Business valuation centres on two main methods: DCF valuation (Discounted Cash Flow) and the multiple approach. DCF calculates intrinsic value through future cash flows, while multiples determine market value through comparison with similar companies. Both valuation methods have specific applications within mergers and acquisitions processes.
What is the difference between DCF and multiple approach in business valuation?
DCF valuation calculates intrinsic value by discounting future cash flows to present value, while multiple approach determines market value through comparison with comparable companies or transactions. DCF is fundamentally analytical, multiples are market-oriented.
The DCF method requires detailed financial projections, growth assumptions and a precisely determined discount rate. This approach analyses the company's underlying value drivers and translates strategic choices into concrete figures. The model makes assumptions explicit and shows different scenarios.
Multiple-approach, on the other hand, uses market data from similar companies or recent transactions. This method reflects current market sentiment and investor preferences. Multiples such as EV/EBITDA or P/E ratios provide quick insight into relative valuation within a sector.
The fundamental difference lies in the valuation basis: DCF looks at future cash generation, multiples at current market prices of comparable assets.
When do you use DCF versus multiple approach in practice?
DCF valuation suits companies with predictable cash flows and clear growth strategy, while multiple approach is effective in liquid markets with sufficient comparable companies. Market conditions and transaction objectives determine the choice of method.
DCF application is optimal at:
- Stable, mature businesses with predictable cash flows
- Unique business models without direct comparable parties
- Long-term strategic decisions
- Situations where market prices may not be representative
Multiple approach works best with:
- Active markets with sufficient comparable transactions
- Quick valuation provisions in M & A processes
- Cyclical sectors where timing is important
- Benchmarking against market standards
In practice, factors such as availability of reliable data, time constraints and the complexity of the business model determine which method gets priority.
Which multiple approach is most common in acquisitions?
EV/EBITDA is the most commonly used multiple in acquisitions because it neutralises capital structure and compares operating performance. This multiple works effectively across sectors and eliminates differences in financing and tax structures between companies.
The most popular multiples by scope:
Enterprise Value multiples:
- EV/EBITDA - standard for operational comparison
- EV/Revenue - growing businesses or asset-light models
- EV/EBIT - mature companies with stable depreciation
Equity multiples:
- P/E ratio - profitable, stable companies
- P/B ratio - asset-heavy sectors such as real estate
- P/S ratio - tech and growing service companies
Sector-specific multiples:
- Retail: EV/m² sales area
- Software: EV/ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue)
- Telecom: EV/subscriber
EV/EBITDA dominates because it allows comparison between companies with different capital structures, which is essential in acquisition evaluations.
Why do many M&A advisers opt for a combination of the two methods?
Combination of DCF and multiple approach creates a valuation range that reflects both intrinsic value and market sentiment. This triangulation method increases reliability and strengthens negotiating positions in transactions by integrating different valuation pressures.
The benefits of combined valuation:
Risk diversification: DCF compensates for market volatility in multiples, while multiples provide reality check for DCF assumptions. Extreme outcomes are dampened by cross-validation between methods.
Bargaining advantage: A valuation range gives flexibility in bidding strategies. Buyers can use lower DCF value, sellers higher multiple value, depending on market conditions.
Stakeholder communication: Different parties prefer different methods. Investors value DCF fundamentals, while management often recognises multiples from listed peers.
Scenario analysis: Combination shows impact of different market conditions on valuation. This helps in structuring deals with variable components or earn-out constructions.
Professional advisers use both methods to get a complete picture of value under different market conditions and strategic scenarios.
How do market conditions influence the choice of valuation methods?
Market volatility and economic cycles strongly determine which valuation method is more reliable. In stable markets, DCF and multiples converge, during volatility they diverge significantly. Interest rates directly influence DCF, while market sentiment dominates multiples.
High volatility period: DCF is preferred because multiples show extreme fluctuations that do not reflect the underlying business value. Market panic or euphoria significantly distorts multiple-based valuations.
Low-interest environment: DCF valuations increase due to lower discount rates, making future cash flows more valuable. Multiples also reflect this, but less directly than DCF calculations.
Economic recession: Multiples fall sharply due to pessimistic market sentiment, while DCF gives more nuanced picture due to scenario analysis of different recovery trajectories.
Sector-specific trends: New technologies or regulations may make multiples of comparable companies irrelevant, making DCF analysis of specific business dynamics more important.
Liquidity crises: Limited transaction data makes multiple approach less reliable. DCF provides continuity in valuation when market data becomes scarce.
Experienced advisers adjust methodology based on market conditions and use stress-testing to test robustness of valuations.
What pitfalls to avoid in DCF and multiple valuations?
Common mistakes with DCF are overly optimistic growth assumptions and incorrect discount rate determination. With multiples, problems arise from inadequate peer selection and timing differences. Both methods require critical validation of underlying assumptions.
DCF pitfalls:
- Terminal value overestimate - often 60-80% of total value
- Unrealistic perpetual growth rates over economic growth
- WACC miscalculation due to incorrect risk-free rate of beta
- Inconsistency between capex and depreciation in projections
Multiple pitfalls:
- Peer selection based on sector alone, not business model
- Ignoring differences in growth, margins and risk profile
- Use of outdated or unrepresentative transaction data
- Mechanical application without quality adjustments
General risks:
- Anchoring bias - holding too strongly to initial valuation
- Confirmation bias - selecting data that support desired outcome
- Ignoring market cycle impact on both methods
Successful valuation requires disciplined approaches with systematic validation of assumptions and awareness of methodological limitations. Professional guidance helps avoid these pitfalls and ensures reliable valuation outcomes that hold up during negotiations.
Business valuation remains a combination of analytical precision and market insight. Whether it is a takeover or sale, the right methodology and professional execution determine the success of the valuation process. For strategic transactions where accurate valuation is crucial, take contact on for specialised guidance.
Link copied!
