FAQs  Butler Pinkerton Calculator™—Total Risk Allocator
More Empirical: Less Subjective Benchmarks for Private Company Valuations
Click here to download PDF version of FAQ page.
Click here to read the product description page.
 How have Butler/Pinkerton quantified the seemingly unquantifiable when it comes to a company
specific risk premium?
 For more background on the theory, please see our articles on this topic (view articles here). However, the formula, in its most basic form
is:
 For more background on the theory, please see our articles on this topic (view articles here). However, the formula, in its most basic form
is:
 Companyspecific risk premium (CSRP) = (Total Beta – Beta)*Equity risk premium – Size premium.
 How do you derive that formula?
 Total Cost of Equity (TCOE) = Risk free rate + Total Beta*Equity risk premium. This equation was developed by Professor Damodaran at NYU. We also know that:
 TCOE = Riskfree rate + Beta*Equity risk premium + Size premium + CSRP
 Solving for the only unknown in the equations leads us to:
 CSRP = (Total Beta – Beta)*Equity risk premium – Size premium
 The BPC, which is dependent upon the CAPM, can also be traced back to the Sharpe ratio, which is a direct
measure of rewardtorisk.
Hypothetically, an investor can choose to invest in the market (S&P 500) or hold just one stock and be completely undiversified. For this investor to be ambivalent between the choice of investments, the following formula must hold where “s” stands for stock, “m” for market, SDs = standard deviation of the stock, SDm = the standard deviation of the market, and R represents the appropriate rate of return for a riskfree investment, Rf, or for the stock or the market:
(Rm – Rf)/SDm = (TCOEs – Rf)/SDs
which results in:TCOEs = Rf + (SDs/SDm)(Rm – Rf)
which should look more familiar as:TCOEs = Rf + (Total Beta)(Equity risk premium)
If one now knows TCOEs as well as Rs (from a welldiversified portfolio perspective), then the difference, TCOE – Rs, is a known quantity. Let’s call it Delta.
Therefore, Delta = Rf + (SDs/SDm)(Rm – Rf) – (Rf + Beta*(Rm – Rf))
or
Delta = (SDs/SDm)(Rm – Rf) – Beta*(Rm – Rf)
or
Delta = (Total Beta)(Rm – Rf) – Beta*(Rm – Rf)
or
Delta = (Total Beta  Beta)(Rm – Rf)This equation should look very familiar as the BPC (excluding the additional allocation of the size premium). Delta represents the CSRP or the additional return required to compensate the completely undiversified investor for the incremental risk of holding only one stock in his or her portfolio.
 The formula is not controversial. In fact, it has been used in its most basic form before for
another application. Please see “Company Stock in Pension Plans: How Costly Is
It?” written by Lisa Meulbroek, Ph.D. (Claremont McKenna College) and summarized in the Fall 2008 Edition
(Volume 27, No.3) of Business Valuation Review by John J. Stockdale, ASA, CPA/ABV in the article
titled, “A Test of DLOM Computational Models”.
As stated in the summary article, this model was developed to investigate the cost of holding a single stock in a retirement plan as opposed to a more diversified portfolio. Accordingly, the underlying theory is that the DLOM is the result of being forced to carry extra risk in a single stock over and above that in a portfolio during the period in which the security cannot be sold.
The formula for the model is as follows: DLOM = 1 – (1/(1+R)^N) where “R” is the incremental rate of return from holding a single stock instead of a portfolio.
“R” is also defined as (SDs/SDm – beta) x equity risk premium where SDs represents the standard deviation of the return of the stock and SDm represents the standard deviation of the return of the market.
“N” is the period of time the investor is forced to hold the stock before being able to diversify.
“R” should look very familiar. In fact, we have called this the modified BPC in other writings (Please see Combined CompanySpecific Risk/Size Premium Sample Template under Subscriber Services). SDs/SDm is Total Beta. Therefore, “R” = (Total Beta – beta) x equity risk premium. The BPC further breaks down total risk between CSR and size with the following formula:
CSRP = (Total Beta – Beta)*Equity risk premium – Size premium.
