My Twitter

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 19 June 2009

Valuing Young Companies

Posted on 11:58 by Unknown
One of the biggest challenges in valuation is valuing a young company, early in its life cycle, especially when that company has not established products. There are six reasons why valuation is difficult under these conditions:
1. No history: At the risk of stating the obvious, young companies have very limited histories. Many of them have only one or two years of data available on operations and financing and some have financials for only a portion of a year, for instance.
2. Small or no revenues, operating losses: The limited history that is available for young companies is rendered even less useful by the fact that there is little operating detail in them. Revenues are small or non-existent for idea companies and the expenses often are associated with getting the business established, rather than generating revenues. In combination, they result in significant operating losses.
3. Dependent on private equity: While there are a few exceptions, young businesses are dependent upon equity from private sources, rather than public markets. At the earlier stages, the equity is provided almost entirely by the founder (and friends and family). As the promise of future success increases, and with it the need for more capital, venture capitalists become a source of equity capital, in return for a share of the ownership in the firm.
4. Many don’t survive: Most young companies don’t survive the test of commercial success and fail. There are several studies that back up this statement, though they vary in the failure rates that they find. A study of 5196 start-ups in Australia found that the annual failure rate was in excess of 9% and that 64% of the businesses failed in a 10-year period. Knaup and Piazza (2005,2008) used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) to compute survival statistics across firms. This census contains information on more than 8.9 million U.S. businesses in both the public and private sector. Using a seven-year database from 1998 to 2005, the authors concluded that only 44% of all businesses that were founded in 1998 survived at least 4 years and only 31% made it through all seven years.
5. Multiple claims on equity: The repeated forays made by young companies to raise equity does expose equity investors, who invested earlier in the process, to the possibility that their value can be reduced by deals offered to subsequent equity investors. To protect their interests, equity investors in young companies often demand and get protection against this eventuality in the form of first claims on cash flows from operations and in liquidation and with control or veto rights, allowing them to have a say in the firm’s actions. As a result, different equity claims in a young company can vary on many dimensions that can affect their value.
6. Investments are illiquid: Since equity investments in young firms tend to be privately held and in non-standardized units, they are also much more illiquid than investments in their publicly traded counterparts.
In the new edition of my book titled "The Dark Side of Valuation", I have a chapter dedicated to young companies. I have excerpted the section of the book on young companies in this paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1418687
I hope you find it useful.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Equity Risk Premiums and the Fear of Catastrophe
    As many of you already know, I am a little fixated on the equity risk premium. More than any variable, it explains what happens in equity ma...
  • Twitter announces IPO: The Valuation
    A little more than a week ago, I posted my first take on Twitter and argued that even in the absence of financial information from the comp...
  • Buffett and Munger... Shock value!
    Berkshire Hathaway is having its annual meeting and the financial press is falling all over itself reporting what the sage from Omaha has to...
  • Asset selection & Valuation in Illiquid Markets
    In my last post, I looked at how the asset allocation decision can be altered by differences in liquidity across asset classes, with the uns...
  • The future of the MBA
    As someone who has a vintage MBA (from 1981) and has taught MBAs for almost thirty years, I have been spending the last few months wondering...
  • Growth (Part 4): Growth and Management Credibility
    If you buy a growth company, the bulk of the value that you attach to the company comes from its growth assets. For these growth assets to b...
  • Alternatives to the CAPM: Part 5. Risk Adjusting the cash flows
    In the last four posts, I laid our alternatives to the CAPM beta, but all of them were structured around adjusting the discount rate for ris...
  • Unstable risk premiums: A new paper
    I am back from a long hiatus from posting, but I had nothing profound (even mildly so) to post and I was on vacation for a couple of weeks a...
  • Many a slip between the cup & the lip: From forward value to value per share today
    Valuing young, growth companies is never easy to do but it is well worth doing, partly because it forces you think through the business that...
  • Governments and Value III: Bribery, Corruption and other "Dark" Costs
    In this last post on the effects of government on valuations, I want to return to the value destructive effects that corruption, bribery and...

Categories

  • Acquisitions
  • Corporate Governance
  • Data Observations
  • Dividends and cash balances
  • Equity Risk Premiums
  • Facebook
  • Facebook IPO
  • Governments and value
  • I
  • Information
  • Introduction to web site
  • Investment Philosophy
  • IPO
  • liquidity
  • prices and value
  • Private Equity
  • Taxes and value
  • Teaching
  • The
  • Value and Pricing
  • Value Investing
  • Value of a franchise
  • Value of growth
  • Year end

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (36)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (5)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2012 (49)
    • ►  December (8)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (6)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (4)
  • ►  2011 (55)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (7)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (45)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (5)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ▼  2009 (60)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ▼  June (4)
      • Valuing declining and distressed companies
      • Valuing Young Companies
      • Macro and Market Timers
      • Culprit found for market crisis!!!!
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (5)
  • ►  2008 (42)
    • ►  December (6)
    • ►  November (8)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (15)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile