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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT