See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254201346

The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held

Companies

Article · June 2011

DOI: 10.5791/0882-2875-30.2.70

CITATIONS READS

5 336

2 authors:

Juana Alonso Canadas Alfonso A. Rojo Ramírez

12 PUBLICATIONS 17 CITATIONS Universidad de Almería.
101 PUBLICATIONS 129 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Minimum rate of return in context View project

Heterogeneity in family firms View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alfonso A. Rojo Ramírez on 25 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Business Valuation Review
Volume 30 N Number 2
’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers

The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Juana Alonso Cañadas, PhD, and Alfonso A. Rojo Ramirez, PhD

; To value privately held companies, considered as nonquoted companies and thus

with low marketability, two methods can be applied to adjust the business value for
extra risk: (1) reducing the calculated value by the transaction costs or (2) raising the
minimum expected rate of return by investor. The Spanish Accounting and Business
Administration Association suggests use of the second method. This article examines
its proposal in an empirical way, concluding that the discount rate estimated is 2.45%
higher than that calculated by the traditional CAPM model, which implies a drop in
company value of nearly 20%. In other words, the AECA’s proposal can be considered
a valid method for appraisers to calculate the discount rate in the context of valuing
privately held companies.

Introduction
One of the main problems in business valuation when
we apply the Discounted Cash Flow Model (DCFM) is
how to include risk from the uncertainty associated with
future cash flows (CFs). It could be done, either in the CF
or in the discount rate (ke). When it is included in the CF,
we are dealing with the certainty equivalent method (Cea
1979) or approach of the expected CF. However, if risk is
included in the discount rate, then it is assumed that only
one rate exists that must be accepted by investors or
shareholders, representing the risk assumed by the
company (Cea 1979). This method is known as ‘‘discount
rate method with risk’’ or ‘‘traditional approach.’’
Although the use of the first method is suggested by
the IASB 36 (2004) and AECA (1981), nearly all of the
research works and professional developments have been
focused on the latter.
According to this process, the minimum return required
by an owner or investor when investing resources on a
publicly traded firm is the sum of two elements: a risk-
free rate (i) plus a risk premium (P):
ke ~izP, ð1Þ
Juana Alonso Cañadas holds a PhD in Financial
Economics and Accounting from the Universidad de
Almeria. She is a Lecturer in Financial Economics and
Accounting at the University of Almeria.
Alfonso A. Rojo Ramirez holds a PhD in Economic
Sciences and Business from the Universidad Autón-
oma de Madrid. He is a Professor in Financial
Economics and Accounting at the University of
Almeria.
where the risk-free rate (i) is the payback from the
investor when he or she invests in treasury debt issued by
solvent countries, and the risk premium (P) is the
difference between the average return on capital markets
and the risk-free rate and represents the extra return
required for investing in risky equity rather than investing
in risk-free assets. Generally, higher risk commands a
higher premium, and therefore the required return has to
be higher.
As risk is a relative concept (Holton 2004) associated
with each investor as a function of the uncertainty of the
expected CF (Mascareñas 2004), each one has a different
discount rate, although, statistically, the existence of a
single accepted rate. <
Research on the discount rate has been focused on
publicly traded companies, with a wide theoretical
framework around them, which considers that the
investor can diversify their investment and he or she
make it liquid through the market. The investors want to
achieve a minimum return acting as a Purely Financial
Investor (PFI), without risk in a particular company (one
share) and with the maximum liquidity through the
market. Thus, a rational PFI diversifies his or her
investment, looking for a portfolio that includes all
securities in proportion to their market participation.
However, a ‘‘completely diversified’’ portfolio will not
eliminate risk entirely. The risk that cannot be eliminated
by portfolio diversification is called ‘‘undiversifiable
risk’’ or ‘‘systematic risk,’’ since it is the risk that is
associated with the market.
So risk premium could be broken down into two risk
factors: a market factor that cannot be eliminated (market
risk premium, PM) and another specific factor of the

Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011 Page 0

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:22:49 1 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

Business Valuation Review
company that can be eliminated by means of diversifi-
cation (specific risk premium, Pe):
P~PM zPe : ð2Þ
According to Bruner et al. (1998), Welch (2000), and
Graham and Harvey (2001), the most commonly used
method in practice to estimate the risk for an investor is the
CAPM (Sharpe 1964), where the expected return of a PFI
(ke) is the sum of the risk-free rate (i) and the risk premium
(P). P depends on the total market risk and the volatility of
an asset, but not on the specific risks, because these can be
eliminated throughout the investor’s diversification:
k ~Rf zbi :ðRM {Rf Þ:
e ð3Þ
The expression RM 5 Rf is the market risk premium
(PM) or systematic risk, and b can be described as a
measure of responsiveness of the returns on a company’s
shares compared to the returns on the market as a whole;
that is, the risk that a specific investment adds to a
diversified portfolio. PM is calculated by using the
historical prices of shares of quoted companies and b
by the following expression:
Cov(i,R M )
b~ : ð4Þ
Var(R M )
This model has been tested empirically concluding the
existence of a positive linear relationship between an
asset’s return and beta (Fama and MacBeth 1973).
Nonetheless, it has been criticized recently, for two
reasons in particular: first, the difficulty in obtaining the
single risk of a share and, second, the fact that the model
is based on past data to estimate the future capital cost
(Fernández and Carabias 2007; Gebhart, Lee, and
Swaminathan 1999). Consequently, alternative models
have arisen such as the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT)
(Ross 1976), the multifactorial models (Chen, Roll, and
Ross 1986; Nieto and Rubio 2002), ‘‘proxy’’ models
(Fama and French 1992), extended models of CAPM
(Godfrey and Espinosa 1996; Solnik 1974), models based
on accounting data (Beaver, Kettler, and Scholes 1970;
Gebhart, Lee, and Swaminathan 1999; Miralles and
Miralles 2002; Moya 1996; O’Hanlon and Steele 2000;
Rosenberg and Guy 1976), or models based on
professional opinions (Farrelly, Ferris, and Reichenstein
1985; Welch 2000).
Certainly, the CAPM model works for PFI who have
the opportunity to diversify their investments through a
liquid market, although neither markets are completely
liquid, nor have investors always had the opportunity to
diversify their investments, particularly if we are talking
about privately held companies (PHCs) whose owners
often focus on their business ‘‘putting all its eggs in the
Page 0
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:22:59
same nest’’ (Damodaran 2002). In other words, if the
market had perfect liquidity and all investors diversify
their investments, companies would not focus on a
specific activity, because as financial theory shows, they
would act in an inefficient way.
Because of this nonfinancial behavior of some
investors and company owners (economics risk investors
[ERIs]), they fall into a high-risk position and must be
rewarded with an extra return, as they are assuming a role
that a PFI does not. In particular, this is true in the case of
PHC, for which there is no market that gives them
‘‘good’’ liquidity (Damodaran 2002).
As a consequence, the CAPM model, even being used
in practice, cannot be appropriate for ERI, as it is
necessary to find a new approach to estimate the discount
rate that allows us to include the lack of liquidity and the
risk derived from nondiversification in order to make a
correct valuation in the case of PHC or, in general, in
valuing nontraded companies.
The aim of this paper is to examine whether the
Spanish AECA’s proposal allows us to solve the discount
rate calculation problem for PHC, including a premium
due to illiquidity as well as nondiversification. This paper
is organized as follows: the next section reviews previous
literature; the third section lays out the AECA model
framework; the following section explains the goal and
shows the data, and the last section summarizes the main
conclusions.
Literature Review
Researchers have studied the illiquidity or the lack of
marketability1 from two different fields, which we discuss
separately.
Illiquidity and microstructure of
financial markets
On the one hand, from the point of view of the market
and the CAPM model, investments can be commercialized
in a continuous way and to an unlimited amount, although
it recognizes that investors face liquidity constraints in
virtually all financial markets (Longstaff 2001). Previous
studies show that the illiquidity problem makes investors
demand an extra return, which depending on the portfolio
can be approximately 7% to 18%, which is included to
compensate for the extra risk-premium (Lonsgstaff 2001).
Some researchers try to prove the existence of a FX
relation between the market liquidity, measured on the
1
For purposes of this article, we will use the terms illiquidity and lack of
marketability as synonyms, although some authors make a distinction. For
example, Pratt (2001, 00) says ‘‘illiquidity and lack of marketability are
related but distinct. As with all valuation adjustments, it is important to
=
identify the base of comparison to which the adjustment relates.’’
’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers
2 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies
basis of different variables (e.g., the bid-ask spread, the
transaction costs, and the trading activity) and the
expected return from the investment. The existence of a
positive relation between them has been empirically
demonstrated, explaining that the investor expecting a
higher return on his or her investment when facing
liquidity constraints (Amihud 2002; Amihud and Men-
delson 1986; Brennan and Subrahmanyam 1996; Datar,
Naik, and Radclife 1998; Eleswarapu and Reinganum
1993; Martı́nez et al. 2005; Miralles and Miralles 2006;
Pastor and Stambaug 2003; Rubio and Tapia 1998).
Other authors investigate the seasonal behavior of the
return-illiquidity relation empirically, concluding a strong
seasonal component. This means that the relation between
both is reliably positive only during the month of January
(Eleswarapu and Reinganum 1993; Keim 1983; Reinga-
num 1983; Roll 1983; Rozeff and Kinney 1976); in the
same way, studies deal with the causes of illiquidity
(Amihud and Mendelson 1986; Bagehot 1971; Copeland
and Galai 1983; Demsetz 1968; Easley et al. 1996) or the
common determinants of illiquidity (Chordia, Roll, and
Subrahmanyan 2000; Hasbrouck and Seppi 2001; Huber-
man and Halka 1999).
Illiquidity and business valuation
When we are dealing with company valuation (for a
PFI or for an ERI), illiquidity is faced adjusting the value
by a discount for lack of marketability (DLOM) (Sheeler
2004), considering that it implies incapacity to change an
asset into cash quickly and at a low cost (Bajaj et al.
2001; Pratt, Reilly, and Schweihs 2000). Assuming the
existence and the importance of DLOM, as the literature
recognizes, different models are at hand to estimate it, as
we summarize in Figure 1.
A. Empirical models
The most common method to incorporate the DLOM in
business valuation consists of applying estimated dis-
counts drawn from prior studies or what is known as
‘‘benchmarking.’’ Conventionally, there are three differ-
ent ways to calculate this: (1) one group of studies
compares the prices of two claims on the same underlying
asset, where one is marketable and the other is not (RSE
approach); (2) another group of studies compares share
prices of firms before and after an initial public offer (IPO
approach); and (3) a third group compares acquisition
prices of PHC with those of comparable public
companies, or the valuation multiplier (VM) approach.
Tables 2, 3, and 4 show a summary of the studies
> under each approach and the estimated average DLOM.
According to empirical research, we can conclude that
(1) the RSE approach shows a high variability range
Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:22:59
Figure 1
Models to Estimate DLOM according to
Empirical Models
Source: Authors
(Sheeler 2004) with an average between 35% and 45%,
although there is a tendency for it to be reduced over time
(Damodaran 2005); (2) the IPO approach finds discounts
of almost 45% (Emory 1981), as well as ranges that vary
between 32% and 55% (Damodaran 2005), depending on
the selected time period; (3) finally, the VM approach
finds differences that reach nearly 20% (Koeplin, Sarin,
and Shapiro 2000).
B. Other approaches
Although previous literature does not recognize any
particular typology to classify these studies, we believe that
it would be interesting to open a new group in order to
incorporate a set of studies that cannot be included under
either empirical models or theoretical basis. They calculate
the DLOM based on numerous factors that could explain it,
such as the number of potential buyers, preferences of
investors, the price range or spread, the present value of
future income that can be received from the sale of assets,
or even the price of restricted marketable assets (Damo-
daran 2002; Lerch 2008; Sansing 1999; Stockdale 2006).
C. Theoretical models
To our knowledge, the literature (Lance 2007; Reilly
and Rotkowski 2007; Tabak 2002) recognizes two types
of theoretical models: those based on financial options
and others on the fundamentals of DCF. Both try to
develop methods for estimating the illiquidity discount
objectively and that may be of general application in any
valuation process.
Some authors (Chaffe 1993; Finnerty 2002; Longstaff
1995; Seaman 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009; Trout 2003) estimate
the discount based on the fundamentals of Option Pricing
Theory under the hypothesis that the acquisition cost of
financial options is related to it. In general, these alternatives
to estimate DLOM have two problems: (1) assigning an
asset’s volatility of a nonquoted company and (2) the
Page 0
3 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
Business Valuation Review

