Multiplier method

The multiplier method is a market-oriented process for company valuation . The pricing knowledge of the market with regard to comparable companies , which is condensed into transaction prices, is transferred to a company to be valued for the purpose of valuation. The multiplier method is popular among practitioners because it quickly and easily produces a rough first value indication. The multiplier method is basically suitable for the following purposes:

Plausibility check of company values that were determined using other valuation methods;

Assessment of the company value in competition by comparing the multiples of the company to be valued with multiples of the industry-identical comparable companies;

Determination of the enterprise value of the company to be valued with the help of already known multipliers of comparable companies;

Preparation of forecasts about possible decisions of other market participants, as the multiplier method is widespread and could thus induce self-fulfilling prophecies

Another purpose is to provide a reliable argumentation value to support the purchase price idea of a presumptive buyer or seller in the purchase price negotiation for a company. The conflict of interest lies in the negotiation goal of the buyer or seller to achieve the lowest or highest possible transaction price. To determine the company value, the multiplier method is based on market prices of comparable companies and thus picks up on the objectivity of the market inherent in these prices. The multiplier method therefore delivers results in a special position.

Premises

According to the economic literature, goods of the same kind should have comparable prices . Companies or the fragmentary ownership rights to them, such as B. Shares can be interpreted as capital goods. To simplify matters, the multiplier method assumes a linear relationship between the value of a company and the selected value-relevant reference value, e.g. B. Sales or EBIT . By selecting a reference value, all other influencing factors that are not part of this reference value are otherwise assumed to be the same between the company to be valued and the group of comparable companies. The consideration of several reference values is possible and expedient, since some of the restrictive assumptions ceteris paribus become obsolete, which enables a better representation of reality . The multiplier method always postulates positive reference values. A negative multiplier would result in a negative company value, which would not be useful. For a company that is making losses, instead of profit, e.g. B. the turnover can be used as a regular, but not mandatory, non-negative reference value. Zero -value reference values are also excluded, as they lead to division by zero . Sometimes it is stated in the relevant literature that the reference value ( dividend ) and reference value ( divisor ) of the multiplier must have a special similarity relationship to one another. This is to avoid that equity claims, such as the annual surplus , are related to reference values that represent the company value from the perspective of equity and lenders . Failure to observe this principle would result in a distorted company value, since the value of the right to equity is primarily important for buyers or sellers in the context of a company takeover .

method

Formation of a suitable peer group

To form multipliers, companies are identified that have the highest possible comparability with regard to the company to be valued; they form the comparison group. Companies are considered to be comparable with one another if they are as similar as possible in terms of timing, amount and uncertainty with regard to the payment flows addressed to the owners . In addition, the following external company characteristics can be considered for the comparability test:

Processing of identical or comparable markets. Criteria and a .: geographical presence of the market, type and scope of services traded, market volume , distribution channels , etc.

Identical phase in the product or company life cycle
Comparable growth prospects;
Comparable size criteria;
Comparable research and development activities ;
Comparable financing structures ;

A detailed income and cash flow analysis is the core of the comparability test; the above-mentioned company characteristics serve to expand the comparability analysis.

Data collection via the peer group

In addition, information on the comparative information is collected, compiled and processed. Sizes from the cash flow statement and the annual financial statements come into consideration ; Non-financial indicators such as the number of website visits are also conceivable . Based on historical data, only normalized results are used , since one-off effects would distort the valuation. In the case of annual financial statements , it should be noted that these are only comparable if they have been prepared according to the same accounting principles . The need for adjustment arises e.g. B. at the time of sales realization according to HGB and IFRS .

Calculation of multipliers

To calculate a single multiplier, the reference value, such as B. the market capitalization in relation to a reference value, such as the EBIT, of the comparable company:

${\ displaystyle \ mathrm {M} = {\ frac {BW ^ {VU}} {BG ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

BW = reference value

BG = reference value

VU = comparable company

The method of calculation shows that a multiplier is the multiple of a selected reference value of the company value in the form of a relationship number. represents.

The multipliers are then aggregated as a mean across all comparable companies.

