Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Valuation
Practices Survey
2013
kpmg.com.au
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Contents
Section 1: Foreword........................................................................................ 1
Insight into Australian valuation practices........................................................... 1
Navigating a volatile environment......................................................................... 1
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
1 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 1:
Foreword
We’d like to thank everyone who completed the survey for their time, effort
and insights.
We look forward to talking with you further about our findings and welcome
any feedback.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 2
Section 2:
Executive summary
Creating a meaningful benchmark for valuation practice “The survey results are a
KPMG’s first Valuations Practices Survey provides a unique reference point for meaningful benchmark
corporate financiers, infrastructure funds and consultants performing valuations in the
Australian market. With 23 market leading participants across a range of industries, for current practice and,
the feedback we have received captures some significant views, reflecting the current hopefully, a platform
status quo around valuation methodology in the Australian market.
we can build on to shape
This means the survey results are a meaningful benchmark for current practice
our application of the
and, hopefully, a platform we can build on to shape our application of the
methodologies into the future. methodologies into the
future.”
Key findings and interesting observations
• Cash is still king. The discounted cash flow approach is the dominant
methodology used by Australian financial analysts and corporate financiers.
This may reflect the more flexible nature of this approach, which enables
multiple scenarios around growth expectations to be considered, providing a
far more insightful valuation result.
• Lack of reaction to volatility. Sixty eight percent of participants indicated that
they do not revise their equity market risk premium assumptions to reflect the
recent developments in capital markets.
• Advisers take note of accounting standards. Twenty one percent of the
participants critically evaluate and 74 percent consider the impact of accounting
standards on future financial statements when advising on a deal.
• Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) factors are at best considered
only qualitatively. Only 5 percent of the participants consider these factors
quantitatively and 32 percent ignore ESG factors all together.
• Still no conclusive evidence on the value of imputation credits. Participants
were divided as to whether value should be ascribed to imputation credits when
valuing a non-infrastructure related business. In terms of infrastructure-related
investments, the approach is significantly different.
• Focusing in on discounts and premia. Observing and understanding discounts
and premia is one of the most challenging and subjective tasks we face. While it
was difficult to gather feedback on this issue, we have enough data to note that
there is an inverse relationship between:
– the size of the small stock premium and the size of the subject company
– the size of the minority discount and the size of the equity stake being valued
– the size of the marketability discount and the size of the stake being valued.
23 06 06 06 05
Total participants Investment banks
Professional services
firms
Infrastructure funds Other participants
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
3 Valuation Practices Survey
ot
es
Section 3:
Valuation
n
De
1
of
e r
mb
nu es
methodologies
o ns
sp
re
50% 50%
Asset-based
21 methodology
10% 76% 14%
1
Market approach
23 (e.g. Price 48% 48% 4%
Earnings ratio)
Income approach
23
1
% of participants
Always Sometimes Never
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 4
The popularity of the DCF model may reflect its more flexible nature – the
approach allows multiple scenarios regarding growth expectations to be
considered, providing a far more insightful valuation result.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
5 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 4:
Market approach
Price/Book value
22 of equity
9% 36% 55%
Price/Pre-tax
22 earnings
5% 27% 68%
22
1
22
1
23
1
EV/Revenue
22 5% 50% 45%
Elevated EBITDA
When using the market approach, the Enterprise Value (EV)/ Earnings Before
Interest, Tax, Depreciation & Amortisation (EBITDA) valuation multiple is by far the
most popular used, with all participants always or sometimes using this multiple
and 61 percent always doing so. Infrastructure funds are particularly wedded
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 6
to this multiple, with 83 percent always using it, compared with 67 percent of
investment banks and 33 percent of professional services firms.
The widespread use of EBITDA – the multiple that is closest to operating cash
flow – indicates that most participants believe cash is the main driver of value.
Earnings Before Interest & Tax (EBIT) and Price to Earnings (PE) multiples are
also used regularly, but it is interesting to note who is using these multiples.
Thirty three percent of investment banks and infrastructure funds always use
PE, while no professional services firms were willing to say they always used it.
Likewise, investment banks were the most prolific users of EBIT, with 33 percent
always using this multiple compared with 17 percent of professional services and
infrastructure funds.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
7 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 5:
Income approach: the
cost of equity
“The Capital Asset Pricing Figure 3: In calculating an appropriate rate of return to future cash flows to equity,
how often are the following methods used?
