A Technology Valuation Model To Support Technology Transfer Negotiations
A technology valuation modelto support technologytransfer negotiationsDong-Hyun Baek1, Wonsik Sul2, Kil-Pyo Hong3and Hun Kim31Department of Business Administration, Hanyang University, 1271 Sa-l dong, Sangnok-ku,Ansan, Kyeonggi-do, 426–791, Korea. estarbaek@hanyang.ac.kr2Corresponding author: Division of Business Administration, Sookmyung Women’s University,Hyochangwongil 52, Yongsan-ku, Seoul, 140-742, Korea. wssul@sookmyung.ac.kr3Division of Business and Commerce, 115 Anseo-dong, Cheonan-city, Chungcheongnam-do,330–704, Korea. kphong@bu.ac.kr, hkim@bu.ac.krThe development and commercialization of advanced technologies will depend increasingly onefficient technology transfer and technology trading systems. This requires the development oftechnology markets or exchanges and hence a reliable technology valuation methodology. Thispaper develops a methodology for an objective and impartial valuation of fully developedtechnologies.A web-based technology valuation system is developed with which interested users can makeefficient and real-time evaluations of technologies.1. IntroductionIt is an established notion that technologyinnovation plays a vital role in building national competitiveness, and every state and corporation is concentrating on fortifying theirglobal competitiveness with high technology development capability that is difficult to imitate. Inorder to facilitate the advancement and development process of high technology, a market fortechnology transfer must be promoted. In Korea,to do this, Technology Transfer Committee wasestablished in February 2000, along with KoreaTechnology Transfer Center and Certified ValueAdvisor in April and December of the same year,respectively, to provide institutional support forencouraging technology transfer.Institutional support such as technologybrokerage and exchange is necessary for activetrade and transfer of technology, but information, especially reliable information on the valueof technology is as important. The problem arisesbecause information on technology cannot beprovided like general goods, and, thus the roleof a technology valuation as a complementarymeasure becomes very important. There is aspecial need to evaluate the value of a specifictechnology from an objective perspective in orderto encourage technology transfer. As the marketprice is used for the basis on price negotiation intrading goods, an objective value of a specifictechnology must be presented in advance for thenegotiation to be carried between buyers andsellers of technology.Accordingly, much attention has been focusedon evaluating the objective value of technology inKorea. Many organizations including Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Evaluation andR&D Management 37, 2, 2007. r 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St, Malden, MA, 02148, USA123
Dong-Hyun Baek, Wonsik Sul, Kil-Pyo Hong and Hun KimPlanning, Korea Institute of Science & Technology Evaluation and Planning, and Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund have been usingvarious valuation models to perform evaluationsfor aiding decisions regarding investment andputting up technology as collateral. Yet, it isdifficult to promote technology trade and transferwith the usual valuation process that focuses onthe technology itself. Valuation models thus farhave assessed the value of technology from theperspective of the firm in possession of the technology, but such assessment is greatly influencedby the firm’s technological capability, capitalization, brand, and human resources. However,what the market needs is the worth of technologyas a product to be traded in the market, and thiscalls for an impartial and objective value that isnot influenced by the specific company that ownsit. But, as no appropriate valuation method hasbeen proposed thus far, there is a need for a newway of appraisal.The systems that encourage technology transfercan be classified into two in general: a simplesystem that just builds and offers data on theinformation about the technology to transfer andthe other one that encourages technology transferby making evaluations of technologies in variousperspectives. One of the examples of the formeris the Tech-Net run by SBA (Small BusinessAdministration) of USA and the latter is ValueBased Modeling of Defense DiversificationAgency in Britain and the TOP-Index system ofNational Technology Transfer Center in USA.This paper’s objective is the development of atechnology valuation system that will support thedevelopment of technology valuation models andthe valuation process according to those modelswith the intention of promoting technology tradeand transfer. According to Simon’s (1960) identification of different types of decision-makingproblems, assessing the value of technology canbe seen as an unstructured problem. As noregulation or procedure for technology valuationexists, the decision-maker’s judgment becomesabsolutely influential. By applying the technologyvaluation model suggested by this research, however, this unstructured problem is converted intoa semi-structured problem with some regulationand procedure. Yet, there still remains the difficulty of having to rely on the subjective judgmentof the decision maker for estimation of diverseparameters used in the evaluation. The technology valuation system developed in