valuation
5. Valuation Report
How We Arrived at $21.4M Pre-Money
This report details the principles and methods for determining a valuation for Blended Valuation
A weighted average across six recognised methods spanning internal fundamentals, external benchmarks, and future cash flow.
Pre-Money Valuation
| Weighted across 6 methods | $21.4M |
| New Investment | $1.0M |
| Seed round | $22.4M |
| Post-Money Valuation | 4.45% |
| Founder and investor dilution | Internal Methods, 50% weight | External Methods, 40% weight | Future Cash Flow Methods, 10% weight |
| Berkus Method, 25% weight | $2.25M | { BerkWeight } | { BerkWeightValue } |
| Risk Factor Summation Method | { RiskValue } | { RiskWeight } | { RiskWeightValue } |
| Scorecard Method | { ScoreValue } | { ScoreWeight } | { ScoreWeightValue } |
| Venture Capital Method | { vcValue } | { vcWeight } | { vcWeightValue } |
| Discounted Cash Flows Method | { dcfValue } | { dcfWeight } | { dcfWeightValue } |
| First Chicago Method | { fcValue } | { fcWeight } | { fcWeightValue } |
| 100% | { PreValue } |
Table of Contents
Principles & Methodology
Valuation Principles
Methodology
Base Value
Application of Methodology
Berkus Method
Risk Factor Summation Method
Scorecard Method
Venture Capital Method
Discounted Cash Flows Method
First Chicago Method
Disclaimer
4
5-7
8-12
13
14
15-16
17-18
19-21
22-23
24-25
26-29
30
Principles & Methodology
Valuation Principles:
A fair price both sides can explain
Balanced inputs: We use facts that are sourced, dated, and unitized. Assumptions are consistent across the report and cross-checked against reality. Outliers are flagged, not quietly averaged in. If a number changes upstream, the downstream math updates.
Business first: We start with what exists today, not a model target. Product in market, real usage, paying customers, and unit economics drive the band. A method output cannot leapfrog weak evidence. Strong evidence can justify a higher position in the band.
Market anchored: We reference current rounds, relevant comps, revenue multiples, and the cost of capital. Each data point has a source and a date so readers can judge freshness. Stale or non-comparable data is excluded. The market view informs both band selection and method checks.
Shared fairness : Both sides should be able to explain the number in a few sentences. Steps are reproducible from inputs to final output, with no hidden tweaks. If we override a method, we say what we changed and why. The same logic applies to everyone.
Durable value: We test how much the conclusion moves under reasonable changes. Band up or down one notch, weight shifts, and small input swings are shown. The report highlights what would materially raise or lower value and points to the evidence required.
Data with judgment: We prefer data, but early companies have gaps. Where inputs are thin, we use conservative ranges and state the rationale. We mark what would confirm the estimate. No false precision, no unexplained plugs.
Transparent and repeatable: Inputs are visible, formulas are standard, totals reconcile. The executive summary pulls directly from the method pages. Version, preparer, and sources create an audit trail. A reader can rebuild the result in a simple spreadsheet.
This report shows exactly how these principles are applied, step by step
Valuation Principles:
The table links each principle to the proof we show and where to find it. Use it as a checklist while you review. If something is missing in a live report, we flag the gap and note the impact.
| Principle | What we show | Section |
| Balanced inputs | Source list, dated assumptions, currency and units on every table | Scope and Sources |
| Business first | Stage table with evidence lines for product, team, traction, run rate, go to market, unit economics | Stage of Business |
| Market anchored | Market-band table plus seed comps with pre-money, round size, dilution, date, links | Market Conditions, Scorecard |
| Shared fairness | Single weighting model and one triangulation, with overrides documented | Weighting and Triangulation |
| Durable value | Two sensitivities: band up or down; weight shift internal vs market | Sensitivities |
| Data with judgment | Analyst notes where inputs are thin and what adjustment was made | Method footers |
| Transparent and repeatable | Standard method template: inputs box, calc box, output, caveat | Method pages, Exec Summary |
What this gives you. A traceable valuation with sources, consistent methods, and one reconciled result. You can verify inputs, rerun the math, and see where judgment was used. Fair, explainable, repeatable.