Aggregation as arithmetic mean :

${\ displaystyle {\ overline {M}} = {\ frac {1} {n}} \ sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} M_ {i}}$

Aggregation as median :

${\ displaystyle {\ overline {M}} = {\ begin {cases} M _ {\ frac {n + 1} {2}} \\ {\ frac {1} {2}} (M _ {\ frac {n} {2}} + M _ {\ frac {n + 1} {2}}) \ end {cases}}}$

Top line for n even

Bottom row for n odd

The median is relatively insensitive to outliers. As a result, the distortion of the aggregated multiplier due to extremely high or low reference values tends to be lower.

If several reference values are taken into account, these must be weighted. Like multipliers, weighting factors are ratios. In the premises , zero and negative reference values are excluded. Accordingly, the reference value of a multiplier is always scaled ratio . The geometric mean is the appropriate position parameter for this scale level.

The geometric mean using multipliers, taking into account identical weighting factors, results from:

${\ displaystyle {\ overline {M}} = {\ sqrt [{n}] {\ prod _ {i = 1} ^ {n}}} M_ {i} ^ {\ alpha}}$

α = weighting factor

Calculation of the company value

Valuation based on a reference value

To calculate the value of the company to be valued, the aggregate multiple of the peer group is multiplied by the reference value of the company to be valued:

${\ displaystyle W ^ {bU} = {\ overline {M}} \ cdot BG ^ {bU}}$

W ^ bU = value of the company to be valued

M across = mean value of the multipliers of the (individual) comparable companies

BG ^ bU = reference value of the company to be assessed

The reference value of the company to be valued must be the same on the basis of which the multiples were previously calculated.

Several benchmarks at a comparable company

In the premises, the consideration of only one reference variable is problematized. Some authors therefore suggest considering several benchmarks from a single comparable company:

${\ displaystyle W ^ {bU} = \ sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \ alpha _ {i} \ cdot {\ frac {BW ^ {VU}} {BG_ {i} ^ {VU}}} BG_ {i} ^ {bU}}$ With ${\ displaystyle \ sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} \ alpha _ {i} = 1}$

The problem with this proposal is that the valuation is not based on a comparable group of companies, but only on the basis of an individual comparable company. In order to compensate for valuation errors in previous transactions , the multiplier method requires a certain minimum number of comparable companies. This postulate is not taken into account by the recommended calculation method. This can be seen from the fact that the reference value of the comparable company is not provided with a summation index in the calculation formula and is therefore referenced to only one comparable company.

Importance of the span

With the help of the range , the presumptive parties can agree on a price basis for negotiations in advance of the actual purchase price negotiation. The minimum or maximum price of any transaction results from the smallest or largest multiplier in terms of amount. Due to the market objectivity inherent in multipliers, the valuer can use other methods to arguably exclude company values in order to gain advantage. The range is determined as follows:

${\ displaystyle W_ {S} ^ {bU} = W_ {H} ^ {bU} -W_ {K} ^ {bU}}$

WS = value range of the company to be valued

WH = highest company value

WK = smallest company value

Value adjustments and final company value

Surcharges

Control surcharge

A fragment of the ownership of a company usually includes the right to participate in the profits, as well as a right to vote at the general meeting . A single share allows practically no influence on the management . With an increasing number of shares, the buyer can exert greater influence on the management and thus pursue his individual strategy. For example, the company to be evaluated should be integrated into a group for the purpose of synergies or operationalize new business areas. This possibility justifies the control surcharge as the price of the advantage that goes beyond the mere profit claim. In practice, control surcharges of 20 - 50 % are common. A control surcharge arises either as a package surcharge through the purchase of a larger block of shares or through the fact that the buyer gradually acquires free- float shares on the public market, thereby triggering price increases.

Fungibility surcharge

The fungibility surcharge expresses the relatively better marketability of the company to be valued in relation to the comparison companies as a surcharge. The stock exchange listing simplifies the resale and justifies a surcharge. The fungibility surcharge can e.g. B. of a base, which expresses the mere exchange tradability and a liquidity component, which is measured by the exchange turnover:

Surcharge on partnerships compared to corporations

According to German commercial law , goodwill acquired against payment is regarded as an asset that can be used for a limited period of time, with the consequence that it must be written off through profit or loss ( Section 246 (1) sentence 4 HGB; Section 253 (3) sentence 4 HGB; tax depreciation: Section 7 para. 1 sentence 3 EStG). In the case of corporations , the takeover takes place as a so-called share deal , with the equity securities being transferred to the buyer. The balance sheet items in the target company remain unaffected, as only the acquisition valuation of the equity securities is carried out with the acquisition costs ( Section 247 (1) HGB). As a result, the share deal does not generate any acquired goodwill within the meaning of commercial law.

