Ex ante, Ex post, and Hybrid Methodologies January 2019 will be the twentieth anniversary of one of the seminal articles written on discounting lost profits, Peter Schulman’s Economic Damages: Discounting Concepts and Alternatives. This article addresses the concepts and complexities of discounting lost profits that were discussed in the Schulman article and advances and additional methodology for discounting lost profits.
-
-
Is Not Debatable This article explains why the undiscounted terminal value as of a future date must be discounted back by (a) N – 0.5 years when the traditional perpetuity method with a mid-period convention is used, (b) N years when the traditional perpetuity method with an end-of-period convention is used, or (c) N years when an exit multiple is used.
-
For Calculating Future Lost Profits Robert Dunn and Everett Harry published their oft cited Modeling and Discounting Future Damages in 2002. The article laid out the process for assessing future lost profits and discounting them to present value. They argued modeling future losses reduced the uncertainty related to the loss calculation and therefore reduced the risk premium to be included in the discount rate. They also argued modeling future losses and using a risk-reduced, relatively low discount rate was easier for judges and juries to understand. While their discussion on a risk-adjusted discount rate has been somewhat controversial, the need…
-
The Present Value of Future Lost Profits, and the Time Value of Money Experts estimating the present value of a business’ future lost profits have much less direction from the courts than their counterparts estimating the present value of a person’s lost earning capacity. Professional literature has attempted to fill this gap providing many articles discussing the differing methods for analyzing lost profits (e.g., yardstick, before-and-after, but for) or how to determine the discount rate by applying a weighted cost of average capital, equity rates of return, or some form of risk premium build-up. This article moves away from these…
-
The Myth of Efficient Market Cramdown Rate In December 2014, the American Bankruptcy Institute issued its Final Report and Recommendations of the Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11. The Commission was comprised of 22 professionals. The group included attorneys, academics, financial advisers, and a former bankruptcy judge. After over two years of work, the Commission made more than 200 recommendations to enhance the Chapter 11 process and provide a more efficient, less costly path for smaller businesses seeking bankruptcy. In this article, Dr. Needham discusses the origin of the Commission’s purpose, the recommendations and the impact of the…
-
A Case Study, Part 2 of 2 In this second part of the article, Dr. Allyn Needham examines post-Till cases from the northern and western districts of Texas, highlights the problems encountered using the Formula Approach, and tests whether the Contract Approach may have provided a better approach and reduced the incidence of litigation where a cramdown is proposed. Ultimately, Dr. Needham proposes that despite the problems presented by the Formula Approach, the Contract Approach is not a panacea for Chapter 11 bankruptcy matters. Business valuators practicing in this area must understand case precedent and recognize the limits of the…
-
A Case Study, Part 1 of 2 In the Till decision, the U.S. Supreme Court selected the Formula Approach to provide a straightforward, familiar, and objective method for determining the cramdown interest rate to be paid on secured claims in Chapter 13 cases, minimizing the need for potentially costly additional evidentiary proceedings. Many bankruptcy courts have found this decision instructive and directive for Chapter 11 matters. However, the application of the Formula Approach for determining the cramdown interest rate on secured claims in Chapter 11 matters has not made for a straightforward approach, nor has it eliminated sometimes lengthy and…
-
What discount rate should you use? Economic damages in litigation must be reduced to present day dollar values to avoid over-compensating the Plaintiff for harm caused by the defendant. This article explains present value theory in simple terms and addresses different methodologies used in reducing future economic damages to a present day dollar value.
-
Nothing simple about interest The takeaway from current research and practice within the forensic financial analyst profession is to stay current on methodology and to conduct your analysis in such a manner that can be explained and defended.
-
In Palmerino v. Palmerino, the Massachusetts Court of Appealsconsidered whether a trial court erred in valuing the husband’s grocery store. The trial court’s approach had not included discounts—and went further to state that the income approach is preferable for valuation. Find out what the court decides! In Giaimo v. Vitale, the Supreme Court of New York considers the dissolution of a company called EGA Associates. The case involved the sale of 19 residential buildings in Manhattan, accusations of fraud during discovery hearings on fair value, and the applicability of proposed discounts for marketability and built-in capital gains.