Our methodology

Three methods. One defensible answer.

Every ValuCap valuation is built on three approaches set out in IVS 105, applied through DCF, Comparable Companies and Precedent Transactions, and reconciled in a football-field range.

01The IVSC standard

IVS 105: the three valuation approaches

The IVSC sets out the three approaches every credible business valuation must consider: the market approach (CCA, PTA), the income approach (DCF) and the asset approach (book or fair-value of net assets). IVS 105 requires the valuer to consider all three and disclose why any are excluded.

Our Comprehensive tier applies all three (DCF + CCA + PTA) and references the asset approach as a floor. Unlike property surveying (RICS), the UK has no chartered credential specific to company valuation; the recognised standard is IVSC-alignment plus a named, qualified signatory (ACCA, ICAEW, CFA or equivalent). Every ValuCap report is signed by the Valuation Consultant (ACCA, FMVA, MBA) for exactly this reason.

02HMRC alignment

Aligned with HMRC SVM and ICAEW TECH 03/19

For UK tax use cases, our calculation methodology aligns with the practice that HMRC’s Shares & Assets Valuation team reads:

EMI s.431 elections: AMV and UMV calculated consistently with SVM practice notes
CGT and IHT: market-value basis under TCGA 1992 and IHTA 1984
ICAEW TECH 03/19: cited where it shapes a methodological choice
Scope caveat
Our reports cover calculation methodology and underlying assumptions only. They are not tax advice. For tax planning, filings, or correspondence with HMRC, engage a qualified tax adviser alongside the valuation.
03Three-method approach

DCF, CCA and PTA: applied in parallel

DCF
Discounted Cash Flow
Forward-looking value from cash-flow projections, discounted at WACC. Three scenarios: Downside, Base, Upside.
Trade-offs
Company-specific: reflects the actual operating plan and capital structure
Sensitive to assumptions: small WACC changes move the answer meaningfully
CCA
Comparable Company Analysis
Market-based valuation using EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA and P/E multiples from a curated set of UK-listed peers.
Trade-offs
Market-grounded: reflects what investors are paying today
Requires a good peer set: niche businesses need explicit rationale
PTA
Precedent Transactions
Historical M&A deal multiples for businesses comparable in sector, scale and growth profile. Captures the control premium listed-company multiples miss.
Trade-offs
Includes control premium: what acquirers have actually paid
Deal data lags: public disclosures cover a fraction of UK private M&A
04Football-field

Three ranges, one credible value zone

Each method produces a range, not a point. The football-field chart stacks those ranges so the overlap, where every method agrees, becomes visible. We weight the methods, conclude a single equity value inside that overlap, and disclose the weighting in the report.

Illustrative football-field · not a live valuation
£13.5m
£8.5m
£12.0m
£9.5m
£14.5m
£10.5m
DCFDiscounted cash flow
CCAComparable companies
PTAPrecedent transactions
Range produced by each method
Concluded equity value £12.0m

Discounted cash flow indicates £8.5m to £13.5m. Comparable companies indicates £9.5m to £12.0m. Precedent transactions indicates £10.5m to £14.5m. The concluded equity value is £12.0m.

05Our IP repository

A curated UK peer and precedent transactions database

ValuCap maintains an internal database of UK-listed peer comparables and M&A precedent transactions, organised by sector and refreshed quarterly. Every engagement captures an audit snapshot of the specific peers and precedents used: retained alongside the report so the data set can be reproduced exactly, years later.

UK-listed peer comparables
Refreshed quarterly. Organised by sector and business model. EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA and P/E on a normalised basis.
Precedent M&A transactions
Added as deals close and disclosure becomes available. Audit snapshot retained per engagement for long-term defensibility.
Common questions

Questions founders frequently ask

Why not just use DCF?
DCF is forward-looking and company-specific, which is its strength and its weakness. It is exquisitely sensitive to assumptions about growth, margin, terminal value, and WACC. Cross-checking against market-based methods (CCA and PTA) is what makes the concluded range defensible, and is also what IVS 105 expects.
What if there are no comparable companies?
We say so in the report and weight the methods accordingly. For early-stage companies and niche businesses the peer set is often thin: in those cases the DCF carries more weight and the CCA is presented as a corroborating range rather than a primary number. The football-field discloses the weighting transparently.
How are control premiums applied?
CCA multiples reflect minority-stake market prices. For valuations of whole-company interests we apply an explicit control premium drawn from PTA evidence: typically 20-30% depending on the sector and deal vintage. Where the engagement is for a minority stake (EMI, for example), no control premium is applied and the report says so.
How current is your peer and precedent data?
Our UK-listed peer comparables database is refreshed quarterly. Precedent transactions are added as deals close and disclosure becomes available. Every engagement captures an audit snapshot of which entries were used on the valuation date, so the report can be re-defended years later against the data that existed at that point in time.
Why are EBITDA multiples sometimes wrong?
Because reported EBITDA isn't a clean number for many companies. SaaS firms capitalise R&D, marketplaces net rather than gross revenue, and one-off costs distort the trailing twelve months. We disclose adjustments in a normalisation tab so the multiple applied to your business and the multiples drawn from peers are computed on the same basis.
Can the report be used for HMRC purposes?
The Comprehensive tier's methodology is built to be HMRC-readable: Shares & Assets Valuation practice notes, ICAEW TECH 03/19, the market-value basis under the relevant tax statute. The report covers calculation methodology and underlying assumptions. For the tax filings themselves: EMI s.431, CGT returns, IHT accounts: engage a qualified tax adviser alongside.
What if HMRC challenges the valuation?
Two safeguards. First, the methodology disclosure makes the calculation reconstructible cell-by-cell from the inputs; there are no hidden adjustments. Second, the audit snapshot of peer comparables and precedent transactions used on the valuation date is retained, so even years later the data set the report was built on can be reproduced exactly.
Do you defend the report if it’s questioned?
Yes: Comprehensive tier engagements include a documented defensibility position. Where a challenge proceeds to a more formal forum, additional engagement is scoped and quoted separately under the CFO & Advisory service. We do not provide tax advice or legal representation in our own right.

Ready to commission
a valuation?

Three tiers from £899. Signed by your named consultant. Delivered in 5 working days from receipt of your information: 10 for Comprehensive.