The takeover of partnerships takes place as an asset deal . All assets and debts of the target company are transferred individually to the acquiring company. If the following applies at the time of takeover: purchase price> assets - debts, there is a (derivative) acquired goodwill. For a partnership to be valued, this results in a depreciation source with a correspondingly positive tax effect compared to corporations , which justifies a surcharge. The same consideration applies to a goodwill discount for a corporation to be valued that is compared with partnerships.

Discounts

Portfolio tee

The consideration of the portfolio discount becomes clear in the borderline case that the company to be valued is a single-product company , but the comparison group consists of diversified companies. Diversified companies can achieve additional added value by working on additional business areas ; these are withheld from the single-product company. This unrealizable added value is expressed as a portfolio discount. If a portfolio discount appears justified, the peer group of companies could be poorly comparable with the company to be valued. The company valuation with the help of multipliers is therefore questionable. It would be better to select comparable business fields from the comparable group of companies. The problem is to what extent a portfolio discount can be applied without violating the premise of comparability.

Small cap discount

The small cap discount (SCD) is applied if the market leader is part of the peer group. This is to take into account the subordinate market position of the company to be valued as a discount. The small cap discount can be objectified by measuring the difference in sales between the market leader and the company to be valued with the market share of the market leader relative to the comparable group of companies in relation to the total market sales:

${\ displaystyle SCD = {\ frac {U ^ {MF} -U ^ {bU}} {\ sum U ^ {VU} + U ^ {bU}}} \ cdot \ alpha ^ {MF}}$ in which ${\ displaystyle \ alpha ^ {MF} = {\ frac {U ^ {MF}} {\ sum U ^ {VU}}}}$

SCD = Small Cap Discount

U ^ MF = sales of the market leader

U ^ bU = turnover of the company to be valued

U ^ VU = sales of comparable companies

α ^ MF = market share of the market leader

The same applies to a small cap premium.

Importance of value adjustments in the purchase price negotiation

Value corrections as surcharges and discounts are subjective in type and amount , i.e. H. depending on the negotiating parties and geared towards a specific negotiating situation. They are a means to increase or decrease the purchase price according to the respective interest. In the purchase price negotiation, it depends on how plausible such value adjustments to the company value are argued . Basically, the presumptive buyer / seller is disadvantaged by a surcharge (discount) in his asking price, which is why he will try to rebut the argument that justifies the value adjustment.

Final company value

Taking into account the surcharges and discounts, as well as the different calculation methods, the final company value can be determined using the multiplier method as follows:

${\ displaystyle W_ {f} ^ {bU} = {\ overline {M}} \ cdot BG ^ {bU} + ZA}$

W ^ bU f = final value of the company to be valued

BG ^ bU = reference value of the company to be assessed

Z = surcharges

A = discounts

Process variants

Variant of the listed comparable companies

The variant of the listed comparable company is an individual valuation-oriented procedure. With this variant, the market capitalization of comparable companies is used as a reference value . The market capitalization is calculated from the stock exchange price on the reporting date multiplied by the total number of shares:

${\ displaystyle MK = K_ {0} \ cdot \ sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} A_ {i}}$

MK = market capitalization

K0 = share price on the reference date t = 0

Σ Ai = number of all shares

A high level of liquidity at the trading points is necessary for the stock market value in order to be able to include the price decisions on as many shares as possible from a large number of suppliers and buyers and thus to be able to largely take up the market's objective pricing. In principle, a high free float , a high number of price determinations per unit of time and a high trading volume indicate sufficient liquidity. The conclusion on the company value is worrying due to the relatively small number of shares involved in the price formation; it is assumed that all shares not involved in the price formation achieved an identical price . The variant of the listed comparable company violates the principle of overall valuation; it is therefore unsuitable for determining individual decision values. Another problem is that stock exchange prices show a comparatively high volatility due to speculation, herd instinct behavior or panic reactions . This directly influences the value of the multiplier and, indirectly, the value of the company to be valued within a short period of time. This effect can be mitigated by calculating the market capitalization using the mean value, for example the daily or monthly closing rates. The market capitalization is then calculated as follows:

