| name | triangulate-a-valuation |
| description | Cross DCF, trading comparables, and precedent transactions into a valuation range where the divergence between methods is itself the finding. Reach for this whenever a price needs defending — one method is an opinion. |
Skill: Triangulate a valuation
A single-method valuation is an anchor, not an answer (§3 #4).
Step 1 — Build the standalone DCF
Project unlevered free cash flow, discount at a defensible WACC, add the terminal value. Show the sensitivity to the two assumptions that swing it most. This is the intrinsic anchor.
Step 2 — Pull trading comparables
Assemble EV/EBITDA (and EV/Revenue where growth-stage) for a defensible peer set. Cite each comp with a source + date — never quote a current multiple from memory (§3 #8).
Step 3 — Pull precedent transactions
Assemble multiples paid in comparable deals, noting they embed a control premium the trading comps don't. Cite source + date.
Step 4 — Reconcile the three
Lay the three ranges side by side. Where they diverge, the divergence is the finding — explain it (growth, margin, control premium, cycle) rather than averaging it away.
Step 5 — Net synergies and integration cost
Add only a defensible share of buyer-created synergies, then subtract integration cost and the control premium (§3 #2). The result is a range and a walk-away, not a point.
Output
A valuation range from three triangulated methods with the divergence explained, the standalone-plus-defensible-synergy logic, and a walk-away price. Every comp/multiple carries a source + date. See ../../knowledge/ma-valuation-and-deal-economics.md.