this researchwill not only guide the assessment process, butwill provide prompt information for each step in124R&D Management 37, 2, 2007the process, enabling an objective and reliableappraisal with the use of as much objectiveinformation as possible in the estimation ofparameters.This paper is organized as follows. Section 2introduces previous research on technology valuation. Section 3 introduces the technologyvaluation model presented by this research, whilethe explanation on the technology valuation system will be given in Section 4. Finally, Section 5follows up with the conclusion.2. Concept of technology valuation andprevious research2.1. Concept of technology, value, andtechnology valuationTechnology, which becomes the object of technology valuation, is divided into broad and narrowdefinition of technology. Narrow concept of technology refers to intellectual property includingpatent, utility model patent, and trademark inaddition to disparate technology such as knowhow, trade secret, and computer software. Broadconcept is not limited to individual technology,but covers the firm’s total technological capabilityas well. Technology is valuable as an asset and isidentified as an intangible asset. Intangible assetswith technical basis are varied in character andinclude patent rights, trade secret, knowhow,computer software, database, and operationsguide. Intellectual property alludes to those whosepossession is recognized and protected by the law,and it is comprised of trademark, copyright,computer software, patent, industrial design, andtrade secrets. Technologies that are not defined asintellectual properties are mostly those that aredifficult to recognize or difficult to assess theirvalue independent of the owner (company, individual), and it is rare for such technology tobecome the object of valuation.Economically speaking, the value refers to theopportunity cost, which becomes the standard ofthe transaction, while the market price becomes theexchange value when a perfect market is assumed.However, as the market for technology cannot becreated easily, a difficulty arises in determining theexchange value of technology through the marketmechanism efficiently. Accordingly, additional effort in estimating the fair market value, supposinga competitive market, is required.Generally, the fair market value is defined as‘the price at which willing parties, who have notr 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Model to support technology transfer negotiationsbeen coerced and possess rational information,have agreed to trade their asset’ (Seol, 2000). It isalmost impossible, however, to come across sucha perfect deal in reality, and, thus this valueassumes a transaction between virtual buyer andseller. Particularly, it presupposes an economic ormarket condition occurring at a specific point ofevaluation. Such fair market value is at timessimply called the market value, and it assumesthat the capital market is in its advanced stagewhere it remains in a nearly perfectly competitiveform. The technology valuation attempts to estimate this market value.Nonetheless, the content of technology valuation can vary in accordance with the perspectivetaken by the assessor. Seol (2000) suggested thattechnology valuation has four aspects, each witha different theoretical basis, while Lee’s (2001)research proposed various concepts and methodsof technology valuation, such as assessment ofcompany’s internal competence and technologyforecast for analysing changing trends. From theviewpoint of government policy, these varyingtechnology valuation methods exhibit a strongtendency to survey technology’s environmentaland socioeconomic impact, while assaying theside effect on the industry from the macroeconomic perspective. Also, while the manager ofgovernment research and development investment will find it necessary to set a priority onproposed technology development projects, theindividual corporation will be interested in evaluating a technology for its economic efficiency.Various outlooks regarding technology valuationis organized in Figure 1.With so many different perspectives on technology valuation, it is very challenging to presenta generally applicable technology valuationEconomic Valuemodel. The difficulty is attributed to the factthat the model, the range of its variables, andthe measurement range for each variable are allaffected by the intent of valuation. This researchlimits itself to technology valuation that is represented by the monetary, economic value of thefirm and its business units.2.2. Previous research on technologyvaluationWhen valuing technology in order to evaluate itseconomic worth from a microscopic point ofview, previous research have suggested cost approach methods, market approach methods, income approach methods, and real options asmajor valuation methods. First, the cost approach methods estimates the cost of recreatingthe future utility of the technology being valuated,and assumes this value to be the future returnsfrom the technology (Smith and Parr, 2000).Technology assessment is done by calculatingthe reproduction cost of acquiring the sametechnology or the substitute cost of acquiring asimilar asset, and then reflecting depreciation.The cost approach method is useful when assessing intangible assets such as software, but itsweakness lies in that equal amount of investmentdoes not always result in the same level oftechnology and that it does not take into accountimportant elements such as future risks andeconomic benefits that can be obtained from theassets.Secondly, a technology valuation model basedon the market approach method estimates themarket price of a similar technology that hasalready been traded on the market and applies itTechnologyValuationEconomic ImpactAnalysisCost Benefit chnology ForesightNon-Economic ValueCountry Level Macro Industry LevelFirm Level Micro Figure 1. Various outlooks regarding technology valuation.r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing LtdR&D Management 37, 2, 2007125