${\ displaystyle MK = {\ frac {1} {n}} \ sum _ {i = 1} ^ {n} K_ {i} ^ {\ cdot} \ sum _ {j = 1} ^ {k} A_ { i}}$

MK = market capitalization

n = number of course determinations

K = established course

Σ Ai = number of all shares

Variant of the recent acquisition

The variant of the recent acquisition is an overall valuation-oriented process that is based on historical transaction prices across entire companies. With this variant, historical transaction prices are used as reference values. It is problematic to collect a sufficient amount of data on historical transactions in order to calculate a statistically reliable multiplier. Suitable database access is required for this. If the transactions occurred in different market cycles, they can be completely unsuitable. If historical transactions were carried out during a bear market, for example , the transaction prices are relatively lower. The company valuation with this data in a subsequent bull market would then produce a cyclically incorrect value.

The advantage of this variant is that there is a transaction price for all of the equity securities, and the previously problematized extrapolation from the value of the fragmentary property to the value of the entire property is no longer necessary. However, historical purchase prices from comparable companies usually contain transaction-specific influences, for example through the relative negotiating position or the individual motives of the parties. This often leads to higher quality multipliers. The transfer of value in the sense of multipliers based on historical transaction prices is therefore questionable without further ado. It is also relevant whether the purchase price was settled in cash or through an exchange of shares. The exchange of shares can lead to excessive purchase prices, since stock corporations can issue new shares relatively easily .

Types of multipliers

Multipliers based on time

Past-oriented multiplier

Past-oriented multipliers are based on actual values of the respective reference value. They are only up-to-date on a specific date. Accordingly, the assessment based on past-oriented multipliers must be carried out promptly after the actual reference values have been determined. The reference values can be found in the annual financial statements of the companies concerned; these are z. B. published for certain companies in the Federal Gazette .

Future-oriented multiplier

Future-related multipliers are based on estimates of future reference values by financial market analysts . These individual estimates are aggregated as a consensus estimate in the form of a mean. Future-related multipliers are also based on estimates of future reference values. These individual estimates are also aggregated as a consensus estimate in the form of a mean.

Multipliers according to the origin of the reference values

Equity value multiplier

To form equity value multipliers, the market value of equity is used as a reference value. For listed stock corporations with a liquid market, the current market capitalization can be calculated at any time from the product of the number of shares and the share price. The market value of equity represents the value of the company's property rights from the point of view of market participants. This reference to ownership can only be consistently maintained in a multiplier if the selected reference value belongs exclusively to the owners. It must therefore always be a result after interest and taxes . An equity value multiplier has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {MW (EK) ^ {VU}} {BG ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

MW (EK) ^ VU = market value of the equity of comparable companies

BG ^ VU = reference value of comparable companies

Enterprise Value Multiplier

The enterprise value represents the value of the entire operational business of a company. It is the value of a company from the point of view of equity and lenders. The enterprise value expands the value from the perspective of the equity provider by the value from the lender's perspective. The reference value must reflect this fact in order to keep the multiplier consistent. Accordingly, the enterprise value may only be set in relation to reference values before interest and taxes . The enterprise value has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {EV ^ {VU}} {BG ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

EV ^ VU = Enterprise Value of comparable companies

BG ^ VU = reference value of comparable companies

Multipliers according to the nature of the market

Exchange price multiplier

These multipliers are calculated on the basis of the daily stock exchange prices for smaller quantities of shares. Since the market value for equity claims is determined on stock exchanges, it is an equity value multiplier. A stock market price multiplier relates the market capitalization to a reference value after interest and taxes:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {MK ^ {VU}} {BG ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

MK ^ VU = market capitalization of comparable companies

BG ^ VU = reference value of comparable companies

One advantage is the constant availability of current share prices. Furthermore, a comparatively large amount of information is available for the companies to be considered for a stock exchange price multiplier. According to German commercial law , capital market-oriented corporations are always considered to be large corporations, with the consequence that they have to use an expanded balance sheet structure for their annual financial statements or account in accordance with the IFRS mentioned in Section 315e HGB . Financial statements according to IFRS are particularly suitable because of their focus on informing investors .