Table 1
Studies about Illiquidity in Financial Markets

Goal Results Studies

Analyzing Return-Illiquidity Relation Positive relation; so, higher illiquidity, Amihud 2002
higher returns. Amihud and Mendelson 1986
Brennan and Subrahmanyan 1996
Datar, Naik, and Radcliffe 1998
Martı́nez et al. 2005
Miralles and Miralles 2006
Pastor and Stambaugh 2003
The Seasonal Behavior of the The relation between illiquidity and Eleswarapu and Reinganum 1993
Return-Illiquidity Relation return is reliably positive only Keim 1983
during the month of January. Reinganum 1983
Roll 1983
Rozeff and Kinney 1976
Causes of Illiquidity Adverse selection costs Amihud and Mendelson 1986
Transaction costs Bagehot 1971
Copeland and Galai 1983
Demsetz 1968
Easly et al. 1996
Common Determinants of Liquidity Inventory risks Chordia, Roll, and Subrahmanyan 2000
Asymmetric information Hasbrouck and Seppi 2001
Huberman and Halka 1999

Source: Authors.
Note: This table shows a classification of relevant studies about market illiquidity according to the main goal of the various works. Four
groups exist: the first analyzes the relation between two variables: return and illiquidity; the second, the seasonal behavior of that
relation; the third, possible causes of illiquidity; and the fourth, the common determinants of liquidity.

holding period. Previous studies indicate that the values of
DLOM range between 20% and 50% (Hood, Mylan, and
O’Sullivan 1997; Kania 2001) in spite of the findings of
Kania (2000), who points out that neither appraisers nor
researchers have made any definitive conclusions.
On the other hand, three authors have chosen the
theoretical foundations underlying in the DCF model in
order to include the illiquidity discount. First, Tabak
(2002) suggests a model based on the CAPM and the
equity risk premium. Second, Mercer (2003) designs the
Quantitative Marketability Discount Model (QMDM) to
employ the basic discounted cash flow model to value
illiquid interests of PHC in the context of appraisals of the
relevant business companies. Finally, we can find the
proposal of AECA (2005) that suggests an alternative
discount rate instead of CAPM to value PHC by DCF,
which is explained and tested in the following sections.
AECA’s Discount Rate
AECA2 (2005) issued a standard about PHC valuation
that suggests a discount rate (ke) for owner-investors that
could be extended to nonpublicly traded companies. This
standard proposes a discount rate that should be used in
2
The Spanish Accounting and Business Administration Association is a
privately independent standard setter in accounting, finance, and manage-
ment (http://aeca.es/queesaecaingles.htm).
business valuation by DCFM that includes, inter alia,
nondiversifiable risk and the effect of lack of liquidity.
The discount rate is based on aggregation of the risk-
free rate (i) plus two premiums: one for market risk (PM)
and the other to reflect a specific business risk (Pe):
ke min ~izPM zPe : ð5Þ
The idea underlying expression 5 is that an ERI who
invests his or her resources in a PHC requires a higher
risk than a PFI who operates in the financial market,
according to the degree of diversification and liquidity.
Therefore, an ERI will demand at least a minimum return
such as the PFI plus a premium Pe (AECA 2005, 38)
whose estimation, under AECA proposal, requires that it
starts from the premise that economic and financial risk of
the company is reflected in its profitability (Penman
2007, 693). Taking this hypothesis as a starting point, Pe
could be calculated by the following expression:
si
Pe ~u:PM ~ (RM {i), ð6Þ
sM
where
u is the coefficient of variability of returns or total beta (bT)
si is the standard deviation of financial profitability of the
company after interest and taxes
sM is the standard deviation of market return.

Page 0 ’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:00 4 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Table 2 Table 4
Summary of RSE Studies Summary of VM Studies ?
Years Average Empirical Study Years Covered Average DLOM (%)
Empirical Study Covered Transactions DLOM (%)
Koeplin, Sarin, and
SEC* 1966–1969 398 25.8 Shapiro 2000 1984–1998 22.28–53.85
SEC{ 1966–1969 338 32.6 Block 2007 1984–2006 16.25–27.10
Gelman 1972 1968–1970 89 33.0
Trout 2003 1968–1972 60 33.5 Source: Authors.
Moroney 1973 1969–1972 146 35.6 Note: The third group of studies attempts to estimate the
Maher 1976 1969–1973 — 35.4 DLOM comparing acquisition prices for public and private
SRC 1978–1982 28 45.0{ companies; that is, for each private company is identified the
WMA 1981–1984 33 31.2{ acquisition of a public one in the same country are identified.
Silber 1991 1981–1988 69 33.8 We show the main authors who have used that approach. The
FMV Opinions 1979–1992 100 23.0 table is composed of the period covered and the range of
FMV Opinions 1980–1997 243 22.1 variation for the DLOM.
Management
Planning 1980–1996 53 27.1
Wruck 1989 1979–1985 — 17.5 Thus, expression 7 would be an alternative discount
Hertzel and rate valid for including, inter alia, the effect of illiquidity
Smith 1993 1980–1987 106 13.5
Johnson 1999 1991–1995 72 200 and nondiversification on the business value:
Bajaj et al. 2001 1990–1995 88 22.2 ke ~izPM zPe ~iz(RM {i)zu:(RM {i)
Columbia Financial ð7Þ
Advisors 1996–1997 23 21.0 ~iz(RM {i):(1zu):
LiquiStat 2005–2006 61 32.8
The theoretical approach of this discount rate is
Source: Authors, based on Pratt, Reilly and Schweihs (2000). consistent with the foundations of the CAPM and the
Note: One body of empirical evidence has analyzed the DLOM existence of nondiversification and an illiquidity pre-
under the RSE approach. We present a list of the studies
mium. As Rojo, Cruz, and Alonso (2011) have
indicating for each one: the period covered, the number of
transactions tested, and the estimated DLOM expressed in demonstrated, the ERI could be considered as he or she
percent. The lower DLOM is calculated by Johnson (1999), and has a mixed portfolio composed of a benchmark market
the highest is estimated by SRC, but we can observe an average index whose profitability is RM and a risky asset that
of nearly 30%. yields Re financed by debt at risk-free interest rate Rf.
* Including reporting OTC companies.
{ Including no reporting OTC companies.
Therefore, the total return (ke) obtained by an ERI is the
{ Median discounts. sum of the returns of two investments: an index market
portfolio and the risk portfolio minus the cost of its debt
portfolio:
se
ke ~RM zRe {Rf ~RM z(RM {Rf ) : ð8Þ
sM
Table 3 As RM 5 Rf + PM, equation 8 can be rewritten as follows:
Summary of IPO Studies si
ke ~Rf zPM zPM , ð9Þ
sM
Years Average
Empirical Study Covered DLOM (%) where the specific premium (Pe) is the term PM?(si/sM).
Emory 1980–2000 45.0 This article considers that the AECA proposal
Valuation Advisors 1999–2001 40.0 contributes to avoiding subjective posterior discounts,
Willamette Management associated in most cases with the process of negotiation.
Associates 1975–1995 51.6 This is also a direct way of valuing the company that is
Source: Authors. not quoted, taking into account its particular risk.
Note: Some authors and institutions estimate the DLOM under Note that this discount rate requires empirical support
the IPO approach, quantifying the discount by comparing post- to justify its use in practice. Rojo and Alonso (2006) have
IPO share prices with transaction prices in the same shares explored how the company value changes in replacing the
before the IPO. This table shows a selection of these, indicating
which study; the period covered and the estimated DLOM are discount rate of the CAPM with the AECA in the DFC
expressed in percent. This study has been developed for several model. Using a sample of ninety-four Spanish public
periods, the percent shown in the table being an average of all. companies they conclude that the business value

Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011 Page 0

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:00 5 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

Business Valuation Review
decreases around 20%. However, since the AECA’s
discount rate is designed for PHC, it is necessary to test it
in this kind of company.
Testing AECA’s Discount Rate in PHC
Objective and data
The aim of this section is to apply the AECA’s
discount rate to a dataset of PHC to analyze whether the
company drop in value is in accordance with the DLOM
applied in business valuation. Particularly, we expect a
lower value ranging from 20% to 60% as shown in the
previous literature. DLOM is defined as follows:
VECAPM {VEAECA
DLOM~ , ð8Þ
VECAPM
where
VECAPM is the business value from applying the CAPM
discount rate
VEAECA is the business value from applying the AECA
discount rate.
Additionally, we check if the estimated DLOM varies
depending on the liquidity level. It is reasonable to think
that the highest discount should be in companies that, at
least apparently, are less liquid, e.g., companies that are
not listed on a stock exchange or PHC that do not take
part in the financial markets. So less liquid investments
are riskiest, and, therefore, investors will demand higher
returns. If the discount rate is calculated using a model
that incorporates a specific premium for the additional
risk, the resulting value of the company will be lower
than if the premium is not included in it.
Regarding the data, we select two types of companies
for the period 2000 to 2007: first, businesses sorted as
PHC (sample A, with 286 subjects) were obtained from
the SABI database; second, companies listed on the
Spanish index financial market (sample B, with ninety-six
subjects) were obtained from the website of the Spanish
Securities Market Commission (CNMV).3 To analyze the
behavior of DLOM by liquidity level, the companies of
sample B were classified into two categories: liquid firms,
if they are listed in the most liquid Spanish stock
exchange (IBEX35), and illiquid firms, if they are not.
Data processing
The procedure to estimate the business value for PHC
is different from that of a public company given the
information available for each individual entity.
3
The CNMV is the agency in charge of supervising and inspecting the
Spanish stock markets and the activities of all the participants in those
markets.
Page 0
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:01
To calculate the value in sample A, the DCFM method
has been applied as in expression 9 (see appendix 1):
Xn
FLTPj VEn
VE0 ~ j
z n, ð9Þ
j~1 (1zke )
(1zk e)
where
VE0 is the business value for owners
FLTP is the shareholder’s free cash flow for period j (1, 2,
…, n)
VEn is the terminal shareholder value at the end of the
forecast period under the perpetuity model without
growth rate4
ke is the discount rate.
In the case of sample B we have to apply the Gordon
model, which considers that the only CFs demanded by
investors are dividends (DIVs) that grow at a stable rate
(g), under the assumption that g is less than ke. As this
condition is not satisfied in our data sample, finally we
use expression 11. Note that to calculate the discount rate,
we apply both CAPM and AECA models, following the
same procedure explained above (see appendix 2), with
the only difference being that information is available
about market beta for listed companies:
DIV
VEo ~ , ð10Þ
ke {g
DIV
VEo ~ : ð11Þ
ke
After estimating the company value and the DLOM, as
defined by expression 8, we analyzed the results based on
descriptive and inferential statistics. Table 5 summarizes
the main statistics for both samples. It shows that, in
samples A and B, the discount rate is higher if we use the
AECA model rather than the CAPM, and, consequently,
we observe a decrease in the value of the company of
49.26% for PHC and 27.63% for public companies.
Although it is clear that VEAECA should be less than
VECAPM, due to the discount rate, we must be sure that
these results are not random. Therefore, data have been
analyzed using nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank
test) to conclude that the differences between both values
are statistically significant, as we summarize in Table 6.
Regarding our additional objective, Table 7 shows the
main results for each group of companies in which
sample B is classified by level of liquidity. It can be
concluded that the DLOM for liquid companies (25.08%)
is less than for illiquid companies (32.13%), as we
expected.
4
As is suggested by Copeland, Koller, and Murrin (2000).
’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers
6 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Table 5
Statistical Results

Sample Variable Mean Median Variance Standard Deviation

Panel A .keAECA 0.1406 0.1056 0.1031 0.0106
.keCAPM 0.1060 0.0709 0.1031 0.0106
.VEAECA 1,484,817.10 497,440.70 2.53E+06 6.40E+12
.VECAPM 2,821,487.62 817,359.68 5.11E+06 2.61E+13
.DIF Value (J) 1,508,328.75 452,479.92 2.51E+06 6.28E+12
.DLOM 0.4926 0.4400 0.5397 0.2913
Panel B .keAECA 0.0955 0.0911 0.0152 0.0002
.keCAPM 0.0658 0.0648 0.0078 0.0001
.VEAECA 5.8506E+08 9.4859E+07 1.2880E+09 1.6588E+18
.VECAPM 7.6876E+08 1.4324E+08 1.5675E+09 2.4571E+18
.DIF Value (J)) 1.8370E+08 4.4513E+07 3.3114E+08 1.0965E+17
.DLOM 0.2763 0.2950 0.1105 0.0122

Source: Authors.
Note: Summary statistics to show the values of the discount rates calculated by AECA and CAPM model (keAECA and keCAPM) and
company value derived from applying the rates in expression 9 (VEAECA and VECAPM). Also shown is the difference between both,
expressed in euros and in percent. For each variable, the mean, median, variance, and standard deviation are shown.

