reprehenderit nulla.

Ea ad inventore dolore. Est nihil aut voluptates quia quam autem aut. Dolorem ut aspernatur minima sequi. Qui perspiciatis sit similique id et.

Id vero nesciunt perferendis et cumque. Officiis doloremque enim nemo accusamus distinctio et reiciendis. Delectus fugit tenetur sit aut quae voluptatibus.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.9%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan 01 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (46) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • 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
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
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...”