In mergers and acquisitions (M&A), business valuation rarely functions as a neutral analytical instrument. In practice, valuations in M&A processes are inseparably linked to deal pressure, strategic narratives, and negotiation dynamics. Both academic literature and transaction practice show that precisely in deal-driven contexts, systematic valuation errors arise, not despite professionalization, but often because of it.
M&A valuations frequently contain fundamental conceptual flaws. These errors do not only result in incorrect pricing, but also in post-deal disappointment, goodwill impairments, and structural value leakage. This article outlines the ten most significant valuation errors that repeatedly manifest itself in M&A practice.
1. Discount rates as a negotiation instrument
In M&A processes, the discount rate is rarely determined purely on economic grounds. The WACC often functions as an implicit negotiation tool. Small adjustments justify substantial valuation shifts without being explicitly acknowledged.
Wealth & Digital Trust Services
Protect, grow, and earn – with licensed wealth and digital trust solutions.
Wealth today extends beyond savings, shares, and property. Digital assets such as cryptocurrency and tokenized investments are increasingly part of modern portfolios.
Our Wealth & Digital Trust Services unite all your assets into a single, secure, and fully licensed trust structure designed to protect, manage, and grow your capital.
Read more →
Common errors include the mechanical application of sector betas without company-specific adjustments, insufficient articulation of country, governance, or integration risks, and the implicit incorporation of transaction-specific risks both in cash flows and in the discount rate.
The result is a valuation that appears technically sound, while in reality masking a strategic positioning exercise. The appearance of objectivity conceals the extent to which value is driven by negotiation latitude.
2. Cash flow projections as deal narrative
Cash flow projections in M&A are rarely purely analytical. They are narrative-driven. Synergy stories, scale effects, and commercial cross-selling assumptions are projected forward, while realization probabilities are structurally overstated.
In practice, synergies are discounted faster than they are realized, integration costs are understated or presented as temporary, and historical volatility disappears remarkably quickly from forecast models. Especially for strategic buyers, the DCF often serves to rationalize a deal that has already been decided upon.
The valuation legitimizes the transaction, rather than critically testing it.
3. Terminal value as a source of structural overpayment
In many M&A valuations, terminal value represents the largest portion of enterprise value, yet it receives surprisingly little critical scrutiny. This is precisely where structural overpayment tends to occur.
Common errors include the use of perpetual growth rates implicitly exceeding long-term economic growth, exit multiples derived from bull-market transactions, and insufficient distinction between stand-alone and post-integration steady-state scenarios.
As a result, acquirers effectively pay for a future scenario that is economically difficult to justify, but mathematically elegant to present.
4. Conceptual inconsistencies across valuation methods
In M&A practice, DCF valuations, comparable company multiples, and precedent transaction analyses are frequently presented side by side without substantive reconciliation. Differences are explained, but rarely analyzed.
Typical inconsistencies include mixing equity and enterprise values, applying multiples that reflect fundamentally different risk profiles, and using transaction multiples without explicit adjustments for control and synergy premiums. This creates the illusion of triangulation, while fundamental conceptual tensions remain unaddressed.
5. Market context and timing blindness
M&A valuations are highly cyclical, yet this cyclicality is rarely modeled explicitly. Valuations produced in rising markets normalize elevated multiples as structural, while downside risks receive limited attention.
This helps explain why deals are often closed at peak valuations, goodwill impairments occur cyclically, and post-deal value creation systematically underperforms original business cases.
The valuation functions as a snapshot in time, but is treated as a structural truth.
6. Data quality under transaction pressure
Competitive sale processes are characterized by limited data rooms, compressed timelines, and staged information disclosure. This significantly increases the likelihood of valuation errors.
Frequent shortcomings include insufficiently normalized EBITDA, underestimated maintenance and growth capex, and contractual or legal risks that only become fully visible after closing.
As a result, the valuation becomes probabilistic in nature, while continuing to be presented as a deterministic outcome.
7. Behavioral bias within deal teams
M&A valuations are produced by people, not models. Deal teams operate under closing pressure, reputational considerations, and financial incentives.
Structural behavioral biases include confirmation bias during progressing due diligence, escalation of commitment after exclusivity, and an excessive focus on upside in strategic fit narratives.
The valuation follows deal momentum, not the other way around.
8. Due diligence as a valuation blind spot
In theory, due diligence informs valuation. In practice, both processes often run in parallel. Findings are insufficiently translated into price, structure, or deal terms.
As a result, risks migrate from economic valuation into legal mechanisms. This increases the likelihood of post-closing disputes and value erosion.
9. Underestimation of intangible and integration risks
In contemporary M&A, value creation increasingly resides in intangible domains such as talent, culture, data, and customer relationships. At the same time, integration risks in these areas are systematically underestimated.
Many valuations assume continuity where friction is more likely. Consequently, the economic value of intangible assets often proves volatile only after the transaction has closed.
10. Private targets and flawed market comparisons
For private targets, public market multiples are frequently used as reference points without adequate adjustments for liquidity, governance, and scale. This creates artificial upward pressure on valuations.
The appearance of market conformity masks the fact that the selected benchmarks reflect fundamentally different risk and return characteristics.
Conclusion
In M&A, business valuation too often serves as a legitimizing device rather than a critical decision framework. The most common errors are not technical, but conceptual and behavioral in nature. They emerge at the intersection of strategy, psychology, and transaction pressure.
For M&A professionals, the challenge does not lie in more complex models, but in greater discipline. Explicit assumptions, consistent methodology, realistic scenarios, and a willingness to let valuations contradict rather than confirm deal logic are essential.
Without that discipline, valuation in M&A remains what it too often is today: a compelling story supported by a calculation.
Reageer op dit bericht