Dong-Hyun Baek, Wonsik Sul, Kil-Pyo Hong and Hun Kimto their assessment (Reilly and Schweihs, 1998).Generally, if there already exists a comparativemarket where assets are being actively traded, andif information on the transaction costs is readilyavailable, it can become a practical method. Inthis sense, while it is effective for assessing realestate, vehicles, general purpose computer software, liquor license, and franchises, it is noteffective for assessing the cases like most intangible assets or intellectual property, where similarinstances of transactions are infrequent or thedetails of the transactions are not revealed.Thirdly, the income approach method considers the sum of the present values of future cashflows of the technology as the value of thetechnology. This concept, disregarding the costsof technology development, determines the valueof the technology according to its feasibility ofcreating expected profits (Boer, 1999). The income approach method is currently being subdivided into different branches according to itsvarious facets surrounding the assessment ofthe future expected profit. These facets include theestimation of the income generation period, theestimation of future income, the risks of no profit,and the conversion of future earning into presentvalue. Among these, the discounted cash flowmethod is the most widely used. The discountedcash flow first subtracts expenses from the cashflow received from the usage of assets, and thenthis net cash flow is adjusted at a proper discountrate. This method, while suitable for patents,registered trademarks, copyright, and other intellectual properties that can create a futureprofit, it has the disadvantage of being unable toaccurately reflect the value of technology thatdoes not create a direct profit but, nevertheless,bring value to the company, or technologieswhere future profits are hard to estimate.The fourth method of real options incorporatesthe financial concept of options in technologyvaluation, and as options are not considered asan obligation but a right, the investors have theopportunity to correct their decision according tofuture environment (Copeland and Antikarov,2001). Using real options in investment decisionssuch as research and development projects andtechnology transfer can guarantee flexibilityagainst future uncertainty in decision making.Heo (2000) stated that real options is not simplya model that expresses the value of an optionattached to an investment alternative, but that byitself is a complete valuation model of an investment alternative. The real options model does notneed to rely on a subjective assessment of ex126R&D Management 37, 2, 2007pected returns, and while its benefit is that itrecognizes uncertainty as an opportunity, itsdownside is the difficulty of applying the modelto a real situation because of complexity ofcalculating important variables and the tacit acceptance of the rationality assumption (Hong etal., 2002).Majority of the studies done already has chosenthe most appropriate model out of the existingones based on the goals and perspective of theevaluator. However, more and more attemptshave been made to create an integrated modelthat combines individual and different modelsinto one. For example, Boer’s Technology Valuation Solutions focuses on how to integrate cashflow, decision tree, and real options approaches(Boer, 1999). As the goals, assumptions, and theapproach of different models vary greatly, thetechnology valuator up till now had always endedup choosing the model that best suits his objectiveand perspective.3. Designing technology valuation modelfor promoting technology transferThis research aims to suggest a technology valuation model that is based on the income approachmethod and the real options and can express theobjective value of a specific technology in economic terms (monetary amount). In so far as anobjective value of a technology can become thestarting point of a price negotiation between thebuyer and the seller, technology transfer will befurther promoted by having such a referenceprice.The technology valuation model outlined bythis research can be divided into three steps as canbe seen in Figure 2. The expected returns analysis(Step I) utilizes product market and cost structureanalysis according to different technology types inorder to calculate the amount of profit that can becreated during a specific period. The amount ofprofit is then converted into its present valuebased on the discounted cash flow model.Technology contribution analysis (Step II) calculates technology’s degree of contribution (technology contribution coefficient) to expectedreturns by taking into account the technology’slevel of innovation and the characteristics of theindustry it belongs. The technology contributioncoefficient