Value a company derives from holding a Patent?

If there is a holding company with several subsidiaries named A to F

Assume A holds the trademark rights, (or patent rights) for the brand name all use.

How can you prove that A's projected earnings and valation will be greater than the other subsidiaries as a function of holding the patent/trademark which the other subsidiaries also use.

10 Comments
 

I Would just value the holding... If I were to value A alone then BCDF would not be able to use the trademark anymore or they would need to pay royalties and that's a good start for potentially achieving what you want although your questions remains vague. more details perhaps?

 
dick_fluid

I Would just value the holding...
If I were to value A alone then BCDF would not be able to use the trademark anymore or they would need to pay royalties and that's a good start for potentially achieving what you want although your questions remains vague.
more details perhaps?

You are understanding it correctly

basically yes that since BCDF have to pay royalties their projections and valuation would be comparatively lower (assuming operations wise they are on similar level)

the problem i have is that while this is fairly intuitive this is a thesis im putting forward at this point. Are there any real world examples (any where in the world) which would prove that this is actually the case?

is there any actual group of companies, subsidiaries etc which anyone here knows which i could use to give a real life case study for this? i could perhaps then give forth their valuation multiples and make a case that since A holds the trademark/patent/copyright that BCDF also use, A's comps are relatively higher

 
Best Response
"phillyboy"

Just to help me does anyone know examples of a few companies under a parent company where one subsidiary holds the patent and others pay a ryalty fee to the holder to use it

a real world scenario of this?

×

I am flagging to report this content as…

Spam Exists only to promote a product or service or is in another language besides English. Rude or abusive A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse. Low Quality This content is completely unclear, incomplete, overly-broad or is not related to WSO topics, and it is unlikely to be fixed via editing.

That's a hard question, mostly because of disclosure rules. Typically what your asking about is going to show up as an internal transfer cost for the producing subsidiary (typically rolled up into COGS as an overhead cost) with a matching transfer revenue to the subsidiary that holds the patent. Companies are under absolutely no obligation to disclose how they allocate their overhead for subsidiaries. In fact under the consolidation rule they are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose financial statements for those subsidiaries (unless there are minority shareholders: http://www.dummies.com/business/accounting/reading-consolidated-financi…) Furthermore the value of this is entirely subjective (you get to transfer price using a "market comparable" basis....and IP market value is not easily measurable) making it ripe for manipulating the earnings of each division/subsidiary within a conglomerate.

It also doesn't really impact your valuation. The question is how much the SUBSIDIARY is worth. I'd begin by asking "how much would they have to pay to get the same results if it were a standalone company ?" and begin expanding my train of thought from there.

 
"Attack_Chihuaha"
phillyboy:

Just to help me does anyone know examples of a few companies under a parent company where one subsidiary holds the patent and others pay a ryalty fee to the holder to use it

a real world scenario of this?

x

I am flagging to report this content as...

Spam Exists only to promote a product or service or is in another language besides English. Rude or abusive A reasonable person would find this content inappropriate for respectful discourse. Low Quality This content is completely unclear, incomplete, overly-broad or is not related to WSO topics, and it is unlikely to be fixed via editing.

That's a hard question, mostly because of disclosure rules. Typically what your asking about is going to show up as an internal transfer cost for the producing subsidiary (typically rolled up into COGS as an overhead cost) with a matching transfer revenue to the subsidiary that holds the patent. Companies are under absolutely no obligation to disclose how they allocate their overhead for subsidiaries. In fact under the consolidation rule they are under no obligation whatsoever to disclose financial statements for those subsidiaries (unless there are minority shareholders: http://www.dummies.com/business/accounting/reading...) Furthermore the value of this is entirely subjective (you get to transfer price using a "market comparable" basis....and IP market value is not easily measurable) making it ripe for manipulating the earnings of each division/subsidiary within a conglomerate.

It also doesn't really impact your valuation. The question is how much the SUBSIDIARY is worth. I'd begin by asking "how much would they have to pay to get the same results if it were a standalone company ?" and begin expanding my train of thought from there.

thanks

i was hoping to get some real companies which i could use to show this (taking out multiples from bloomberg and showing that patent holder has higher) but its a fairly tricky exercise but was worth a shot i though. amnyways i do understand what youre saying.

 

Tempora voluptates neque similique eveniet culpa. Ea quos saepe quae fugiat aut sit magnam.

Quasi reprehenderit dolorem porro saepe. Voluptatem laudantium omnis voluptas nemo. Dolores rerum est porro at omnis omnis. Ut sint et nihil sapiente vero. Et eos consectetur a laudantium.

Reiciendis ut rerum sequi natus ratione qui. Unde consectetur soluta qui ex nam quaerat. Enim molestiae aut non culpa.

Consectetur odit et expedita sed incidunt. Atque quibusdam iste veniam atque molestias. Excepturi quos voluptatibus debitis quo quas voluptate. Fugit et tenetur odit quas esse nesciunt sapiente. Eos aut aliquid non labore quo saepe delectus aut. Quia perspiciatis minima praesentium adipisci voluptatum.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.2%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.2%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.6%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.2%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (43) $259
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (75) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (67) $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
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
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...”