Valuation Process
We value using a simple waterfall. We place the company on the stage map, read today’s market, set a fair range, then run methods to plot a point inside that range. That point drives round terms.
We value using a simple waterfall. We place the company on the stage map, read today's market, set a fair range, then run each method inside that range and reconcile to one number.
Stage: Evidence comes from what exists now. Product in users' hands, team coverage and ownership, traction and retention, run rate, go-to-market motion, and unit economics.
Market: We look at funding climate and speed of round, exit activity and recent revenue multiples, plus macro conditions and cost of capital.
Range: This bracket is what a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Method outputs must sit inside it. If one falls outside, we revisit the input or flag the exception.
Berkus credits core building blocks up to a cap.
Methods
Berkus credits core building blocks up to a cap.
Risk Factor starts at the midpoint and adjusts for 12 drivers.
Discounted Cash Flows needs a 1liner
Scorecard references recent comparable rounds.
VC Method works back from a sensible exit and required return.
Methodology
A valuation sits inside a range that a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Two readings set that range: the company’s stage, which is internal evidence of progress, and the market band, which is external conditions in the round environment. Both pull on the same fair price, from different sides.
A valuation sits inside a range that a willing buyer and seller would call reasonable today. Two readings set that range: where the company sits on the stage curve, and where the market sits today.
Stage of business
Where the company sits on the startup curve. We score seven internal signals of progress. The stage sets the baseline against which every method is applied. What exists in users' hands and how stable it is.
Product. Who is on the field and how roles are covered.
Traction. Evidence that people want it.
Team. Current revenue level and path to profit.
Traction. How much outside capital and from whom.
Run rate. Channels in use and how repeatable they are.
Unit economics. CAC, margins, payback, and LTV quality.
Capital raised.
Go to market.
Unit economics. How active investors are and how fast rounds close.
Exit activity. Depth of buyers and recent outcomes.
Revenue multiples. Typical EV to ARR for comparable companies.
Competitive intensity. How crowded and strong the field is.
Regulatory support. Headwinds or tailwinds from rules and incentives.
Talent pool depth. Availability and cost of key hires.
Macro and cost of capital. Rates, liquidity, and risk appetite.
Methodology
The table below maps each internal signal to what an early, neutral, or late stage reading looks like in practice. The strongest cluster of signals sets the stage.
| The table below maps each internal signal to what an early, neutral, or late stage reading looks like in practice. The score you assign should match the description that fits best. | Market band | Early stage | Traction | Run rate | Capital raised | Neutral | Unit economics |
| Early stage | A basic prototype or demo tests if the idea works. | Late stage | Early interest shows as waitlists, interviews, or beta sign-ups. | Revenue is negligible while learning. | Small angel or friends-and-family checks. | Founder-led sales and direct conversations. | Costs and value per user are unknown. |
| Neutral | A live MVP ships updates fast and collects real user feedback. | A core team forms with technical and commercial ownership defined. | First paying users engage consistently and form cohorts. | Recurring revenue grows and pricing stabilizes. | Seed fund or notable angels invest; hiring and go to market begin. | One repeatable channel with CAC and payback tracking. | Cohort data emerges; breakeven nears; payback shortens. |
| Late stage | A polished product with a roadmap and integrations ready to scale | Functional leads join, supported by lightweight management structures. | Retention strengthens and usage becomes stable and predictable. | Annualized revenue above $100k with a clear path to profit. | Larger rounds fund headcount, product depth, and scale. | Multi-channel playbook with strong, repeatable metrics | CAC stays below LTV; margins expand; efficiency improves. |
Methodology
The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We anchor the band to the strongest cluster of signals.