is then corrected to reflect technology’sdominance, exclusivity, and limitations. The expected returns from Step I is multiplied by thetechnology contribution coefficient in Step II tor 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing LtdR&D Management 37, 2, 2007AnalyzingtechnologycharacteristicsFigure 2. Technology valuation model.technology classifications(special eprofit generationperiodThe annualoperating profitsTechnology’sdominanceCalculation ingTechnology’sDegree ofcontributionCalculatingthe presentvalue ofoperatingincomeLimitationOf II.Technology valuationfrom buyer‘s perspectiveIndustry costrisk-free interest rateprofit generation periodreturns contributedby technologycomputingthe value oftechnologyfrom the buyer'sperspectiveEstimatingthe returnscontributed bytechnologyPresent value of returnsCalculating fluctuationfluctuationCalculation oftechnology contributionAnalyzingscrap valueScrap value of technologyThe annual expected market sizeA Title scrap e amount ofoperatingincomeII. Technology contribution analysisThe annual expectedmarket size(average growth rate)The annual expectedOperating profits(average operatingprofit rate)Steps of technologicalinnovationIndustrial characteristicsprofit generation periodA title scrap periodprofit generation periodcore product (classification)Generation type of technology valueAnalyzingmarket andcost structureI. Expected returns analysisModel to support technology transfer negotiations127
Dong-Hyun Baek, Wonsik Sul, Kil-Pyo Hong and Hun KimtechnologyNew market creationtechnologyExisting penetrationtechnologyCost structureimprovement technologyProduce profits bycreating new productor servicesProduce profitsBy substitutingProduce profitsby improvingcost efficiencyThe present value of expected returnsFigure 3. Classification of technologies.produce returns contributed by technology, whichis the objective value of a particular technology.The technology valuation from the buyer’sperspective (Step III) considers additional development costs, adjustment period and costs forcommercialization, and dynamics of profit toassess the value of technology from the buyer’sposition. The decision on whether or not topurchase a particular technology depends on thecomparison of this value to the returns contributed by technology calculated in Step II. Eachstep will be explained in detail in this chapter.3.1. Analysis of expected returnsThe first step of technology valuation is calculating the present value of expected returns from thetechnology. A classification of technologies mustbe made for this purpose. Figure 3 classifiestechnology into three types, and the new marketcreation technology and existing market penetration technology are product technologies thatproduce profits by creating new markets or bysubstituting existing ones. On the other hand, coststructure improvement technology is a manufacturing technology that does not increase therevenue or the size of the market, but it improvesthe profitability by altering the cost structure.Earlier studies have focused on product technology as it was more convenient to estimate theirprofits, but manufacturing technology is also animportant object of technology valuation.Expected returns from new market creationand existing market penetration technologies iscalculated by projecting the time period duringwhich surplus profits can be gained, estimatingthe amount of profit per year, and by adding the128R&D Management 37, 2, 2007residual value of technology. In the case of coststructure improvement technology, it is possibleto figure out the market size for the existingproduct, and thus, the only process required isapproximating the rate of additional cost improvement from making use of new technology.Once the expected returns is calculated, it can bedivided by appropriate discount rate to be converted into present value. The equation below isused to estimate the present value of expectedreturns.nXCFtCF1CF2NI ¼þt ¼1ð1þrÞð1 þ rÞð1 þ rÞ2t¼1CFnþ þð1 þ rÞnwhere NI is the present value of expected returns,CFt the future cash flow and r the discount rate.3.2. Analysis of technology’s degree ofcontributionTechnology’s degree of contribution refers topercentage of profit that is purely attributable totechnology itself. As there are many sources ofprofit increasing, and since they cannot be judgedto be independent of each other, it is very difficultto extract the amount contributed by technologyalone. Accordingly, this research model first defines the range of general degree of contribution,and then calculates the appropriate degree ofcontribution coefficient for individual technology,taking into account each technology’s trait andthe industrial characteristics.As many previous studies and actual practiceconcerning technology valuation have estimatedthe proportion of contribution of technologicalr 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Model to support technology transfer negotiations33 39%25 33%19 25%Technology Stageof InnovationCore Technology56789Key Technology45678Pacing Technology34567Emerging Technology23456Base Technology12345Very lowLow97High Very HighAverageTechnology Contribution Coefficientaccording to Industry Characteristic8563412Figure 4. Matrix for technology’s degree of contribution.asset to be around 1/4 to 1/3, this research hasalso adopted a range of 25–33% as standard.Because the industry and the characteristic inherent in