A value range is the number every negotiation gets anchored to, and the side that can show how its number was built is usually the side that holds it. The analysis is run across three approaches, reconciled against each other with the weighting shown, and handed over as a working model you keep.
The fee is fixed against a published scope.
Valuation work is priced by the enterprise value of the business and how far the work goes. The memorandum carries the value range, the three approaches reconciled and the market context. Valuation and structure goes further and models what a particular deal is actually worth once the earnout, the seller note and any rollover are taken into account.
Someone has put a number in front of you, and you need to know whether it is defensible before you respond to it.
You need a range you can justify to a lender, a partner or an investment committee, with the comparable evidence sitting behind it.
You want to know what the business is worth today and which drivers would move that number over the next two or three years.
Each engagement builds on a defined scope, and the three columns are size bands measured by the enterprise value of the business.
You receive the value range, three approaches reconciled, the written memorandum and the working model.
From $2,200
Request this engagementWe model what each deal term is worth to you in cash, so you know what to concede and what to hold.
From $4,950
Request this engagement| Engagement | Under $2M EV | $2M to $10M EV | $10M to $50M EV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation MemorandumOne-off | $2,200 | $3,990 | $4,590 |
| Valuation and StructureOne-off | $4,950 | $7,590 | $9,999 |
Businesses beyond the published enterprise value bands are scoped individually.
Fees last reviewed 15 October 2026.
This is advisory analysis built for decision-making and negotiation.
The same analysis goes further as the engagement gets larger.
| Work | Memorandum | Structure |
|---|---|---|
| Normalized earnings base | Included | Included |
| Trading comparables with the rejected set named | Included | Included |
| Precedent transactions with adjusted multiples | Included | Included |
| Discounted cash flow with the full WACC build | Included | Included |
| Terminal value on both exit multiple and perpetuity | Included | Included |
| Reconciliation across the three approaches with the weighting shown | Included | Included |
| Sensitivity grid and football field output | Included | Included |
| Working model handed over | Included | Included |
| Written memorandum | Full | Full |
| Industry and market context | Included | Included |
| Control and marketability considered | Included | Included |
| Assumption source table | Included | Included |
| Tornado analysis and scenario cases | Included | Included |
| Deal structure economics | Not included | Included |
| Earnout, seller note and rollover modelled | Not included | Included |
| Net proceeds bridge at each structure | Not included | Included |
| Counterparty position analysis and rebuttal schedules | Not included | Included |
| Analysis refreshed as terms move, through to an agreed price | Not included | Included |
The memorandum suits an owner or a buyer who needs a defensible range with the analysis behind it, written so it can travel to a lender, a board, a partner or an investment committee. It carries the three approaches reconciled with the weighting shown, the industry and market context, the full comparable detail and the assumption sourcing, and you keep the working model.
Structure work fits the point where an offer is on the table or about to be. The question has stopped being what the business is worth and become what this particular deal is worth to you, once the earnout, the seller note and any rollover are modelled through to cash in hand. Where the other side has produced a number of their own it also builds the rebuttal schedules and supports you through the negotiation rounds.
A valuation engagement answers what the business is worth and, more usefully, why it is worth that, in a form somebody on the other side of a table can follow.
Most valuations fall apart in the same place. The comparable set is picked without saying what was excluded, the cost of capital arrives as a single number with nothing behind it, and the share of value coming from the terminal period never gets stated. Any competent buyer, lender or investment committee will go straight to those three things, so the work is built to survive that.
What comes out is a range, the three approaches reconciled with the weighting and the reasoning for it shown, and the working model itself, which you keep. That last part matters more than it sounds, because a conclusion you cannot rerun is a conclusion that expires the moment anything changes.
Each of the three approaches gets run properly and then reconciled against the other two.
We screen for comparable public companies and comparable transactions, state the criteria we screened on, and name what we rejected along with the reason, because a comparable set presented without its rejects is an assertion rather than an analysis. Multiples get adjusted for the size, growth and margin differences between those companies and this one.
We build a discounted cash flow from the projections, with the cost of capital assembled from its parts: the risk-free rate, the equity risk premium, the beta and where it came from, the size premium and the company specific risk premium, each one cited. Terminal value gets run on both an exit multiple and a perpetuity growth basis so the two can be checked against each other.