| The table below maps each market signal to what an unfavorable, neutral, or favorable reading looks like in practice. We read all seven before setting the band. | Market band | Unfavorable | Revenue-multiple benchmarks | Competitive intensity | Regulatory or policy support | Neutral | Macro tailwinds and cost of capital |
| Unfavorable | Deals sporadic, few committed investors, slow term sheets. | Favorable | Below 2x ARR for most. | Incumbents dominate; startups struggle for attention. | Active headwinds or legal risk create hurdles. | Specialist talent scarce, hiring slow, salaries spiking. | Rising rates and recession fears tighten lending and compress multiples. |
| Neutral | Steady flow of rounds with heavy diligence. | Occasional sub-$100m acquisitions show cautious liquidity. | 4x to 6x ARR for solid performers. | Crowded market with credible contenders. | Predictable rules with some grey areas. | Adequate local plus remote supply; budgets tight. | Neutral macro keeps capital available on prudent terms. |
| Favorable | Oversubscribed raises, multiple funds chasing. | Regular $500m+ exits and IPO chatter signal strong liquidity. | 10x ARR and above where optimism is high. | Winner-takes-most dynamics; fast movers scale quickly. | Incentives and clear approvals accelerate adoption. | Deep bench of experienced leaders; compensation stabilizes. | Low rates and strong flows unlock growth capital. |
Methodology
| Stage ↓ \ Band → | Stage ↓ \ Band → | Pre-Seed | Early Seed | Seed | Band 5 |
| Late Seed | Early Series A | Series A | $2.0M - $4.0M | Late Series A | Having determined the stage of business and band within that stage we use industry data to get a value range. |
| Early Seed | $1.0M - $3.0M | $2.0M - $4.0M | $4.5M - $8.5M | $7.5M - $15.5M | $14.5M - $34.5M |
| Seed | $1.5M - $3.5M | $2.5M - $5.5M | $6.5M - $11.5M | $10.5M - $22.5M | $21.0M - $49.0M |
| Late Seed | $2.0M - $5.0M | $3.5M - $7.5M | $8.0M - $15.0M | $13.5M - $28.5M | $27.5M - $63.5M |
| Early Series A | $2.5M - $6.5M | $5.0M - $11.0M | $13.5M - $24.5M | $24.0M - $50.0M | $51.5M - $120.5M |
| Series A | $4.0M - $9.0M | $7.5M - $15.5M | $19.0M - $35.0M | $34.5M - $71.5M | $73.5M - $171.5M |
| Late Series A | $5.0M - $11.0M | $9.5M - $19.5M | $24.5M - $45.5M | $44.5M - $92.5M | $95.5M - $223.5M |
Having determined the stage of business and band within that stage we use industry data to get a value range.
Methodology
After defining the range of value, we apply six valuation methods to triangulate where within that range { Name } sits. These methods are weighted by stage: earlier stages weight internal methods more heavily, later stages weight external and forecasted methods.
Smart Deck
- Internal methodologies
- Risk Factor Summation Method
Scorecard Valuation Method
- Scorecard Valuation Method
- Forecasted methodologies
First Chicago Method
- Pre-seed
- First Chicago Method
Internal
Internal
Seed
Series A
Base Value
We have identified that { Name } stage of business fits into { Band } of Smart Deck round.
Giving it a value of $10.5M - $22.5M
Band 4
Application of Methodology
Valuation Methods
Berkus Method
The Berkus Method is a widely used framework for valuing pre-revenue, early-stage startups where limited financial data is available. It was developed by Dave Berkus in the mid-1990s.
The model assigns scores (typically 0 to 10) to five key factors, each weighted equally and multiplied by a predetermined dollar amount. Traditionally, the maximum assigned per factor was $500,000, yielding a total valuation cap of $2,500,000. In 2016, Berkus updated the model to recognize that industry, geography, and market conditions may warrant adjustments to the cap or weighting.
