agentleFS
GAJETOsoGAJETOso/financeskills/skills/company-valuation/SKILL.md

company-valuation

Skill47 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

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.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Files
SKILL.md

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.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.