the technology itself can exert a greatinfluence on technology valuation (Seol, 2000;Yang, 2000), we have constructed a matrix thatcan adjust the degree of technology contributionaccording to industry and technology specifics.The matrix in Figure 4 is composed of twodimensions: (1) the importance of intangible assetor technology as a factor of competitive advantage in the industry and (2) the measure oftechnology’s rarity, development potential, andside effect in line with its stage of innovation.Using this matrix, a technology can be classifiedfrom the lowest rank (Level 1: low proportion ofintangible asset and low rarity in its stage ofinnovation) to the highest (Level 9: high proportion of intangible asset and very rare in its stage ofinnovation, while having a great side effect.After determining the range of degree of contribution in reflection of the industry and technology characteristics, the model calculates theadjustment coefficients to take into considerationtechnology’s dominance, exclusivity, and limitations. The final degree of technology contributionis calculated by reflecting the adjustment coefficient upon the coefficient for degree of technologycontribution worked out in the previous step. Thedegree of technology contribution is used to extract the portion of present value of expectedfuture profits that can be attributed to technology,r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltdand this process will allow the objective value of atechnology to be evaluated in monetary terms.Generally, many research and field works concerning technology valuation assumes the degreeof contribution of technology assets to be aboutfrom 1/4 to 1/3. This is not a logically arrivedfigure, but rather an assumption that takes intoconsideration the general practice of identifyingintangible assets into three or four types andbelieves such figure to be reasonable in light offield experience.Yet as such number is illogical, and as realitydictates that individual categories of intangibleassets are not mutually independent, technologyvaluation becomes difficult and quantifying thevaluation even more so (Yang, 2000). Accordingto a study by Lee (1999), technology’s degree ofcontribution is generally determined to be 10%,25%, and 30%, and this ratio is determined by theevaluation committee according to the technology’s field, industry, and characteristics. Moon’s(2000) research revealed that the 25% rule isgenerally applied in accordance with customarycommercial laws, and this method sets the royaltyreceived from using licensed intellectual propertyto be 25% of earnings before tax deduction.Hagelin (2004) mentioned that ‘The 25 PercentRule is often claimed to be the most widely usedlicense valuation method.’ Goldheim et al.’s (2005)study also suggested that 25% rule is the hybridand advanced method that considers additionalfactors to arrive at a more insightful valuation.R&D Management 37, 2, 2007129
Dong-Hyun Baek, Wonsik Sul, Kil-Pyo Hong and Hun Kimbeen made to traditional Black–Scholes model toturn it into a real options model. The value of calloption in the original model has been changed tothe value of technology from the buyer’s perspective, the price of the underlying asset into thepresent value of expected returns from technology, the exercise price into the amounts of investment needed to commercialize the technology, thevolatility of the underlying asset into the volatilityof expected returns, and the time to maturity intothe time period during which commercializationcan be attempted without losing rights to thetechnology.Black-Scholes option model has been applied indiverse formats in the real option model as it is seenin the studies done by McGrath and MacMillan(2000), Remer et al. (2001). When applying the realoptions on research and development (R&D) orproject investment, S usually refers to ‘presentvalue of the expected cash inflows from project,’while X indicates ‘present value of the expendituresneeded to accomplish project’ (Remer et al., 2001,p. 99). When applying our model in this perspective, X means ‘the additional investment to commercialization’ and S refers to ‘the present value ofexpected returns from technology’ as the purchaserneeds to make investment to commercialize thetechnology later.Thus, the most practical method of estimatingthe weight of factors that influence technology’sdegree of contribution would be to rely on qualitative evaluation of professionals who wouldtake into account the characteristic of individualtechnology and the industry. Yet it is recommended that the Analytic Hierarchy Process beused to increase the degree of confidence byextracting the relative weight of factors influencing technological contribution from many professional groups.3.3. Technology valuation from thebuyer’s perspectiveThe objective value of individual technology canbecome an important reference for technologytransfer. However, from the buyer’s perspective,the information on the amount of expected earnings in the future may be more important. Individual technology’s future profitability can varyaccording to who owns the technology, and itsignifies that the value of technology can changein tune with the owner’s capital strength, technology, and human resources. As expected gainsfrom technology can fluctuate depending on thebuyer, a technology valuation model that canreflect the uncertain future must be introduced.Thus, the real options model has been added tothis purpose.Various real option models exist by applyingthe concept of options traded in the financialmarket to technology valuation, but this researchhas utilized an altered Black–Scholes option pricing model. Figure 5 depicts changes that haveV N (d1 )S N (d4. Technology valuation systemIn order for individuals to be able to reviewquickly and accurately the value of a particulartechnology by using the technology valuationmodels explained in Chapter III, a technology2) Xe rTd 1 [ln( S / X ) ( r 0 . 