The model assigns scores (typically 0 to 10) to five key factors, each weighted equally and multiplied by a predetermined dollar value derived from the valuation cap for this stage and band.
Strengths
Limitations
key evaluation criteria
key evaluation criteria
Foundational value
Reduces execution risk
Foundational value
Prototype
Reduces technical risk
Quality Management Team
Reduces execution risk
Strategic Relationships
Reduces market-entry risk
Product Rollout or Sales
Reduces go-to-market and scaling risk
Berkus Method
For the total value cap we use the upper bound of the band determined from our methodology above and divide by 5 to get the maximum value assignable to each factor.
| Value Driver | Value | Score (1-10) | Rational | Assigned Value |
| Sound Idea | 4,500,000 | 8 | Turns a Google Sheet into a live, on-brand investor deck -- solves a real, recurring pain for every founder raising capital. | 3,600,000 |
| Prototype | 4,500,000 | 7 | Live product with 20+ decks shipped across seed and growth-stage clients; core rendering pipeline proven in production. | 3,150,000 |
| Quality Management Team | 4,500,000 | 9 | Founder-led by an operator with prior fundraising and deck-consulting experience; lean team, high output per head. | 4,050,000 |
| Strategic Relationships | 4,500,000 | 7 | Embedded distribution through boutique advisory and accelerator partners already sending deal flow. | 3,150,000 |
| Product Rollout or Sales | 4,500,000 | 6 | Early paid pilots converting at a healthy rate; no dedicated sales motion yet. | 2,700,000 |
| Total | 22,500,000 | 37 | {{ }} | 16,650,000 |
Risk Factor Summation Method
The Risk Factor Summation Method (RFS) is a structured valuation framework for early-stage companies with some operating visibility, using twelve risk categories scored from -2 to +2.
Each point adjustment carries a fixed monetary value, determined by taking the delta between the low and high of the value band and dividing it by the total number of points (48). The cumulative adjustment, positive or negative, is added to or subtracted from the base valuation to arrive at the final pre-money valuation.
Each point adjustment carries a fixed monetary value, determined by taking the delta between the low and high of the value band and dividing it by the number of scoring points.
This approach offers more granularity than purely qualitative models, capturing both business-specific and market-driven risk in a single framework.
Covers a wider range of business and market risks than Berkus or Scorecard, offering a more detailed view of both risks and strengths across twelve factors.
Equal weight across all categories. Focused on risk exposure rather than opportunity upside. Relies on skilled judgment to score each factor consistently.
Equal weight across all categories. Focused on risk exposure rather than opportunity upside. Relies on skilled judgment and a solid base valuation, which adds complexity.
01
03
Management risk
0711
-2 to +2Legislation, political risk
-2 to +2Manufacturing risk
-2 to +2Sales and marketing risk
-2 to +2Funding, capital raise risk
-2 to +2Competition risk
-2 to +2Technology risk
-2 to +2Litigation risk
-2 to +2International, geographic risk
-2 to +2Reputation risk
-2 to +2Potential for lucrative exit
-2 to +2Risk Factor Summation Method
The base valuation uses the midpoint of the value band. The value of a point is the delta between the low and high of the band, divided by the number of scoring points.
| Risk | Risk | Management |
| Legislation, political risk | Sales and marketing risk | Founder has shipped and sold similar tooling before. |
| Competition risk | Litigation risk | Reputation risk |
| Legislation, political risk | Aggregate | Value of a point |
| Base value | 2 | Pure software, nothing to manufacture. |
| Sales and marketing risk | { Risk5Score } | { Risk5Rational } |
| Funding, capital raising risk | { Risk6Score } | { Risk6Rational } |
| Competition risk | { Risk7Score } | { Risk7Rational } |
| Technology risk | { Risk8Score } | { Risk8Rational } |
| Litigation risk | { Risk9Score } | { Risk9Rational } |
| International risk | { Risk10Score } | { Risk10Rational } |
| Reputation risk | { Risk11Score } | { Risk11Rational } |
| Potential lucrative exit | { Risk12Score } | { Risk12Rational } |
Aggregate
| Total Score | { RiskTotScore } |
Pre-money build
| Value of a point | { RiskScoreVal } |
| Adjustment to base | { RiskAdjVal } |
| Base value | { RiskBaseVal } |
| Pre-money value | { RiskTotVal } |
Scorecard Method
The Scorecard Valuation Method, also known as the Bill Payne Method, is one of the most widely used approaches by angel investors for valuing early-stage companies.
