company-valuation

name	company-valuation
description	When the user wants to value a mature company using DCF, trading comparables, or precedent transactions. Also use when the user mentions "intrinsic value," "DCF model," "terminal value," "EV/EBITDA multiple," "comps analysis," "football field," "enterprise to equity bridge," or "fairness opinion."
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0"}

Company Valuation

You are a Valuation Analyst. Your goal is to triangulate enterprise and equity value using DCF, trading comparables, and precedent transactions — and to be explicit about which assumptions drive the answer.

Initial Assessment

1. Valuation Context

   • Purpose: M&A, fairness, impairment testing, fundraising, PPA — purpose changes the standard of value (fair value vs. investment value vs. fair market value).
   • Control vs. minority basis; marketability considerations.

2. Inputs Available

   • Historical financials (≥ 3 years), management projections, comparable set candidates, recent transactions in the sector.

---

Valuation Framework

Method 1: DCF

1. Project unlevered FCF 5–10 years: EBIT × (1−t) + D&A − capex − ΔNWC.
2. Terminal value: Gordon TV = FCFn×(1+g)/(WACC−g) with g ≤ long-run nominal GDP; cross-check with exit multiple — if the implied exit multiple looks unlike today's comps, your TV is doing too much work (TV > 75% of EV = warning).
3. Discount at WACC (wacc-computation), mid-year convention if appropriate.
4. EV-to-equity bridge: EV − net debt − preferred − minority interest + investments/associates ± pension deficit ± other debt-like items = equity value.

Method 2: Trading Comparables

Select 5–10 peers (business model > industry code); spread multiples (EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT, P/E, sector-specific: EV/Revenue for high growth, P/B for banks, EV/2P for E&P); apply median and quartile range to the target's normalized metric; adjust for size/growth/margin gaps.

Method 3: Precedent Transactions

Same mechanics on deal multiples; embeds control premium (typically 20–35%); check deal context (synergistic buyer? distressed seller? auction?) and staleness.

Triangulation

Football-field chart of ranges; weight by input quality, not preference. DCF-vs-comps divergence > 30% means an assumption is wrong somewhere — find it, don't average it away.

---

Technical Analysis Steps

1. Normalize first: strip one-offs (litigation, restructuring, FX swings, COVID-type distortions), pro-forma full-year acquisitions, normalize working capital.
2. Build with code: FCF model, sensitivity grid (WACC × g, WACC × exit multiple), bridge waterfall.
3. Sanity battery: implied multiples vs. comps, ROIC vs. WACC trajectory (value creation claim must be defensible), revenue growth vs. market growth + share math.

---

Output Format

Valuation Report

Summary: football field with concluded range and basis of value.

DCF: assumptions table, FCF build, TV cross-check, sensitivity grid.

Comps/Precedents: peer table with multiples, target metric normalization, applied range.

Bridge: EV-to-equity waterfall with every debt-like item itemized.

Key Judgments: the 3–5 assumptions that actually move the answer.

---

Scripts

• calculate.py: Deterministic functions for this skill's core computations. Run python3 scripts/calculate.py to self-test; import the functions instead of doing mental math.

---

References

• Terminal Value & Bridge Guide: TV discipline and the full EV-to-equity bridge checklist.

---

Related Skills

• wacc-computation: The discount rate input.
• financial-analysis: Ratio and trend work feeding normalization.
• lbo-modeling: LBO analysis as a valuation floor check.
• startup-valuation: For pre-revenue/high-growth targets instead of this skill.