A Private Equity Blog

A vignette into the aberrant thoughts of a private equiteer

The earnings multiple valuation method

Following on from my previous post regarding investee valuations, I want to give a brief explanation of (and make a few comments on) the earnings multiple valuation method. As discussed, in the other post, this is the preferred valuation method for most situations. It represents what someone would pay if you tried to sell under normal conditions, which is arguably the most appropriate valuation method for private equity investments.

multiple

In the broad strokes, this method entails applying an industry-based multiple to the earnings of a business to arrive at an implied enterprise value. From this enterprise value, subtracting net debt gives the equity value. In simple scenarios (involving only ordinary equity), a private equity firm’s relevant investment value is equal to their proportional stake in the investee’s equity.

The subjectivity of this method comes in the following forms:

  • Do you use last year’s actual earnings number? Do you use a forecast? If so, whose forecast do you use? And what earnings are we talking about: NPBT, NPAT, EBIT, EBITDA? What about the effect of non-recurring costs, contributions from discontinued business units, forecast acquisition synergies, etc?
  • What is an appropriate multiple? Are transactions from six months ago reasonable comparisons? Should I only use transactions from the same industry as comparables? What about company size: should I only compare those of similar size? What if there haven’t been any transactions for 12 months (this is especially applicable now)? Should I use the mean, mode or median of comparable transactions?

There are a lot of questions there and not many answers; it really depends on how honest you want to be with yourself and the limited partners. Here are my suggestions:

  • Earnings - You should use the earnings number that you expect at the time of reporting. For example, this may be the current year’s EBIT forecast adjusted for the latest actual earnings figures (that is, if you were below budget, adjust the forecast months accordingly). If the trend is towards using the previous year’s earnings, then you should follow suit.
  • Multiple - In the current climate, you may need to look outside your industry for trends, but also make sure to look for similar sized transactions. There’s no perfect multiple to use, but there’s certainly a range that will seem reasonable. I’d say in the current environment that anything over 8-10x would be unreasonable. For mid-market deals, I wouldn’t expect to see multiples over 6-7x, unless there is a strong case for exceptional growth. It may surprise you, but I’m seeing some interesting deals go for 3x now.  

You’ll know in your own mind whether you’re being fair with your analysis. Try not to cheat yourself because there’s a real danger that it could come back to haunt you. There’s always the argument that if things really do get better, investors will be glad to see a significant uptick in your next report. If you’re too optimistic now, disappointing them twice will hardly be fun. Also, investors won’t be surprised with value losses now; they’re probably expecting them. So take this opportunity to take an honest look at your portfolio and move on to planning for the upturn (now there’s some positive thinking).

twitter: @privateequiteer |

Posted in Valuation

  • Sebasm611
    First of all... I want to congratulate you for this blog, I find it most interesting to read. I'll be posting some comments.

    Now, about the topic... I find the multiple approach a very dangerous approach because of the reasons it's actually used. I should point out also that a DCF valuation, if done right, should yield the same value that the multiple approach and vice-versa.

    One of the reasons the multiple approach is so widely used, which in my opinion make the multiple approach dangerous is "because it's easy" and don't have to calculate all the inputs the DCF have. Another is the misuse of the multiples, for example, the P/Sales or P/EBITDA used when earnings are negative is a mistake because price is an equity value and sales is a pre-debt firm value, there's no possible sensible interpretation possible because I'm leaving out all debt incidence in value.

    Another is the argument for those comparable companies, because to have the same multiple, the company must have the same amount of debt, same growth, same revenues, etc... than the average.

    So the conclusion for me would be, if multiples are to be used... then it'd be good to make a DCF valuation also just to support the multiple, know what am I selling and make adjustments to the company Vs the comparables and arrive to a fairer value.

    Again congrats and thanks for the blog...
    1st year undergrad from Colombia.
  • Hey Sebasm611, great to hear from you . I've actually heard from a few people in Columbia; look forward to making it there some time next year.

    I agree, theoretically DCF takes more into account, but multiples and DCF suffer from the same problem, which is "garbage in, garbage out". The discount rate in a DCF affects the value greatly, yet it's about as the most arbitrary as all financial metrics.

    This is going to sound somewhat cynical, but the calculated financial value of a business is pretty trivial in private equity. It's based on past metrics and any attempt to include the future is futile. In university you want to believe it's as formulaic as the professors suggest, but it just isn't.

    The real-life drives of good returns in private equity are purchase price, sale price and leverage. Sales growth matters, and so does profit growth, but we're mostly talking about legacy businesses in PE. Buying in at 4 times compared to 8 times and selling at 12 times compared to 6 times makes a big difference. All of the financial models and DCF calculations in the world won't predict the manipulation of a great purchase/sale price.

    All the best S - just my opinion :)
  • the Private Equiteer
    http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/01/the-valuation-b... An interesting take on the whole valuation conundrum from the 'A VC' blog.

    Of course, PE and VC are totally different beasts. So while I think 'fair value' is the best of a bad lot for PE, I agree it's ludicrous for VC.
blog comments powered by Disqus