A comparison is then made of the DLOM obtained estimate ke is the CAPM. However, when we value PHC,
with samples A and B, considering that companies from we need an alternative method since there is a specific
panel A are companies less liquid than those from panel risk associated with venture capitalists (ERI) that is not
B, given that PHC are less liquid investments than the considered by CAPM. Therefore, an alternative method
public companies, which have the financial market to to estimate the discount rate for valuing PHC that
provide liquidity. Under this assumption, the DLOM includes the lack of marketability in particular is required.
observed in sample A should be higher than the one in This research tests whether the proposal of AECA
sample B. provides an efficient model for valuators when faced with
After overcoming the constraints for estimating the estimating the discount rate to use for company valuation
company value in both samples using different valuation when applying the DCFM.
methods, the results obtained show that the DLOM in Our results, after applying the AECA model in two
sample A is nearly 21% higher than that of sample B. different sets of companies, permit us to conclude that as
This means the DLOM is greater for PHC, inter alia, ke by CAPM is lower than ke by AECA, the company
because they do not have a financial market that provides value drops when we use the latter. The main component
liquidity. of the reduction is the DLOM, which varies between 20%
and 50% depending on the sample and the level of
Conclusion
liquidity. This decrease in value is a direct consequence
One of the most debated questions in company of an increase of the discount rate that includes a specific
valuation is that of the discount rate in the DCF model. risk premium that primarily provides for an investment’s
When we value public companies, although there are lack of marketability. For this reason it can confidently be
different opinions about this, in general, the model to stated that the decline in value can be assimilated with the
DLOM.
Table 6
Summary of Statistical Significance
Table 7
Sample Variables Significance Summary of Main Results by Liquidity Level
Panel A .keCAPM {keAECA .Yes
Variable Sample B Mean Median
.VECAPM 2 VEAECA .Yes
Panel B .keCAPM {keAECA .Yes DLOM .Illiquid Company 0.3213 0.3212
.VECAPM 2 VEAECA .Yes .Liquid Company 0.2508 0.2057

Source: Authors. Source: Authors.

Note: The main results of applying nonparametric tests to Note: Main results for the analysis of DLOM by liquidity level
check the statistical significance between distribution variables. based on panel B.

Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011 Page 0

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:01 7 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