Model is the most
popular model being
used to derive a cost of
equity estimate, with 12
1
Other
8% 25% 67%
all participants always
or sometimes using this
model.”
22
1
Premium to
5% 64% 32%
the risk
free rate
21 Arbitrage
Pricing 100%
Theory (APT)
Capital
22
1
% of participants
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 8
The Arbitrage Pricing Theory has clearly not taken off in Australia; no participants
use this method.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
9 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 6:
Adjusting for
country risk
adjustment.” 1
40%
21
30%
20% 24%
10% 14%
5% 0%
0%
Adjusting for country risk does not appear to be as significant an issue in Australia
as it is in other parts of the world, simply because most valuation practitioners
are not valuing businesses in emerging countries, which often do not have an
appropriate instrument to use as a starting point.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 10
21
%
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG
International. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
11 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 7:
Benchmarking the
risk-free rate
1
60%
20
40%
20%
5%
10% 0%
0%
Figure 6: H
ow do you derive the risk-free rate when using the yield on a government
bond as a proxy?
29%
21
1
52%
5%
14%
Spot
Historic average
Forecast
A combination of the above
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 12
Notably, most investment banks only use spot – much higher than their professional
services and infrastructure fund counterparts.
21
%
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
13 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 8:
Understanding beta
22
32%
Figure 8: Which of the following service providers are used as a source of information?
35%
30% 32%
25%
% of participants
22
1
20%
20%
18%
15%
14%
10% 12%
5%
4%
0.00%
0%
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 14
Figure 9: W
hen calculating the beta, is the source data unlevered and then relevered
at the optimal gearing?
14%
22
1
86%
Yes
No
Fact favourites
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
15 Valuation Practices Survey
% of participants
30%
1
21
20%
19% 19%
14%
10%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Period in years
Figure 11: W
hen calculating the beta how frequently do you make observations?
60%
55%
50%
% of participants
40%
1
20 30%
30%
20%
10%
5% 5% 5%
0%
Daily Weekly Monthly Quarterly Other
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 16
Section 9:
The equity market
risk premium
Figure 12: What equity market risk premium do you use when making use of the “Survey participants
Capital Asset Pricing Model in percentage terms when valuing assets in
the following countries? overwhelmingly are using
an EMRP for Australia of
80%
6 percent, with some bias
70%
73%
towards 7 percent.”
60%
% of participants
50%
45%
40%
30%
32%
26%
20%
23%
21%
10%
0%
4% 5% 6% 7% 8%
MRP
19
1
Australia
12
1
United States
United Kingdom
13
1
Even prior to the recent severe global financial market dislocation, there has been
frequent disagreement, among industry and academia alike, over determination
of an appropriate value for equity risk premia. This disagreement, which occurs
both in Australia and overseas, arises because there is no one universally
accepted way of determining a premium. The most common approach is to look
at the historical average of equity returns over bonds (or bills) but, most critically,
outcomes will vary significantly according to the time period chosen.1 The average
realised premium for the US market, for example was 8.4 percent over 1949 to
1999, but 6.1 percent if the period is shortened to 1972 to 1999. Including the
last 13 years, the average has been even lower. In Australia, data for 1883 to 2011
show an average 6.0 percent realised premium. However, as shown in Figure 13 1
KPMG notes that use of a geometric mean, rather than an
arithmetic mean, can also lower premia by as much as 2.0
below, over time the observed average risk premium for the domestic market per cent
has declined significantly and averaged just 4.3 percent over the two decades to 2
Handley, J C, 2012, An Estimate of the Historical Equity
Risk Premium for the Period 1883 to 2011, University of
2011, notwithstanding the impact of the GFC.2 Melbourne, April
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
17 Valuation Practices Survey
“It may be too early to Figure 13 Historic Equity Risk Premium, Australian All Ordinaries Accumulation Index
EMRP
5.2%
the ‘new normal’ and
4.5%
incorporated into future
4.0% 4.3%
valuations.”
3.5%
3.0%
1883 – 2011 1937 – 2011 1958 – 2011 1980 – 2011 1988 – 2011
Figure 14: Equity Risk Premium 1988 - 2011, adjusted for imputation credit distribution
6.5%
6.0%
6% 6.0%
5.5%
5.0%
EMRP
5.2%
4.9%
4.5%
4.3%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
0% 35% 50% 100%
% of dividend franked
It may be too early to decide whether most recent equity market performance
– and the implied risk premia – should be considered the ‘new normal’ and
incorporated into future valuations. Nevertheless, there is good reason to believe
that a more appropriate figure for Australia looking forward would be closer
to 5 percent. While 6 percent is currently the preferred risk premium adopted
by Australian regulators, this is currently under review. Should the regulators
decide to lower the risk premium, it is likely that we will see market practitioners
following suit and the Australian risk premium more closely aligned to premia
used in the US and UK.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 18
Figure 15: H
ave you recently revised your equity market risk premium assumption to “Over 68 percent of
reflect the volatility in capital markets?
participants have not
recently revised their
equity market risk premium
32% assumption to reflect
volatility.”
