Recognize and Avoid Substantial Valuation Differentials One of the critical inputs in the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is beta. In practice, there are two typical ways beta is estimated. Making an incorrect assumption could lead to substantial valuation differentials of over 10% in many cases and can lead to valuation differentials of over 50% in some instances. In addition, our analysis indicates that we would not be able to tell the direction and magnitude of the valuation differential in advance unless the correct calculation is performed. One of the critical inputs in the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is…
-
-
Observations and Delaware Fair Value (Part II of II) This is the second of a two-part article, read Part I here, that focuses on empirical evidence supporting the size premium adjustment, observations regarding the CRSP size premium 10th decile category, liquidity issues that may account for the size premium, and certain Delaware Chancery Court decisions involving a size premium discussion. In this second part, the author focuses on the latter two points. These are discussed since in the past few years there have been numerous fair value business valuation related disputes decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery that involved…
-
Observations and Delaware Fair Value (Part I of II) This is a two-part article that focuses on empirical evidence supporting the size premium adjustment, observations regarding the CRSP size premium 10th decile category, liquidity issues that may account for the size premium, and certain Delaware Chancery Court decisions involving a size premium discussion. These are discussed since in the past few years there have been numerous fair value business valuation related disputes decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery that involved certain cost of equity capital postulates. Valuation analysts should be aware of potential issues related to incorporating a size…
-
A Discussion of Rover Pipeline, LLC v. 10.55 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Ashland County, Ohio, et al. “In God we trust. All others must bring data.” This famous saying has been attributed to various people, but it implies that when data is presented, the conclusion can be trusted. However, the Ohio District Court’s decision in Rover Pipeline, LLC v. 10.55 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Ashland County, Ohio, et al., demonstrates that data is only trustworthy if it is understood and applied correctly. The case, in which the expert’s valuation report was discarded due in…
-
Considerations in Applying a Size Premium (Part III of III) In this third and final article, as displayed in Exhibits 1 through 4 in Part 1 of this three-part article, the size effect has been observed even when looking at recent periods starting in 1981 and 1990. If one holds that you should not apply the SP in the MCAPM and that beta should be the only measure of risk, one is supporting using the pure or textbook CAPM to estimate expected returns. But that cannot be correct as the literature clearly demonstrates. Though the pure CAPM is a good…
-
Measuring the Relative Performance of Small Stock vs. Large Stock and the Cost of Equity Roger Ibbotson and James Harrington discuss two different ways of measuring the relative performance of small stocks versus large stocks in this article: (i) the “small stock premium” and (ii) the “beta-adjusted size premium”. Ibbotson and Harrington demonstrate why using a non-beta-adjusted size premium within the context of the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to estimate cost of equity capital will likely “double count” beta risk, and therefore overstate risk and understate value. The authors also demonstrate that a non-beta-adjusted size premium used in conjunction…
-
A Study of the Experts’ Inputs and Court Opinion How does a court go about deciding a valuation case when two experts oppose each other? The author examines the DFC Global Corporation decision to see what that reveals and how that may impact an expert’s future engagement. The author finds three takeaways for readers.
-
A Critique of the Ibbotson Methodology In this paper, the author argues that the Size Premium in Excess of CAPM (and other similar size premium measures) should not be used by valuation practitioners because: a) it is inconsistent with the empirical evidence; b) it is constructed using a method that is inconsistent with how practitioners estimate their CAPM cost of equity; and c) it does not properly calculate the “premium” for use in a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis. Through an illustration, the author also demonstrates the challenges one faces when correcting for the latter two issues.
-
Can private companies really increase their value 80-100 percent by limiting unsystematic (controllable) risks? The November/December 2013 issue of The Value Examiner featured Ken Sanginario’s article entitled, “The Valuation Business: A Strategic Road Map for Success.” In this article, Sanginario answers questions raised by skeptics to make the case that value doubling for private companies is possible.