Examining actual transactions in the private capital markets and court outcomes figure into whether holding a large block of stock equates with it control or even a premium. The internal and external factors, legal provisions, and property performance drive this result.
This article establishes there is recognition by the IRS and the courts that a well-supported proof of impairment based on the sale of a large number of shares necessitates an investor concession. It provides the rationale and methodology to capture the existence and the level of impairment.
In this article, Dr. Carl Sheeler, responds to a September 9, 2013 concept paper authored by Rick Baumgardner, Chair of the Appraisal Practices Board of the Appraisal Foundation, titled “Valuation Issues in Separating Tangible and Intangible Assets.”
Valuation professionals are uniquely positioned to help clients identify opportunities and third parties that can take them to a proverbial next level. Business valuation is about more than just benchmarking and deriving a defensible conclusion of value, it should entail understanding the value and interplay of governance, risk, relationships, and knowledge.
This article addresses what is often omitted from most asset holding entity valuation reports. By failing to include issues like the ones outlined, the resulting adjustments are less empirical and more a "guesstimate". Valuation practitioners and their advisory clients have a duty to the users of our reports to accurately address equity level risks
Think like an investor, not an accountant! If fair market value is to determine investor expectations and equity risk; then why do these factors receive limited or no consideration when opining on the level of impairments (investor concessions) ubiquitously referred to ask discounts? This article addresses the business risks associated with asset-holding companies' equity that should be considered and reported when preparing a valuation report.
Knowing the value of a business and delivering real value to a client company entails far more than using EBITDA multiples or going along with a rule of thumb to keep the peace. As professionals, valuators must be far more rigorous in their engagements, and focus on delivering value. The obligation to identify, measure, manage, and mitigate the risks are their responsibility. In this candid analysis, Dr. Carl Sheeler shares some insights, based on his 1,000+ engagements, where he has found problems that led to disputes, misalignment of expectations, and company-specific risks that impair value and value creation.
The thoughts below explore existing business valuation (BV) practices. The discussion may cover issues that are unfamiliar to BV analysts whose clients have businesses of below $5 million in revenues, or for those who deal primarily with midmarket clients of $50 million in revenues and above. First, it is necessary to acknowledge the many BV thought-leaders who have propelled our current body of knowledge forward. These valuation heroes have assisted countless practitioners and clients. In the absence of the development of best practices, those wishing to make a buck off of the market's ignorance would abound. Also, special thanks to the theoreticians who embrace the ethereal aspects of our industry with application of concepts such as regression analysis.