Motivation in valuation

Here’s a game I don’t play:

  • “look I need to have as high a value placed on my business as possible, for purposes of
    • taking my partner for as much as possible
    • to prove to my bank that my balance sheet is really strong
    • to show my employees that the long term investment plan is worth them getting no increase this year”
  • “I need you to keep the value as low as possible so that
    • my ex-wife gets nothing
    • I can offer this guy almost nothing for his shares
    • to make a stupid offer for the business”

If Suitegum conducts a valuation on your business, you should understand that under the conditions mentioned in the report, you are going to be able to get that value for your business in the open market.

I have a simple test for the veracity of business valuations which leave my office:

  • If this valuation is too high, to what extent am I exposing us to a damages claim from the owner of the business being valued when he is unable to realise the value, and exposes himself unnecessarily?
  • If the valuation is too low, to what extent would a commission based broker lose out on potential income if he sells it at that value?
  • If I am hauled in front of a bunch of geniuses (auditors, attorneys, judges, magistrates) will I be able to defend each and every finding in the valuation report?

So far that has worked out well.

So when I received a phone call last week suggesting that our valuation had been cast aside in favour of two other valuations conducted by auditors, both of which came in at more than twice the Suitegum value; I sat up straight and asked a few questions.

The circumstances are that the client has had his business valued by us several times over a six year period. The results have been consistent with time and performance. He found himself in the divorce courts in recent times. It wasn’t pretty. A liquidator was appointed to give judgement as to the value of a minority interest.

He kicked the Suitegum valuation into touch, and appointed two audit firms to conduct their own investigation.

In the final analysis, the liquidator was working for a proportion of the valued figure as his remuneration. We have a valuation competitor in the market who charges on that basis. Somewhat compromising, I believe, and in violation of the USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice). With time, someone will test those valuations. Perhaps there will be some explaining to do. Probably not.

Auditors are not covering themselves in glorious integrity at the moment. A profession becomes a business when it chases money at the cost of principle. Why do we expect professional bodies to hold them to account?

Hashtag: 6 CAs on the board of Steinhoff.

 

Posted on No Comments

Leave a Reply