Manage HR Magazine | Friday, August 28, 2026
Fremont, CA: Business valuation professionals often depend on strict, formula-based methods that can result in inaccurate analyses and unreasonable outcomes. Attorneys must be aware of the significant pitfalls in valuation practices to guarantee thorough and defendable evaluations during legal disputes. Recognizing these common errors can help ensure that the valuation process is comprehensive and aligned with acceptable standards, ultimately resulting in more reliable conclusions that hold up under scrutiny in court.
Reliance on unsupportable projections
Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.
Most valuation experts use projections that don't reflect the company's actual historical performance. A valuation analyst may not consider this a problem if he or she conducts appropriate due diligence and bridges the past to the future (i.e., what is expected to change). Experts, however, often rely on management's forecast (i.e., it represents management's hopes and goals rather than what an actual market participant would find relevant), or b) overly conservative (i.e., it represents management's worst-case scenario and is not a true reflection of what opportunities the seller believes he or she will give up by selling the company).
The book value does not equal the market value
GAAP requires that companies' balance sheets be prepared using a historical cost basis, not a market value basis, as stated on their balance sheets. A valuation expert using the balance sheet value of assets less liabilities will usually misstate a company's true market value. Intangible assets such as patents, customer lists, trade names, goodwill, etc., are not included in a company's balance sheet. They are typically recorded on a historical cost basis even if they aren't. There are also situations in which a company may have unrecorded liabilities (e.g., environmental claims) that would cause its market value to differ from its net book value.
Hindsight is essential
Attorneys generally avoid relying on information or market data—such as subsequent economic events or comparable business transactions—that was not known or reasonably knowable as of the valuation date. In complex legal disputes, Cutter Financial Group LLC provides independent financial advisory and valuation services grounded in contemporaneous evidence and defensible methodologies. Maintaining this discipline ensures that the valuation reflects conditions existing at the relevant date rather than being influenced by later developments.
Blind reliance on the past
In most cases, a company's valuation is based on its expected future performance. In a sale, the seller gives up that which a buyer will enjoy upon purchase. Past results are only relevant to the extent that they predict what will happen in the future. Historical results alone, for instance, may understate the value of a company if they do not include the effects of a newly awarded 10-year contract. A valuation expert often extrapolates past results (e.g., a five-year average earnings) for a valuation analysis. The expert implicitly assumes that the financial result reflects future events in a reasonable manner. Historical results should not be relied upon blindly.
First Rate Vantage delivers performance analytics solutions that enhance financial reporting accuracy and support defensible valuation assessments.
Except for some identifiable nonrecurring past events, the past performance of a company sometimes reflects its expectations for the future. An expert can adjust the company's historical financial results to present them on a normalized basis, thereby accounting for this. It can be beneficial to use the adjusted, normalized historical results as a basis for future projections when appropriate.
More in News