Volume 16, Issue 1

In any context where a discounted cash flow valuation is required, there is the issue of estimating the continuing value. The most common way to do that is to assume that by the terminal horizon the company is in a steady state and is growing at a constant rate. The issue is how to handle inflation. The problem is that it is often done wrong and the impact is typically material. Because there remains significant confusion, in this paper we simplify the analysis by isolating the two key issues and providing example calculations. We show that even at the current 2% level proper treatment of inflation has a sizeable impact on valuation. If inflation were to accelerate as a result of current monetary and fiscal policies, the significance of this issue will increase.

We examine whether private companies are valued with a discount compared to publicly traded companies. The analysis is based on a comparison of private company transactions with those of public companies. Whereas prior studies build pairs based on industry membership, we match private companies with public counterparts that are comparable in value relevant firm characteristics, i.e. profitability, risk, and growth, to calculate the percentage difference in valuation multiples. We find that private companies are valued on average with a discount on the EBITDA-multiple of 13% compared to their public counterparts. Private companies sell at lower discounts, if the acquirer firm is publicly listed. As size is associated with lower risk, we show that larger private companies sell at lower discounts.

As a result of studies demonstrating a correlation between a patent’s value and its forward citation count, patent valuation using forward citations has been increasingly used by practitioners when a patent’s value has not been otherwise established. Although potential limitations of patent citation analysis have been discussed in the past, there is little empirical research demonstrating the sensitivity of estimated patent values to various assumptions embedded within the method. We first summarize an approach that has been used by prior practitioners to estimate the relative value of patents within a portfolio using forward citations, and then perform various analyses to investigate the sensitivity of the approach to certain assumptions. We find that some concerns of prior literature are well-founded, while others are less so. For example, we confirm that biased valuations will result from failure to properly control for patent age and technology. Our analysis also finds that truncation bias is a problem when analyzing recently issued patents, which confirms findings from existing literature. We estimate the rate at which such truncation bias dissipates as patents age and find that the bias for the median patent is reduced to below 10% within five years from the date of publication, although additional variation can remain on an individualized level. Regarding the issue of self-citations, we find that the valuation approach using forward citation analysis can be (but is not always) sensitive to the issue of self-citations, with a median difference of 16.8%. Finally, the valuation approach using forward citation analysis appears to be robust to assumptions underlying patent cohort construction.

It seems to be increasingly common that some personal injury lost earnings projections are being extended by some experts to the “Normal Retirement Age” (NRA) – the age where workers can receive full, unreduced Social Security benefits. The selection of this age often implies a rejection of the worklife expectancy. However, statistics on claiming behavior of Social Security benefit recipients show that only a minority of recipients wait until the NRA to claim benefits. We use actual claiming behavior and the respective ages to show the use of the NRA for determining the ending date of lost earnings projections, instead of the well-researched worklife expectancy, results in exaggerated and speculative lost earnings damages.