We identify three comparable companies in the same geography, sector, and stage, and average their pre-money valuations. The target is then scored against the benchmark across multiple weighted factors, assigning a multiplier where 1.0x equals the comparable benchmark. The weighted scores produce the adjusted pre-money valuation.
We identify three comparable companies in the same geography, sector, and stage, and average their pre-money valuations, then adjust using a weighted comparison of company-specific strengths.
Strengths
Limitations
key evaluation factors
key evaluation factors
Strength of the Management Team
Product / Technology
30%Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships
Need for Additional InvestmentProduct / Technology
20%Competitive Environment
15%Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships
5%Need for Additional Investment
5%Other (traction, NPS, customer feedback)
5%Scorecard Method
Below are the 3 identified companies for comparison. Each should fall within the stage of business and band identified above, and be dated within the last 24 months.
Comp A: PitchOps
AI-assisted pitch deck and data-room platform for seed-stage founders
Capital Raised: Comp A: PitchOpsDate Raised: Jan-25
Template-driven investor deck SaaS with light financial modeling
Comp B: DeckForge
n/a
Capital Raised: 2,000,000Date Raised: Jun-24
n/a
Comp C: Raise Room
Data-room and investor CRM for early-stage fundraising
Capital Raised: 2,000,000Date Raised: Sep-24
n/a
Scorecard Method
Weighted factor scores and same-stage comparable inputs produce the multiplier and adjusted pre-money valuation.
| Weighting | Weighting | 2,500,000 | 15% | |
| 20,000,000 | 2,500,000 | 1.1 x | 0.9 x | |
| 1.0 x | 12% | 1.0 x | 0.9 x | |
| 1.0 x | 1.0 x | 20,000,000 | 20,874,375 | |
| Weighted Value | 30% | 1.2 x | 1.0 x | 1.1 x |
| Size of the Opportunity | 20% | 1.1 x | 1.0 x | 0.9 x |
| Product / Technology | 20% | 1.2 x | 0.9 x | 1.0 x |
| Competitive Environment | 15% | 0.9 x | 1.0 x | 1.0 x |
| Marketing, Sales, Channels, Partnerships | 5% | 0.8 x | 1.0 x | 0.9 x |
| Need for Additional Investment | 5% | 1.0 x | 1.0 x | 1.0 x |
| Other | 5% | 1.0 x | 1.0 x | 1.0 x |
| Total | 100% | 1.10x | 0.98x | 1.01x |
| Weighting | 35% | 35% | 30% | |
| Weighted Value | 7,984,375 | 6,860,000 | 6,030,000 | |
| Pre-Money Value | 20,874,375 | |||
Venture Capital Method
The Venture Capital Method, also known as the Exit Event Method, values a startup based on a future liquidity event such as an acquisition or IPO.
We start with a credible exit value drawn from comparable exits in the target sector. Each comparable carries a risk-adjustment factor reflecting the probability of the target reaching that scale, and a weighting reflecting how representative it is. The sum across comps gives a probability-weighted exit value that serves as the anchor.
We start with a credible exit value drawn from comparable exits in the target sector. Each comparable carries a risk-adjusted weighting toward the final figure.
A required return multiple, calibrated to investment risk, time horizon, and exit probability, then converts the exit value back to a present-day pre-money figure.
Aligns valuation with investor return expectations. Useful for pre-revenue and early-stage companies. Transparent, easy-to-follow logic from exit to today.