Merger and acquisition multiplier

M&A multipliers are based on historical prices of M&A transactions. In practice, M&A multipliers are usually used to evaluate small companies such as craft businesses , medical practices or auditing firms . An M&A multiplier has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {historical transaction price ^ {VU}} {BG ^ {VU}}}}$

Trend statements about multipliers

Multipliers can relate to balance sheet figures, figures in the profit and loss account, figures in the cash flow statement and to non-financial figures. Sizes that primarily consist of cash components tend to be relatively robust, as the dependency on assessment leeway or accounting rules is relatively low. With the progressive calculation of the annual surplus based on sales, the scope for assessment increases, so that "non-sales" values tend to be more distorted by accounting policy or legislative considerations. The robust “sales-related” reference values assume otherwise the same conditions between the companies with regard to all other influencing factors that are not included in this reference value. This largely negates the reality relevant to the evaluation . So there is a conflict here. According to a study by Liu / Nissim / Thomas, accounting measures compared to cash flow measures reduce the difference between actual and forecast price; therefore they are better suited for forming multipliers.

Examples of multipliers based on balance sheet sizes

Price-to-book ratio

The price / book value ratio (KBV) is an equity value multiplier. It sets the balance sheet equity in relation to the market capitalization:

${\ displaystyle KBV = {\ frac {MK ^ {VU}} {balance sheet EK ^ {VU}}}}$

KBV = price / book value ratio

MK ^ VU = market capitalization of comparable companies

The KBV is a pure asset value assessment ; it is strongly influenced by the level of indebtedness . The KBV is suitable for determining the asset status of a company. In a time series comparison , it shows, among other things, trends in balance sheet and dividend policy . Because of the strict reference to the past, it is not suitable for drawing conclusions about future profitability.

Leverage

The degree of indebtedness sets the balance sheet debt in relation to the balance sheet equity. The leverage multiplier is therefore:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {balance sheetFK ^ {VU}} {balance sheet EK ^ {VU}}}}$

This allows the risk of the financing structure of the company to be evaluated and the comparison group to be assessed. A high level of indebtedness indicates a relatively low share of equity in total capital. Equity represents a company's potential to absorb losses. If this is correspondingly small, an unexpected reduction in cash flow, for example through stagnation in sales , can relatively quickly lead to limitations in debt servicing. Whether the company to be valued could have an increased risk with regard to the financing structure can be determined using the leverage multiplier as follows:

${\ displaystyle {\ frac {balance sheetFK ^ {VU}} {balance sheet EK ^ {VU}}} \ cdot EK_ {balance sheet} ^ {bU} -FK_ {balance sheet} ^ {bU} <0}$

This calculation checks whether the company to be valued, measured in terms of equity, holds relatively more debt than the peer group of companies. During this risk assessment, the maturity of the debt items and the liquidity must be examined at the same time . If the company to be valued has a relatively higher level of cash or liquid assets than the comparable company, a higher level of borrowed capital is initially harmless.

Examples of multipliers based on the sizes of the income statement

Enterprise Value to Sales Ratio

The enterprise value-to-sales ratio (EV / U) relates the value of the operating business to sales. As a multiplier, the EV / U ratio has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {EV ^ {VU}} {U ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

EV ^ VU = Enterprise Value of comparable companies

U ^ VU = sales of comparable companies

Turnover is that variable in the income statement that is least sensitive to valuation latitude and differences between accounting rules. This makes the EV / U multiplier comparatively robust. The point in time of revenue recognition and the question of what should count as revenue remain problematic. In principle, sales of different companies can only be compared with identical accounting rules. The suitability of the individual financial statements of group companies is questionable for multipliers due to distorting internal interdependencies. The general disadvantage of revenue-based multipliers is that they ignore the company's profitability. Furthermore, different high margins of the comparison companies and the company to be valued are not taken into account. The EV / U multiplier can also be used if the company being valued is making losses .

