ILNews

Valuing a business is not an exact science

May 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

What is your business worth? This question is often on the mind of business owners. Those wanting to know the answer to their business’s worth are often confused as to where to start. Many have heard “rule of thumb” valuation information such as “manufacturing firms sell at X times revenues” or even more confusing to some “at X times EBITDA.” While these rules of thumb may get the owner’s mind bent toward formally valuing their company, normally it takes an event such as the potential sale of the entity before they consult a professional.

While determining the value of an ownership interest in a business has been done for many years, it is only in the last 20 or so that there has been a growing consensus regarding valuation standards. Investors, attorneys, courts, and even the Internal Revenue Service have demanded that valuations adhere to more stringent standards in this increasingly complex financial world. What one should keep in mind is that valuing a business is not an exact science. The value concluded by one valuation analyst rarely is the same value by another valuation analyst. The conclusion of value is dependent on how the valuation analyst views the business and business prospects as a whole. In addition to the obvious, reliance on relevant facts, common sense, informed judgment, and reasonableness must also be used. This means the valuation analyst should not make assumptions that are extreme and that are not supported by facts. They must perform a balancing act and decide what information is significant.

Value can be defined in a number of different ways, and without carefully defining the term, the results of the valuation can become meaningless. Some of the most common standards of value are fair market value, fair value, investment value, book value, and intrinsic value. The standard most often used in business valuations is fair market value. Many times the standard of value is legally mandated, either by the user (IRS) or by legal agreements (buy/sell arrangements). The conclusion of value for the same company can be drastically different based on the standard of value. An investment value conclusion in normally higher than a fair value conclusion, which in turn many be higher than a fair market value conclusion. The defined standard of value directs the valuation analyst as to what adjustments may be necessary and to what discounts may be appropriate.

The formal basis of valuation began with the issuance of Revenue Ruling 59-60 – Valuing Closely Held Stock by the IRS. The revenue ruling for the first time defined the factors that a valuation analyst must consider when performing a valuation. The revenue ruling also defined fair market value, which is the most widely used standard of value. IRS Revenue Ruling 59-60 lists eight factors that should be carefully considered when performing a valuation. These factors are:

• The nature of the business and the history of the enterprise from its inception.

• The economic outlook in general and the condition and outlook of the specific industry in particular.

• The book value of the stock and financial condition of the business.

• The earning capacity of the business.

• The dividend paying capacity of the business.

• Whether or not the business has goodwill or other intangible value.

• Sales of the stock and the size of the block to be valued.

• The market price of stocks of corporations engaged in the same or similar line of business that are actively traded in a free and open market either on an exchange or over the counter.

As directed by the revenue ruling, the valuation analyst considers the nature of the business and history of the business through site visits and analysis of historic and projected financial results of the company. These procedures and a thorough understanding of the local and general business climate allow the analyst to determine the outlook for the company and necessary adjustments, called normalization adjustments.

The three approaches used in determining value are the asset, income, or the market approach. Within each approach there exist more specific valuation methods. In the process of interviewing management, analyzing the business, and developing industry knowledge, the valuation analyst will decide which valuation approach and valuation methods are best suited for the business. Depending on the valuation approach, discounts may be applied to the appraised value resulting in a concluded value. The two most common discounts that may be applied are a minority interest discount and a discount for lack of marketability.

In conclusion, this brief overview does not illustrate the depth and details that are required to properly value a business; but keep in mind, an expert’s comprehension of the standards is imperative in establishing credibility.•

__________

Howard I. Gross, Steven W. Reed, and Erika M. Gowan are with Indianapolis-based BGBC Partners, an accounting firm offering assurance, tax, wealth management, and consulting services including litigation support, business valuations, mergers and acquisitions, cost management, and SOX 404 compliance. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

ADVERTISEMENT