22
1
68%
Yes
No
Figure 16: W
hat is your rationale for selecting the market risk premium?
80%
70% 71%
60%
% of participants
50%
1
40% 21
30%
20%
19%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Historic equity Expected Combination Other
bond spread premium
Of the 31 percent of participants who have adjusted for volatility, most use a
combination of the historic equity bond spread and expected EMRP to justify their
assumptions.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
19 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 10:
Analysing the small
stock premium
21
48%
52%
Yes
No
Figure 18: In relation to the small stock premium, which factor is adjusted?
100
94%
80
% of participants
16 60
40
20
6% 0%
0
Beta Equity market Overall expected
risk premium rate of return on
equity capital
Beta
Equity market risk premium
Overall expected rate of return
on equity capital
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 20
Figure 19: W
hat is the benchmark small stock premium applied, given the size of the
company or entity?
6%
5%
Up to
5%
Premium range
4% 1
6
3%
Up to
3%
2%
Up to
2%
1%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
MVE MVE ($m) MVE ($m) MVE ($m) MVE ($m) MVE ($m)
($m)<=250 251-500 501-1000 1001-2000 2001-4000 4001+
There’s a very clear inverse relationship between the size of the company and the
size of the small stock premium, with the largest premium applied to the smaller
companies.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
21 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 11:
Adjusting for
unique risks
Adding alpha
Most participants tend to add a premium to reflect unique risks not modelled in
forecast cash flows.
%
1
67% 24% 10%
21
sometimes add a always add a
never add a premium
premium premium
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 22
Section 12:
Bringing transparency
to discounts and premia
Figure 20: W
hat factor is adjusted for the discount/premia?
60%
55.00% 50%
50%
45%
% of participants
41%
40%
32%
30%
25%
24%
20%
20% 18% 18%
10% 9% 9%
10%
0% 0% 0%
0%
Discount rate Market Enterprise Multiple Other
value of value
Equity
20
1
Minority discount
22
1
Control premium
Marketability discount
17
1
Overall, most adjustments appear to be made to the market value of equity. However,
the highest adjustment is made to the multiple in a control premium scenario.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
23 Valuation Practices Survey
Figure 21: D
o you apply a minority discount when valuing a minority stake using the
following approaches?
19
1
Asset-based
methodology 58% 42%
% of participants
Yes No
Figure 22: W
hat benchmark minority discount is applied given the size of the stake
being valued?
60%
50%
50%
Discount range
1
40%
9 Median
30% 20% 30%
20% Median
10% 10%
10% Median
0%
0%
1% - 24% 25% - 49% 50% joint venture
Size of stake
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 24
Figure 23: If the entity is not listed, do you apply a marketability discount when using
the following approaches?
19
1
% of participants
Yes No
Figure 24: W
hat benchmark discount is applied given the size of the stake being
valued (unlisted companies)?
45%
40%
Discount range
30%
Median 30% 1
20% 8
Median
15% 20%
15%
10%
Median
5% Median 5%
2.50% Median
0%
0%
1% - 24% 25% – 49% 50% 51% – 74% 75% – 100%
Size of stake
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
25 Valuation Practices Survey
income approach.” Likewise, with unlisted companies the marketability discount decreases as the size of
the stake increases. However, discounts are less prevalent on these kinds of valuations
across all approaches.
As you would expect, the reverse principle prevails with the control premium (see
section below): the premium increases as the size of the stake increases. Participants
are far clearer about applying a premium when a controlling stake is involved, with
85 percent of those using the market approach opting to do so.
Figure 25: D
o you apply a control premium when valuing a controlling stake using any of
the following approaches?
20
Asset based 30% 70%
methodology
approach
Figure 26: What benchmark control premium is applied given the size of the stake being valued?