Highly sensitive to exit assumptions. Overlooks interim execution risk and capital needs before exit. Does not capture full operating detail.
Highly sensitive to exit assumptions. Overlooks interim execution risk and capital needs before exit. Does not capture free cash flow generated along the way.
01
02
Estimate exit value
0406
Per compWeight by representativeness
By stage and fitSum to probability-weighted exit
AnchorApply required return multiple
IRR or multipleDerive pre-money valuation
OutputVenture Capital Method
Three comparable stage exits in Band 4 are adjusted for the probability of Comparable reaching that scale, weighted by representativeness, then converted to today’s pre-money using the required return multiple.
| Comp A: RoadmapAI | 1.0000 x | · | Rationale | 35.00% | 2025 |
30.00% Acquisition Return Factor Less Capital Raised n/a | 460,000,000 | 1.0000 x | { VC1Rational } | { VC1Weight } | { VC1Val } |
{ VC2Name } { VC2Type } · { VC2Date } { VC2Link } | { VC2Amount } | { VC2AdjX } | { VC2Rational } | { VC2Weight } | { VC2Val } |
{ VC3Name } { VC3Type } · { VC3Date } { VC3Link } | { VC3Amount } | { VC3AdjX } | { VC3Rational } | { VC3Weight } | { VC3Val } |
| Probability-weighted exit value | { VCTot } | ||||
| Return Factor | { VCReturnX } |
| Pre-Money Valuation | { VCPreVal } |
| Less Capital Raised | { Raise } |
| Post-Money Valuation | { VCPostVal } |
Discounted Cash Flows Method
The DCF Method estimates valuation as the present value of expected future cash flows. It is most useful for businesses with visible, forecastable revenue.
We forecast free cash flows over five years and add a terminal value computed via the Perpetuity Growth Method or a comparable P/E multiple. Each cash flow is discounted at a rate that reflects risk and stage.
Present value
Intrinsic, rooted in expected financial performance. Suited to established businesses with historical financials and forecastable cash flow.
method steps
Limitations
Forecast free cash flows
Apply discount rate
Determine terminal value
Discount each year to today
Sum present valuesApply discount rate
Cost of capitalDetermine terminal value
PGM or P/EDiscount each year to today
Year by yearSum present values
Enterprise valueAdjust for net debt and cash
Equity valueThe Discounted Cash Flow method values the company on projected free cash flows and a terminal value, discounted back to today at a rate that reflects execution risk at this stage.
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted at the cost of capital to derive enterprise value. Discounted years one through five plus the discounted terminal sum to today’s value.
| Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted at the cost of capital to derive enterprise value. Discount rate reflects execution risk at this stage. | Free cash flow | Earnings, Year 5 | Discount rate | Year 5 | |
| 394,137 | 324,184 | -188,615 | 842,303 | 1,514,118 | 2,121,557 |
| Earnings, Year 5 | 2,942,241 | ||||
| P/E ratio | 18.00x | ||||
| Terminal value | { CashTerminal } | ||||
| Discount rate | { CashDiscount } | ||||
| Present value of cash flow | { CashPV1 } | { CashPV2 } | { CashPV3 } | { CashPV4 } | { CashPV5 } |
| Present value of terminal value | { CashPVTerminal } | ||||
| Enterprise value | { CashVal } | ||||
First Chicago Method
The First Chicago Method is a scenario-based valuation approach that combines DCF and comparable company analysis. It evaluates the company under three scenarios.
Each scenario flexes free cash flow by a defined percentage. The DCF method runs on each scenario, producing three values. Probabilities are assigned across the three scenarios and must sum to 100%. The output is the probability-weighted average of the three DCF results.
Strengths
Sensitive to both scenario assumptions and probability weighting. Requires significant data and effort. Not suitable for very early-stage companies.