 Business Valuation Review
In conclusion, we suggest that the AECA’s discount
rate is an efficient model for valuing PHC when
practitioners need to take into account specific factors
of risk. In particular, it offers a tool for avoiding possible
inconveniences derived from estimation of DLOM by
benchmark.
References
AECA. 1981. ‘‘Proposal Methodology’’ (Propuesta de
una metodologı́a). Document no. 1 about business
valuation by AECA, March.
AECA. 2005. ‘‘Privately Held Companies Valuation’’
(Valoración de pymes). Document no. 7 about business
valuation by AECA, June.
Amihud, Yakov. 2002. ‘‘Illiquidity and Stock Returns:
Cross-Section And Time-Series Effects.’’ Journal of
Financial Markets 5:223–249.
Amihud, Yakov, and Haim Mendelson. 1986. ‘‘Asset
Pricing and the Bid-Ask Spread.’’ Journal of Financial
Economics 17:223–249.
Bagehot, Walter. 1971. ‘‘The Only Game in Town.’’
Financial Analysts Journal 27:12–14.
Bajaj, Mukesh, David J. Denis, Stephen F. Ferris, and
Atulya Sarin. 2001. ‘‘Fair Firm Value and Marketabil-
ity Discounts.’’ Journal of Corporation Law 27:
89–115.
Banz, Rolf W. 1981. ‘‘The Relationship between Return
and Market Value of Common Stock.’’ Journal of
@ Financial Economics 9:3–18.
Beaver, William, Paul Kettler, and Myron Scholes. 1970.
‘‘The Association between Market Determined and
Accounting Determined Risk Measures.’’ Accounting
Review 45:654–682.
Block, Stanley. 2007. ‘‘The Liquidity Discount in
Valuing Privately Owned Companies.’’ Journal of
Applied Finance 17:33–40.
Brennan, Michael J., and Avadnihar Subrahmanyan.
1996. ‘‘Market Microstructure and Asset Pricing: On
the Compensation for Illiquidity in Stock Returns.’’
Journal of Financial Economics 41:441–464.
Brier, Kenneth P., and Joseph B. Darby. 1995. ‘‘Family
Limited Partnerships: Decanting Family Investment
A Assets into New Bottles.’’ Tax Lawyers 49:127–164.
Bruner, Robert F., Kenneth M. Eades, Robert S. Harris,
and Robert C. Higgins. 1998. ‘‘Best Practices in
Estimating the Cost of Capital: Survey and Synthesis.’’
Financial Practice and Education (Spring/Sum-
mer):13–16.
Cea, Jose Luis. 1979. Modelos de comportamiento de la
gran empresa. Madrid, Spain: Instituto de Planifica-
ción Contable, Ministerio de Hacienda.
Page 0
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:02
Chaffee, David B. H., III. 1993. ‘‘Option Pricing as a
Proxy for Discount for Lack of Marketability in Private
Company Valuations.’’ Business Valuation Review
(December):182–188. B
Chen, Nai-Fu, Richard Roll, and Stephen Ross. 1986.
‘‘Economic Forces and the Stock Market.’’ Journal of
Business 59:383–404.
Chordia, Tarun, Richard Roll, and Avanidhar Subrah-
manyan. 2000. ‘‘Commonality in Liquidity.’’ Journal
of Financial Economics 56:3–28.
Copeland, Thomas E., and Dan Galai. 1983. ‘‘Informa-
tion Effects on the Bid-Ask Spread.’’ Journal of
Finance 38:1457–1469.
Copeland, Tom, Tim Koller, and Jack Murrin. 2000.
Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of
Companies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Damodaran, Aswath. 2002. Investment Valuation. 2nd ed.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Damodaran, Aswath. 2005. ‘‘Marketability and Value:
Measuring the Illiquidity Discounts.’’ Working Paper.
New York University.
Datar, Vinay T., Narayan Y. Naik, and Robbert Radcliffe.
1998. ‘‘Liquidity and Stock Returns: An Alternative
Test.’’ Journal of Financial Markets 1:203–219.
Demsetz, Harold. 1968. ‘‘The Cost of Transacting.’’
Quarterly Journal of Economics 82:33–53.
Easley, David, and Maureen O’Hara. 2004. ‘‘Information
and the Cost of Capital.’’ Journal of Finance
59:1553–1583. C
Easley, David, Nicholas M. Kiefer, Maureen O’Hara, and
Joseph B. Pperman. 1996. ‘‘Liquidity Information and FO
Less-Frequently Traded Stocks.’’ Journal of Finance
51:1405–1436.
Eleswarapu, Venkat R., and Marc R. Reinganum. 1993. ‘‘The
Seasonal Behaviour of the Liquidity Premium in Asset
Pricing.’’ Journal of Financial Economics 34:373–386.
Emory, John D. 1981. ‘‘A Professional Appraiser’s
Approach to Fair Market Valuation of Closely-Held
Securities.’’ Estate Planning 8:228–232.
Fama, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. French. 1992. ‘‘The
Cross-Section of Expected Return.’’ Journal of Fi-
nance 47:427–466.
Fama, Eugene F., and James D. MacBeth. 1973. ‘‘Risk
Return and Equilibrium: An Empirical Test.’’ Journal
of Political Economy 38:607–636.
Farrelly, Gail E., Kenneth R. Ferris, and William M.
Reichenstein. 1985. ‘‘Perceived Risk, Market Risk, and
Accounting Determined Risk Measures.’’ Accounting
Review 60:654–682.
Fernández, Pablo, and Jose M. Carabias. 2007. ‘‘The
Danger of Using Calculated Betas’’ (El peligro de
’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers
8 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies
utilizar betas calculadas), March 3. At http://ssrn.com/
EX abstract5897700.
Finnerty, John D. 2003. ‘‘The Impact of Transfer
Restrictions on Stock Price.’’ ASA Working Paper.
Gebhart, William R., Charles M. C. Lee, and Bala Swamin-
athan. 1999. ‘‘Toward an Implied Cost of Capital.’’
October 27. Parker Center for Investment Research
EO Working Paper. At http://ssrn.com/abstract5254523.
Gelman, Milton. 1972. ‘‘An Economist-Financial Ana-
lyst’s Approach to Valuing Stock of a Closely Held
Company.’’ Journal of Taxation (June):353–354.
Godfrey, Stephen, and Ramón Espinosa. 1996. ‘‘A
Practical Approach to Calculating Cost of Equity for
Investment in Emerging Markets.’’ Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance 9:80–89.
Gordon, Myron J. 1962. The Investment Financing and
EP Valuation of Corporation. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin.
Graham, John R., and Campbell R. Harvey. 2001. ‘‘The
Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: Evidence
from the Yield.’’ Journal of Financial Economics
60:187–243.
Hasbrouck, Joel, and Duane J. Seppi. 2001. ‘‘Common
Factors in Prices, Order Flows, and Liquidity.’’
Journal of Financial Economics 59:383–411.
Hertzel, Michael, and Richard L. Smith. 1993. ‘‘Market
Discounts and Shareholder Gains for Placing Equity
Privately.’’ Journal of Finance 48:459–485.
Holton, Glyn A. 2004. ‘‘Defining Risk.’’ Financial
Analysts Journal 60:19–25.
Hood, Edwin T., John J. Mylan, and Timothy P.
O’Sullivan. 1997. ‘‘Valuation of Closely Held Busi-
EQ ness Interests.’’ UMKC Law Review 65:399–482.
Huberman, Gur, and Dominika Halka. 1999. ‘‘Systematic
Liquidity.’’ Journal of Financial Research. At http://
ER ssrn.com/abstract5255116.
IASB 36. 2004. ‘‘Impairment of Assets, European
Regulation.’’ Commission Rule no. 2236/2004.
Johnson, Bruce A. 1999. ‘‘Quantitative Support for
Discounts for Lack of Marketability.’’ Business
Valuation Review 16:152–155.
Kania, John J. 2000. ‘‘The Current Status of Adding a
Small Firm Risk Premium to the Valuation Discount
Rate.’’ Business Valuation Review 19:136–141.
Kania, John J. 2001. ‘‘Evolution of the Discount for Lack
of Marketability.’’ Business Valuation Review 20:7–14.
Keim, Donald B. 1983. ‘‘Size-Related Anomalies and