Enterprise Value – EBIT Ratio

The enterprise value – EBIT ratio (EV / EBIT) sets the value of the operating business in relation to earnings before interest and taxes . As a multiplier, the EV / EBIT ratio has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {EV ^ {VU}} {EBIT ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

EV ^ VU = Enterprise Value of comparable companies

EBIT ^ VU = Earnings before Interests and Taxes of comparable companies

The EV / EBIT multiplier is the most commonly used enterprise value multiplier. Accordingly, it is particularly suitable for forecasting the likely behavior of other market participants. The EV / EBIT multiplier takes into account differences in terms of capital intensity and profitability . It is susceptible to being falsified by different depreciation methods .

Price / earnings ratio

The price-earnings ratio (P / E) sets the market capitalization in relation to profit after tax (annual surplus). As a multiplier, the KGV has the following form:

${\ displaystyle M = {\ frac {MK ^ {VU}} {EAT ^ {VU}}}}$

M = multiplier

MK ^ VU = market capitalization of comparable companies

EAT ^ VU = annual net income of comparable companies (EAT = earnings after taxes)

The P / E ratio is the most common return multiplier in practice. The P / E ratio can be interpreted as the number of periods it will take for an investor to recover their invested capital from company-taxed profits. The company valuation based on the P / E ratio is particularly problematic, as the interest result depends on the interest rate policy of the respective currency area . Furthermore, there are distortions due to the creditworthiness , which in turn u. a. depends on the capital structure. In addition, companies located in different countries are difficult to compare using the KGV due to the national tax regimes . If a company can offset loss carryforwards from previous periods with profits from the period under consideration, it does not pay any income taxes ; a comparison would then have to take into account a fictitious after-tax result.

Conceptual weaknesses

Lack of differentiation between value and price

The multiplier method uses the prices formed on the market by comparable companies to determine the value of a company to be valued. In imperfect markets, however, the identity of value and price only applies to the marginal supplier and consumer . For all other suppliers and buyers, the market price must be below the individual value, otherwise they would not be ready for a transaction. Accordingly, only a part of the company values are represented in market prices. The company value determined with the help of multipliers is therefore always too low.

Assumption of the proportionality of the reference value and company value

The multiplier method assumes that the reference value and the reference value of a company are linear . This assumption is doubtful and theoretically not well founded. It implicitly presupposes that all market participants have an identical and constant exchange ratio between their valuation and the reference value considered. Furthermore, all market participants should only make one reference variable dependent on their decision. This is particularly worrying because the company valuation with multipliers is based on this proportionality assumption.

Inconsistent application of the objectivity principle through surcharges and discounts

As a market-oriented valuation method, the multiplier method produces objective company values. This principle is inverted into the subjectivity principle by applying value corrections. The surcharges and discounts are at the discretion of the evaluator or are the result of a specific purchase price negotiation, which are influenced, among other things, by relative negotiating positions, subject-dependent intentions and individual concession limits of the presumptive parties. Already the selection of comparable companies by the evaluator represents a breach of the objectivity principle. However, this is less problematic, since the comparability test can be at least intersubjectively comprehensible. The selection of the reference values is problematic, as these depend on the preferences of the evaluator. For a pharmaceutical company z. For example, the synergy potential of the research and development activities of a company to be valued is presumably particularly relevant, whereas for a stock fund , for example, the dividend yield .

Lack of decision value

The multiplier method is unsuitable for determining one's own decision value, as there is no reference to the target system and decision-making field of the decision subject. The market price estimate does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the individual marginal prices of the presumptive parties. The decision value is the result of a calculation with the values value and price, between which each decision subject weighs up individually. Accordingly, company values based on the multiplier method are irrelevant to decision-making due to the lack of a subject relationship.