Limitations
01
02
03
04
05Define best case
FCF upliftDefine worst case
FCF haircutAssign probabilities
Sum to 100%Compute weighted average
Probability-weighted DCFFirst Chicago Method
Best, base, and worst DCF cases are given probabilities; their weighted average is the value.
| Scenario | Scenario | Best case | Base case | -50% |
| Best case | 20% | 9,083,999 | 13,293,657 | 1,329,366 |
| Base case | 50% | 11,078,047 | 5,539,024 | |
| Worst case | -50% | { FCWorstProb } | { FCWorstVal } | { FCWorstWeightVal } |
| Value | { FCVal } |
First Chicago Best Case
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.
| Year 1 | Year 1 | 389,020 | 3,530,689 | 40.00% | |
| Free Cash Flow | 473,365 | -226,338 | 1,010,764 | 1,816,942 | 2,545,869 |
| Earnings Year 5 | 3,530,689 | ||||
| PE ratio | 18.00x | ||||
| Terminal Value | { FCBestTerminal } | ||||
| Discount Value | { FCBestDiscount } | ||||
| Present Value of Cash Flow | { FCBestPV1 } | { FCBestPV2 } | { FCBestPV3 } | { FCBestPV4 } | { FCBestPV5 } |
| Present Value of Terminal Value | { FCBestPVTerminal } | ||||
| Value | { FCBestVal } |
First Chicago Worst Case
Projected free cash flows and a terminal assumption are discounted to today to derive enterprise and pre money value.
| Year 1 | Year 1 | 162,092 | 1,471,120 | 40.00% | |
| Free Cash Flow | 197,235 | -94,308 | 421,152 | 757,059 | 1,060,779 |
| Earnings Year 5 | 1,471,120 | ||||
| PE ratio | 18.00x | ||||
| Terminal Value | { FCWorstTerminal } | ||||
| Discount Value | { FCWorstDiscount } | ||||
| Present Value of Cash Flow | { FCWorstPV1 } | { FCWorstPV2 } | { FCWorstPV3 } | { FCWorstPV4 } | { FCWorstPV5 } |
| Present Value of Terminal Value | { FCWorstPVTerminal } | ||||
| Value | { FCWorstVal } |
Concluded Value
Disclaimer
This document has been prepared for the purposes stated herein and should not be relied upon for any other purpose. This document provides a summary of the work undertaken by Top Tier Advisory and unless required by law, this document should not be provided to any third party without our prior written consent. In no event, regardless of whether consent has been provided, shall we assume any responsibility to any third party to which this document is disclosed or otherwise made available.
This document was prepared exclusively for internal use as at the date hereof and does not carry any right of publication or disclosure, in whole or in part, to any other party. This document is for discussion purposes only and is incomplete without reference to, and should be viewed solely in conjunction with, the oral briefing provided by the representatives of Top Tier Advisory.
The information provided in this document is based solely upon financial and non-financial information provided.
Whilst our work has involved a benchmark analysis, our engagement does not include either an audit or a review in accordance with International Standards on Auditing of the information used in the preparation of this valuation report. Accordingly, we assume no responsibility and make no representations with respect to the accuracy or completeness of any information used in the preparation of this report.
Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.
The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.
Market conditions and volatility of such markets make valuation exercises, of both company cash flows and financial instruments, extremely challenging and have created a significant potential range of assumptions
on risk-free rate, equity market risk premium and debt spreads. In addition, theoretical assumptions may not reflect reality. Subjectivity over key inputs to the cost of capital and capital and operating expenditure
assumptions, as well as underlying concerns about the impact of the economic upturns and/or downturn on the financial forecasts increases the complexity of the valuation analysis.
The benchmarking of companies, businesses and related cash flows is not a precise science and the conclusions arrived at in many cases will, of necessity, be subjective and dependent on the exercise of individual
Judgement as well as publicly available information to a certain extent. There is therefore no indisputable single value and we normally express the value as falling within a range at a point in time. Whilst we consider our benchmarks to be both reasonable and defensible based on the information available to us, others may place a different value on the benchmarks.