Where the business carries significant hard assets, or the earnings do not support what sits on the balance sheet, the asset base gets valued and carried into the reconciliation alongside the other two.
The three approaches rarely agree, and the reconciliation is where the work actually happens, which is why the value by method, the weighting applied and the reasoning behind those weights all appear on the page.
A valuation gets attacked in predictable places, and the engagement is built around defending those.
The analysis covers ten areas, and the depth of each one moves with the engagement you choose.
We bring owner compensation, related-party arrangements and non-recurring items onto a comparable basis, because every multiple in the analysis gets applied to this number.
We state the screening criteria, name both the companies we accepted and the ones we rejected, and show trading multiples with the mean, the median and the quartiles.
We list each transaction with its date, target, acquirer, size and structure, source every data point, and adjust the multiples for how those deals differ from this one.
We build an explicit forecast period from revenue, margin, working capital and capital expenditure.
We assemble the discount rate from its parts, so the risk-free rate, the equity risk premium, the beta, the size premium and the company specific risk premium each sit on the page with a citation.
We run the exit multiple and the perpetuity growth method side by side, cross-check them, and state what share of total value comes from the terminal period.
We show the value each method produces, the weighting applied to each one, and the reasoning behind those weights in writing.
We run a grid across the two inputs that move value most, rank every input by its effect, and model named scenario cases.
We consider discounts and premiums for control and for lack of marketability explicitly, and cite the studies they rest on.
On the valuation and structure engagement we price each deal term in cash, covering earnout thresholds and measurement periods, the present value of a seller note, rollover modelled through to the next exit, and a bridge from the headline price down to the money you actually receive.
Three things arrive at the end of the engagement, and the working files come with them as a matter of course.
You get every schedule named and built out, from the recast historicals through the comparables, the discounted cash flow, the reconciliation and the sensitivities, in a file you can rerun when something changes.
The memorandum sets out the scope and basis, the method, the inputs with their sources, the conclusion as a range, and the limitations of the analysis.
You keep the model and the supporting workings, so the analysis can be updated later by whoever needs to update it.
To start we need three to five years of financial statements with the current year to date, and any forecast that exists. We also need revenue by customer and by line, the detail behind owner compensation and related-party arrangements, the capital expenditure history and plan, and the working capital history. Send the debt schedule, the ownership or cap table detail, and any prior valuation. It helps to have your own view of who the comparable companies and transactions are. We quote the turnaround once that comes back complete.
Valuation engagements are priced by enterprise value.
Request this engagementThis is every schedule in the delivered model, listed by engagement.
Valuation engagements are advisory analysis. They are not certified appraisals, not 409A valuations, and not prepared for tax or financial reporting purposes.
Audit, review and compilation engagements. Any opinion or assurance on financial statements. 409A valuations and certified appraisals. ESOP valuations. Fair value measurement under ASC 805 and ASC 820. Fairness opinions. Tax return preparation and tax opinions. Securities placement, investor solicitation, and any transaction-contingent or success fee.
TEOL Capital is not a broker-dealer, an investment adviser, a placement agent or a finder. Engagements are preparation and support work. TEOL does not place securities, solicit investors or make investor introductions, and takes no success, contingency or placement fee.
The fees published here are indicative, set against the scope described on each page, and a final quote is confirmed in writing before any engagement letter is issued. Nothing published here is an offer, and no engagement begins until a letter is signed by both sides. Work outside the stated scope is identified and quoted before it begins. Full payment or a 50% deposit on engagements under $10,000, and 50% at start with 50% at delivery above that. Turnaround is quoted on receipt of a complete information request and is a target rather than a term of the engagement. Fees are reviewed quarterly, and an engagement letter issued at a published fee holds that fee regardless of any later review. Work is prepared for the client named in the engagement letter and for that client's own use. Anyone else who receives it does so for information and cannot rely on it. Management accounts, consolidations and financial statements we prepare are built from the records management maintains and remain management's responsibility. We do not guarantee any particular outcome, including a sale, a financing, a valuation conclusion or a price. Our liability on any engagement is limited to the fees paid for that engagement.