Susceptibility to manipulation

Depending on the selection of, among other things, reference value, valuation date, comparison company, weighting factor, etc., the multiplier method can produce strongly fluctuating company values. The valuer who tries to use multipliers to argue his purchase price idea in a negotiation thus has many potential starting points to influence the company value in his own way. With regard to the initially plausible objectivity of multipliers, a principal-agent conflict is hidden here. The evaluator acts according to the principle of rational action ; accordingly he determines the enterprise value in such a way that it is as far away as possible from his own concession limit, at the same time he will deny this with the help of the argument of market objectivity. The valuer may accept this enterprise value as a market price estimate. There is thus information asymmetry to the disadvantage of the recipient of the assessment.

Results based on multipliers must be interpreted with regard to their component reference value and reference value, as well as the framework conditions . For example, different company values can occur when using a sales and EBIT multiple due to different returns on sales between the company to be valued and the comparison group.

Individual evidence

↑ ^a ^b Drukarczyk, J./Schuler, A .: Company Valuation . 6th edition. Munich / Regensburg 2009, p. 453 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 173, 249 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 220 .

↑ Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Company valuation functions, methods, principles . Greifswald / illmenau 2005, p. 548 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 179 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 583 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 191 .

↑ ^a ^b Löhnert, G./Böckmann, UJ: Multiplier method in company valuation . In: Peemöller (Hrsg.): Practical handbook of company valuation . 4th edition. Zurich (CH) / Frankfurt a. M. 2009, p. 575 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 174 .

↑ Joos, T .: Controlling, cost accounting and cost management . 5th edition. Stuttgart 2014, p. 68.69 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 175 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 216 .

↑ ^a ^b Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Company valuation functions, methods, principles . Greifswald / Ilmenau 2005, p. 545 .

↑ ^a ^b Olbrich, M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 319, 320 .

↑ Brösel, G./Zwirner, C./Petersen, K .: Company valuation in the context of the decision-making function . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 227, 228, 229 .

↑ Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Company Valuation - Functions, Methods, Principles . Greifswald / Ilmenau 2005, p. 544-556 .

↑ Olbrich, M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 315-327 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 142 f., 249-251 f .

↑ Olbrich, M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 326 .

↑ Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Corporate valuation functions, methods, principles . Greifswald / Ilmenau 2005, p. 549 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 217 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 178 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 197 .

↑ Olbrich; M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . Ed .: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel. 2nd Edition. October 2017, p. 317 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 145 .

↑ Brösel, G./Zwirner, C./Petersen, K .: Company valuation in the context of the decision-making function . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 555 f .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 181 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 217 f .

↑ Löhnert, G./Böckmann, UJ: Multiplier method in company valuation . In: Peemöller (Hrsg.): Practical handbook of company valuation . 4th edition. Zurich (CH) / Frankfurt a. M. 2009, p. 576 .

↑ ^a ^b ^c Löhnert, G./Böckmann, UJ: Multiplier method in company valuation . In: Peemöller (Hrsg.): Practical handbook of company valuation . 4th edition. Zurich (CH) / Frankfurt a. M. 2009, p. 577 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 184 f .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 220 f .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 188 f .

↑ Drukarczyk, J./Schuler, A .: Company Valuation . 6th edition. Regensburg / Munich 2009, p. 543 f .

↑ Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Company Valuation - Functions, Methods, Principles . Greifswald / Ilmenau 2005, p. 544 f .

↑ Olbrich, M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 324 .

↑ Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 221 .

↑ Olbrich, M./Frey,N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 317 f., 326 .

↑ Olbrich, M./Frey, N .: Multiplier method . In: Petersen / Zwirner / Brösel (ed.): Handbook of company valuation . 2012, p. 325 .

↑ Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Create and understand company valuation . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 190 f .

[Drukarczyk/Schüler_S._453-1] Drukarczyk, J./Schuler, A .: Company Valuation . 6th edition. Munich / Regensburg 2009, p. 453 .

[2] Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 173, 249 .

[3] Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 220 .

[4] Matschke, MJ / Brösel, G .: Company valuation functions, methods, principles . Greifswald / illmenau 2005, p. 548 .

[5] Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 179 .

[6] Ballwieser, W./Hachmeister, D .: Company Valuation . 5th edition. Munich / Hohenheim 2016, p. 583 .

[7] Ernst, D./Schneider, S./Thielen, B .: Creating and understanding company evaluations . 4th edition. Stuttgart 2010, p. 191 .