Stock Return Seasonality.’’ Journal of Financial
Economics 12:13–32.
Koeplin, Jonh, Atuluya Sarin, and Alan C. Shapiro. 2000.
‘‘The Private Company Discounts.’’ Journal of
Applied Corporate Finance 12:94–104.
Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:02
Lance, Travis R. 2007. ‘‘The Use of Theoretical Models
to Estimate the Discount for Lack of Marketability.’’
Willamette Management Insights, (Autumn), at http://
www.willamette.com/insights, accessed July 24, 2008.
Lerch, Mary A. 2008. ‘‘Quantification of Marketability
Discounts Using Regression.’’ Valuation Strategies
11:28–35.
Longstaff, Francis A. 1995. ‘‘How Much Can Market-
ability Affect Security Values?’’ Journal of Finance
50:1767–1774.
Longstaff, Francis A. 2001. ‘‘Optimal Portfolio Choice
and the Valuation of Illiquid Securities.’’ Review of
Financial Studies 14:407–431.
Maher, Michael J. 1976. ‘‘Discounts for Lack of
Marketability for Closely Held Business Interests.’’
Taxes 54:562–571.
Martı́nez, Miguel A., Belén Nieto, Gonzalo Rubio, and
Mikel Tapia. 2005. ‘‘Asset Pricing and Systematic
Liquidity Risk: An Empirical Investigation of the
Spanish Stock Market.’’ International Review of
Economics and Finance 14:81–103.
Mascareñas, Juan. 2004. El riesgo en la empresa. Tipologı́a,
análisis y valoración. Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.
Mercer, Christopher Z. 2003. ‘‘A Primer on the
Quantitative Marketability Discount Model.’’ CPA
Journal 73:66–68.
Miralles, José L., and Marı́a M. Miralles. 2002. ‘‘Factores
determinantes del valor bursátil de las empresas
portuguesas (1991–1999). Nuevas propuestas metodo-
lógicas.’’ Revista Española de Financiación y Con-
tabilidad 31:495–528.
Miralles, José L., and Marı́a M. Miralles. 2006. ‘‘The Role
of an Illiquidity Risk Factor in Asset Pricing: Empirical
Evidence from the Spanish Stock Market.’’ Quarterly
Review of Economics and Finance 46:254–267.
Moroney, Robert E. 1973. ‘‘Most Courts Overvalue
Closely-Held Stocks.’’ Taxes, (March):144–156.
Moya, Ismael. 1996. ‘‘Valoración analógico-bursátil de
empresas. Aplicación a las Cajas de ahorro.’’ Revista
Española de Financiación y Contabilidad 25:199–234.
Nieto, Belén, and Gonzalo Rubio. 2002. ‘‘El modelo de
valoración con cartera de mercado: una nueva
especificación del coeficiente beta.’’ Revista Española
de Financiación y Contabilidad 31:697–723.
O’Hanlon, John, and Anthony Steele. 2000. ‘‘Estimating
the equity risk premium using accounting fundamen-
tals.’’ Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting
27:1051–1084.
Pallian, Ralph. 2005. ‘‘Estimating the Cost of Capital:
Considerations for Small Business.’’ Journal of Risk
Finance 6:334–340.
Page 0
9 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
 Business Valuation Review
Pastor, Lubos, and Robert F. Stambaugh. 2003. ‘‘Liquid-
ity Risk and Expected Stock Returns.’’ Journal of
Political Economy 111:642–685.
Penman, Stephen H. 2007. Financial Statement Analysis
and Security Valuation. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Pratt, Shannon P. 2001. Business Valuation Discounts
and Premiums. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pratt, Shannon P., Robert F. Reilly, and Robert P.
Schweihs. 2000. Valuing a Business: The Analysis and
Appraisal of Closely Held Companies. 4th ed. New
York: McGraw–Hill.
Reilly, Robert F., and Aaron Rotkowski. 2007. ‘‘The
Discount for Lack of Marketability: Update on Current
Studies and Analysis of Current Controversies.’’ Tax
Lawyer 61:241–287.
Reinganum, Marc R. 1983. ‘‘The Anomalous Stock
Market Behaviour of Small Firms in January: Empir-
ical Test for Tax-Loss Selling.’’ Journal of Financial
Economics 12:89–104.
Rojo, Alfonso A. 2007. Valoración de empresas y gestión
ES basada en valor. Madrid, Spain: Paraninfo.
Rojo, Alfonso A., and Juana Alonso. 2006. ‘‘La prima de
riesgo en la valoración de Pymes.’’ In XII Encuentro de
AECA. Cordoba, Spain.
Rojo, Alfonso A., Juana Alonso, and Rute Abreu. 2008.
Socially Responsible Investment: The Discount Rate in
SMEs. Estudos e Documentos de Trabalho. Instituto
ET Politécnico da Guarda.
Rojo, Alfonso A., Salvador Cruz, and Juana Alonso.
2011. ‘‘A Note on the Operating Return of a Company
Under Modigliani-Miller Assumptions. April 21. At
EU http://ssrn.com/abstract51825821.
Roll, Richard. 1983. ‘‘Was ist das? The Turn of the Year
Effect and the Return Premia of Small Firms.’’ Journal
of Portfolio Management 11:18–28.
Rosenberg, Barr, and James Guy. 1976. ‘‘Prediction of
Beta from Investment Fundamentals.’’ Financial
Analysts Journal 32:60–72.
Ross, Stephen A. 1976. ‘‘The Arbitrage Theory of
Capital Asset Pricing.’’ Journal of Economic Theory
3:341–360.
Rozeff, Michael S., and William Kinney. 1976. ‘‘Capital
Market Seasonality. The Case of Stock Returns.’’
Journal of Portfolio Management 9:18–28.
Page 0
Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:03
Rubio, Gonzalo, and Mikel Tapia. 1998. ‘‘Liquidez y
Valoración de activos.’’ Temas de Actualidad
70:30–33.
Sansing, Richard C. 1999. ‘‘Economic Foundations of
Valuation Discounts.’’ Journal of the American
Taxation Association 21:28–38.
Seaman, Ronald M. 2005. ‘‘Minimum Marketability
Discounts 2nd Edition.’’ Business Valuation Review
24:58–65.
Seaman, Ronald M. 2006. ‘‘A Minimum Marketability
Discount.’’ Business Valuation Review 24:177–180.
Seaman, Ronald M. 2008. ‘‘Minimum Marketability
Discounts 3rd Edition.’’ Business Valuation Review
27:18–22.
Seaman, Ronald M. 2009. ‘‘Minimum Marketability
Discounts 4th Edition.’’ Working Paper. At http://
www.dlom-info.com/pdf/Full_Report_2008_Study.pdf,
accessed March 17, 2009.
Sharpe, William F. 1964. ‘‘Capital Assets Prices: A
Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of
Risk.’’ Journal of Finance 19:425–442.
Sheeler, Carl L. 2004. ‘‘Empirical Support for Illiquidity
Discount Levels: Is It Time for a New Road Map?’’
Valuation Strategies 8:26–47.
Silber, William I. 1991. ‘‘Discounts on Restricted Stock:
The Impact of Illiquidity on Stock Prices.’’ Financial
Analysts Journal 47:60–64.
Solnik, Bruno H. 1974. ‘‘An equilibrium Model of the
International Capital Market.’’ Journal of Economic
Theory 8:500–525.
Stockdale, John J. 2006. ‘‘Time Is of the Essence: A
Proposed Model for Computing the Discount for Lack
of Marketability.’’ Business Valuation Review
(Fall):108–113.
Tabak, David. 2002. ‘‘A CAPM-Based Approach to
Calculating Illiquidity Discounts.’’ NERA Economic
Consulting Working Paper.
Trout, Robert R. 2003. ‘‘Minimum Marketability Dis-
counts.’’ Business Valuation Review 22:124–127.
Welch, Ivo. 2000. ‘‘Views of Financial Economists on
the Equity Premium and on Professional Controver-
sies.’’ Journal of Business 73:501–524.
Wruck, Karen H. 1989. ‘‘Equity Ownership Concentra-
tion and Firm Value: Evidence from Private Equity
Financings.’’ Journal of Financial Economics 23:3–28.
’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers
10 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004
 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Appendix 1
Table A1
Business Value Estimation for Sample A