5 σd2 d1 σ2)T ] / σTTV the value of technology from buyer ’s positionS the present value of expected returns from technologyX the additional investment to commercializationr the risk-free rateT the time periiod for commercialization without losing rights to the technologyσ the volatility of expected returns from technologyN(d) the cumulative normal probability of unit normal variable dFigure 5. Real options model for technology valuation.130R&D Management 37, 2, 2007r 2007 The AuthorsJournal compilation r 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Model to support technology transfer negotiationsvaluation system that guides them throughthe process, supplies the necessary data, andcalculates the value of the technology accordingto the value assessment formula within the assessment model needs to be developed. To achievethis goal, through this research, a web-basedtechnology valuation system was created thatcan be used by technology suppliers, technologybuyers, those wanting technology development,and those able to develop new technologies.Under this system, the user will able to assesstechnologies constantly, rapidly, and efficiently,and therefore this system will contribute to theacceleration of technology transfer, proliferation,and commercialization.This system will be available for use on thewebpage of Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information (KISTI) at ‘http://www.itechvalue.org’ by accessing it using your webbrowser. On the upper section of the webpage,there is a ‘Technology Valuation’ menu, and itis divided into general and professional use. Youcan access the general use section if you completeuser registration, and you have to register as aprofessional in order to use the professionalsection.Once you sign in, the technology valuationstarts with ‘User Information Entry’ and ‘Technology Outline Input.’ At ‘User InformationEntry,’ there is room to fill in various informationsuch as the name of the user, his/her affiliatedorganization, co
global competitiveness with high technology de-velopment capability that is difficult to imitate. In order to facilitate the advancement and develop-ment process of high technology, a market for technology transfer must be promoted. In Korea, to do this, Technology Transfer Committee was established in February 2000, along with Korea
Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) are computer-based systems which encompass all data concerning real estate in a particular area and are capable of producing more consistent valuation reports within a short time. Traditional valuation methods employed by valuers somewhat delay the valuation process. For
We will teach 4 valuation methods Trading Comparables Transaction Comparables Sum-of-the-Parts Valuation Discounted Cash Flow Analysis (DCF) 2. Why is Valuation important? . The SCIENCE is performing the valuation, the ART is interpreting the results in order to arrive at the "right"price. TECHNOLOGY can help you do this more efficiently.
Valuation and Assumptions: Based on due diligence and valuation estimates, Company X believes that Company Y's fair share value lies in the EUR 2.70-EUR 3.31 bracket. We have valued the company using the Blended valuation method, with equal weightage to Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method and EV/EBITDA based valuation. DCF model
The McKinsey DCF valuation model opens at the Valuation Summary sheet, one of the two output sheets. Before using the model, check that the Analysis ToolPak “Add-In” is active (see Tools, Add-Ins menu). Apart from the Valuation Summary sheet, the model follows a standard convention for the use of columns: A Row titles B Range names (if used)
Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons is the oldest independent publishing company in the . valuation and financial instrument analysis, as well as much more. . Introduction to Valuation 1 A Philosophical Basis for Valuation 1 Generalities about Valuation 2
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. C1.jpg. EQUITY ASSET VALUATION. . 1 Introduction to Free Cash Flows 108 2 FCFF and FCFE Valuation Approaches 109 . 11 Valuation Indicators and Investment Management 231 12 Summary 233 Problems 236. CHAPTER 5 Residual Income Valuation 243. Learning Outcomes 243
Wiley & Sons, 2003. Print. Fishman, Jay E., Shannon P. Pratt, and James R. Hitchner, PPC’s Guide to Business Valuations. Business Valuation Review. American Society of Appraisers. Business Valuation Update. Business Valuation Resources. A .pdf copy of the ASA’s Business Valuation Standards can be downloaded from the following
valuation services and terms for the 409a valuation report. Once this is signed and the invoice for the valuation services is settled, we can start running the report. Get your 409A valuation. Running the Report: 10-20 days After the data is provided an