45%
40%
Premium range
30%
30% Median
12
1
30%
Median
15% 22.50%
0%
51% - 74% 75% - 100%
Size of stake
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 26
Section 13:
All about imputation
credits
Figure 27: H
ow do you treat imputation credits in business enterprise valuations “Participants were divided
(other than infrastructure investments)?
as to whether value should
50% be ascribed to imputation
47% credits when valuing a
40% 41% non-infrastructure related
% of participants
business… In terms of
30%
infrastructure-related
investments, the approach
20%
is significantly different.”
10%
6% 6%
17
1
0%
0%
Ignore
Adjust the equity market risk premium
Separately determine the market value of the
benefit and add to estimate of value
Adjust cost of equity for gamma
Other
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
27 Valuation Practices Survey
Figure 28: How do you treat imputation credits when valuing an infrastructure
investment?
70%
60%
59%
% of participants
50%
1
17 40%
30%
20% 24%
10%
6% 6% 6%
0%
Ignore
Adjust the equity market risk premium
Include imputation credits attaching to dividends
in the cashflows at an assumed utilisation rate
Separately determine the market value of the benefit
and add to estimate of value
Other
Figure 29: W
here imputation credits are included in the cash flows, what utilisation
factor do you assume?
35%
33%
30%
25%
% of participants
15 20%
1
20%
15%
13% 13%
10%
5% 7% 7% 7%
0%
0%
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Less
than
40%
Utilisation factor
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 28
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
29 Valuation Practices Survey
Section 14:
Commodities
Figure 30: How do you deal with the gold premium in gold mine valuations?
60%
50%
50%
% of participants
40%
43%
14
1
30%
20%
10%
7%
0%
Apply a multiple A reduced Other
to the income discount rate
approach valuation,
e.g. 2 times
Discounted Cash
Flow value
Figure 31: H
ow do you determine the expected commodity prices for valuation purposes?
35%
30% 31%
% of participants
25%
24%
20%
19% 19%
18
1
15%
10%
5% 7%
0%
Spot Forward Consensus Commodity Other
price prices of forecast pricing
prices by expert
brokers/
economists
The participants are also quite divided in terms of estimating expected commodity
prices for a valuation. This is the case even within the participants’ sectors –
investment banks, infrastructure funds and professional services firms all have
different ways of estimating commodity prices.
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 30
Section 15:
Accounting, ESG and
miscellaneous factors
Accounting standards, treatment of hedge books and
ESG factors
Figure 32: T
o what extent do you consider the impact of accounting standards on
future financial statements when evaluating or advising on a deal?
80%
70% 74% 1
19
60%
% of participants
50%
40%
30%
20%
21%
10%
5%
0%
Ignore Consider Critically evaluate
50%
47%
40% 41%
% of participants
30%
17
1
20%
10% 12%
0%
Mark to Included in Other
market cash flows
at contracted
commodity
prices
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
31 Valuation Practices Survey
Figure 34: D
o you consider Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) factors when
performing valuations?
5%
32%
1
19
63%
Yes – Quantitatively
Yes – Qualitatively
No
60%
50% 53%
% of participants
1
40%
19
30%
26%
20% 21%
10%
0%
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
Valuation Practices Survey 32
Figure 36: W
hat definition of debt do you use when considering debt for purposes
of debt: equity ratio calculations of the weighted average cost of capital or
when calculating equity value?
11%
18
1
89%
Gross debt
Net debt (i.e. gross debt – surplus cash balance)
Figure 37: W
hat is the purpose of most of your valuation engagements?
35%
30%
29%
% of participants
25%
20%
19%
15% 17% 17%
10% 12%
19
1
5% 7%
0%
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG
International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
kpmg.com.au
Contact us
KPMG Corporate Finance is a division of KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd ABN 43 007 363 215, Australian Financial Services Licence
No.246901.
The information contained in this document is of a general nature. It has been prepared to provide you with information only and does not take into account
your objectives, financial situation or needs. It does not constitute, nor should it be regarded in any manner whatsoever, as advice and is not intended to
address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee
that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. It is not intended to take the place of
professional advice and you should not take action on specific issues in reliance on the information contained in this document. Before acting or relying on
any information, you should consider whether it is appropriate for your circumstances having regard to your objectives, financial situation or needs and also
whether or not any financial product is appropriate for you. To the extent permissible by law, KPMG Financial Advisory Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, KPMG
and its associated entities shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, defects or misrepresentations in the information or for any loss or damage suffered by
persons who use or rely on such information (including for reasons of negligence, negligent misstatement or otherwise).
© 2013 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International
Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
February 2013. VICN10732ADV.