Reconciling Going-Concern Business Valuation Indications Derived from Multiple Business Valuation Methods

R. Salter
{"title":"Reconciling Going-Concern Business Valuation Indications Derived from Multiple Business Valuation Methods","authors":"R. Salter","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3583995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this dissertation is to examine practice mechanisms historically used to reconcile material differences in going-concern business valuation indications derived from multiple business valuation methods as applied within and between separate economic income streams and value hierarchy levels. <br><br>The contributions of this dissertation are multiple as they relate to the valuation literature that offers vague and conflicting guidance on the use of the prevailing informed judgement and averaging practice-mechanisms to reconcile valuation differences. <br><br>From the examination, a rigorous new form of Alternative Practice Mechanism (APM) comprised of procedural, theoretic, and mathematical elements that organize, and augment prevailing going-concern business valuation theories and methods was constructed. This mechanism proposes an in-sync common-factor analysis methodology for going-concern business value indications derived from multiple methods, and augmented valuation theory to address value hierarchy-level issues. The quantitative, deductive research design employed a survey of 315 professional business valuators to assess the key factors comprising the APM. This was facilitated in conjunction with a qualitative, inductive research design that enabled development of Excel model and model illustrations that elaborated on, enhanced, clarified, and corroborated the quantitative survey findings. <br><br>The findings confirmed that adopting part, or all, of the APM and its underlying procedural and theoretical augmentations raise significant research and practical implications that may enhance the research, teaching, and application of business valuation theory within academic and professional communities. <br><br>The study suffers from its singular focus on going-concerns and ignores businesses that are not, the cross-sectional nature of the research design, and the lack of existing research on the marketability of going-concerns. Overall, the findings of this study may prospectively enhance efficiency in global transactional markets and legal and teaching processes.","PeriodicalId":208149,"journal":{"name":"Finance Educator: Courses","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Finance Educator: Courses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3583995","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to examine practice mechanisms historically used to reconcile material differences in going-concern business valuation indications derived from multiple business valuation methods as applied within and between separate economic income streams and value hierarchy levels.

The contributions of this dissertation are multiple as they relate to the valuation literature that offers vague and conflicting guidance on the use of the prevailing informed judgement and averaging practice-mechanisms to reconcile valuation differences.

From the examination, a rigorous new form of Alternative Practice Mechanism (APM) comprised of procedural, theoretic, and mathematical elements that organize, and augment prevailing going-concern business valuation theories and methods was constructed. This mechanism proposes an in-sync common-factor analysis methodology for going-concern business value indications derived from multiple methods, and augmented valuation theory to address value hierarchy-level issues. The quantitative, deductive research design employed a survey of 315 professional business valuators to assess the key factors comprising the APM. This was facilitated in conjunction with a qualitative, inductive research design that enabled development of Excel model and model illustrations that elaborated on, enhanced, clarified, and corroborated the quantitative survey findings.

The findings confirmed that adopting part, or all, of the APM and its underlying procedural and theoretical augmentations raise significant research and practical implications that may enhance the research, teaching, and application of business valuation theory within academic and professional communities.

The study suffers from its singular focus on going-concerns and ignores businesses that are not, the cross-sectional nature of the research design, and the lack of existing research on the marketability of going-concerns. Overall, the findings of this study may prospectively enhance efficiency in global transactional markets and legal and teaching processes.
调和多种企业估值方法衍生的持续经营企业估值指标
本文的目的是研究历史上用于调和持续经营企业估值指标的重大差异的实践机制,这些指标来自于不同经济收入流和价值层次水平内部和之间应用的多种商业估值方法。本论文的贡献是多方面的,因为它们与估值文献有关,这些文献提供了关于使用普遍的知情判断和平均实践机制来调和估值差异的模糊和相互矛盾的指导。在此基础上,本文构建了一种严谨的新形式的替代实践机制(APM),该机制由程序、理论和数学元素组成,组织和扩展了主流的持续经营企业估值理论和方法。该机制提出了一种同步的共因子分析方法,用于从多种方法中获得的持续经营企业价值指标,并提出了增强估值理论来解决价值层次问题。定量的、演绎的研究设计采用了对315名专业商业评估人员的调查,以评估构成APM的关键因素。这与定性、归纳研究设计相结合,促进了Excel模型和模型插图的开发,这些模型和插图详细阐述、增强、澄清并证实了定量调查结果。研究结果证实,采用APM的部分或全部及其程序和理论的基础扩充,可以提高重要的研究和实践意义,从而可以加强学术和专业团体对企业估值理论的研究、教学和应用。这项研究的缺点在于它只关注持续经营的企业,而忽视了非持续经营的企业,研究设计的横断面性质,以及缺乏对持续经营的可市场化性的现有研究。总体而言,本研究的结果可能会提高全球交易市场以及法律和教学过程的效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信