Variable Expressions Components Calculus and Comments EV

FLTP FLTP~FLTE+FLTD RBEdT is EBITDA after tax RBEdT is calculated as:
st
V(CC) Exp is the variation of RBEdT 5 EBITDA 2 TAX +
~RBEdT {V ðCC Þst
Exp
working capital without taking AhT(GF) 2 AhT(SC)
into account the cash where:
{IEF +FLTD IEF is the economic investment EBITDA is earnings before interest,
in fixed assets taxes, depreciation, and
FLTD is the free cash flow for amortization
debt holders TAX are taxes
GF are debt interests
SC are capital grants
AhT is the tax savings (loss)
st
V(CC) Exp is calculated as inventory
plus receivables minus payables
IEF is calculated as tangible and
intangibles assets minus grants
plus tax savings derived from
capital grants
FLTD is calculated as aggregate long-
and short-term financial debt
minus interest expenses net of tax
effect
VEn FLTPnz1 FLTPn+1 is the shareholders’ free
VEn ~ cash flows in the period j
ke (1, 2, 3, …)
ke is the discount rate
ke(CAPM) keCAPM ~izb:ðRM {i Þ I is the risk-free rate Since we are working with private
RM is the Spanish stock market companies that do not have a
return market beta, it has been replaced
b is the market beta (b < bT) by total beta, as suggested by
Damodaran (2002)
bT se se is the standard deviation of Financial profitability after interest
bT ~
sM financial profitability of the and taxes is calculated by the EW
company after interest and taxes expression RBEdIT/RP
sM is the standard deviation Note that RBEdIT is the EBITDA
of market return after interest and taxes
ke(AECA) si : I is the risk-free rate
ke ~izðRM {i Þz ðRM {i Þ RM is the Spanish stock market return
sM
si is the standard deviation of financial
profitability of the company after
interest and taxes
sM is the standard deviation of market
return

Source: Authors.

Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011 Page 0

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:03 11 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

Business Valuation Review

Appendix 2
Table A2
Business Value Estimation for Sample B

Variable Expressions Components of Expression

DIV .Mean of dividends for period 2000 to 2007
ke(CAPM) .keCAPM ~izb:(RM {i) I is the risk-free rate
RM is the Spanish stock market return
b is the market beta
ke(AECA) si : i is the risk-free rate
.ke ~iz( R M {i)z ( R M {i)
sM RM is the Spanish stock market return
si is the standard deviation of financial
profitability of the company after interest
and taxes
sM is the standard deviation of market return

Source: Authors.

Page 0 ’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:03 12 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

 The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Authors Queries
Journal: Business Valuation Review
Paper: bvrv-30-02-01
Title: The Discount Rate in Valuing Privately Held Companies

Dear Author
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen. Please attend
to these matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance

Query Query Remarks

Reference

1 Author: This article has been lightly

edited for grammar, style, and
usage. Please compare it with your
original document and make any
corrections on these pages. Please
limit your corrections to substantive
changes that affect meaning. If no
change is required in response to a
question, please write ‘‘OK as set’’
in the margin. Copy editor

2 AU: Please check if end of para-

graph beginning ‘‘As risk is a…’’ is
complete grammatically. CE

3 AU: Please give page of quotation.

CE

3 AU: Please give page of quotation.

CE

4 AU: Please mention table 1 in the

text. CE

5 AU: Check syntax of phrase after

the semicolon in the Table 4 Note, it
needs clarification and subject-verb
agreement is not correct. CE

6 AU: Reference Banz 1981 is not

cited; please cite or delete. CE

7 AU: Reference Brier and Darby

1995 not cited; please cite or
delete. CE

8 AU: Please check author names in

Chaffee 1993 reference; there ap-
pears to be a surname missing. CE

Business Valuation Review — Summer 2011 Page 0

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:03 13 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

 Business Valuation Review

9 AU: Reference Demsetz 1968 not

cited; please cite or delete. CE

10 AU: Please give date website ac-

cessed in Fernández and Carabias
2007. CE

11 AU: Please give date website ac-

cessed in Gebhart et al. 1999. CE

12 AU: Reference Gordon 1962 not

cited; please cite or delete. CE

13 AU: Please check authors’ names

in Hood et al. 1997; there appears
to be a surname missing. CE

14 AU: Please give date website ac-

cessed in Gur and Halka 1999. CE

15 AU: Reference Rojo 2007 not cited;

please cite or delete. CE

16 AU: Reference Rojo et al. 2008 not

cited; please cite or delete. CE

17 AU: Please give date website ac-

cessed in Rojo et al. 2011. CE

18 AU: Appendix Table 1 variables

were italicized for consistency,
Please verify the table and equa-
tions are correct. PR

19 AU: In Appendix Tables 1 and 2,

should ke(CAPM) and ke(AECA) have
parentheses in column 1, or should
they be removed as in column 2?
PR

20 AU: Should ‘‘Lonsgstaff 2001’’ be

‘‘Longstaff 2001’’? Please check
PR

21 AU: Is ‘‘Pperman’’ correct in Easley

1968 reference? PR

Page 0 ’ 2011, American Society of Appraisers

Business Valuation Review bvrv-30-02-01.3d 7/9/11 14:23:04 14 Cust # BVR-D-11-0004

View publication stats