Interestingly, the summary article mentions some limitations to the Meulbroek Model which, obviously, can be applied to the BPC. Let’s see how the BPC handles these indirect criticisms:
 The computation of beta for an individual company using historical price and return data has certain difficulties. One problem is that beta may not be stable over time so that beta should not be determined at one particular time but should be studied over a period of time.
Answer:
Subscribers to the Calculator can rather quickly calculate a range of betas from one year to five years if they desire. Moreover, we recommend that subscribers calculate betas for all five trading days of the week over the appropriate lookback period to better estimate the stock’s “true” beta. If you subscribe to commercial sources (print) of beta and do not use different assumptions you have no idea the sensitivity of your beta determination.
 In addition, beta computations based solely on fluctuations of return may not be statistically significant. That is, a regression analysis may indicate that there is a poor correlation between the company rate of return and the rate of return of the market. This situation commonly arises when computing beta.
Answer:
We have programmed into the Calculator an indication of the quality of the regression using the tstat. We recommend that if the resulting statistical confidence is less than 80%, then it is too subjective to allocate the risk. In these instances, we merely key in on Total Beta and the TCOE.
 This model is based on the assumption that beta is a meaningful statistic.
Answer:
The TCOE side of the Calculator is based on Total Beta being a meaningful statistic. Prior to Mr. Kasper’s incorrect and misguided criticisms, no one had ever questioned the viability of Total Beta. The BPC or CSRP side of the Calculator is based on the assumption that beta is a meaningful statistic. However, we believe we have given subscribers useful tools and recommendations to make this determination on a company by company basis (tstat hurdle, the ability to analyze all five trading days of the week and the ability to look over different lookback periods).
Interestingly, all size premium studies (Morningstar/Ibbotson and Duff & Phelps) and industry risk premiums as calculated by Morningstar/Ibbotson also rely on the implicit assumption that their betas are meaningful statistics. The Calculator allows one to look behind the curtain sotospeak to make a determination on this issue as opposed to these other data sources that we as a community have collectively adopted as nonproblematic (with respect to their beta calculations). The CAPM, despite its faults, is not going away and remains today the most popular cost of capital model.
Note: This formula springs from CAPM theory. If another theory or underlying model is used, such as the Fama French Three Factor Model, then a different formula would result. Equity risk premium is also knows as market risk premium.
 What is Total Beta?
 Total Beta equals either one of the following:
 Beta/R or (Note: We remove the correlation coefficient from beta)
 The standard deviation of the stock/standard deviation of the market. (See definitions below)
 Note: Dividing Beta by R transforms systematic (market) risk into total risk, meaning that Total Beta captures 100% of a stock’s risk (if it traded in an efficient market). Beta, on the other hand, may only pick a very small percentage of a stock’s total risk.
 Total risk includes the riskfree rate, Beta*Equity risk premium, the size premium and any CSRP.
 It measures risk from a standalone perspective, rather than from a welldiversified portfolio perspective, which is the reference point for Beta. A standalone perspective is the reference point we value privatelyheld firms from most of the time. For a deviation of this assumption, please see FAQ 46i.
 Standard deviation is the appropriate measure of risk for a standalone asset, meaning if the stock is the only asset in your portfolio.
 Total Beta measures the guideline comparable’s standard deviation relative to the market’s standard deviation. It is a relative volatility measure. Ironically, many appraisers have thought that Beta was a relative volatility measure when, in fact, Total Beta captured this relationship.
 Total Beta will almost always be greater than 1.0 since the volatility of any one stock (with rare exceptions) has been greater than the volatility of a broad based index.
 Total Beta equals either one of the following:
 How do you derive the Total Beta calculation?
 Beta = Covariance (s,m)/Variance (m); where “s” stands for stock and “m” stands for market
 Beta = (Cov(s,m)/(SDs)(SDm))*SDs/SDm
 R = Cov(s,m)/(SDs)(SDm)
 Beta = R*SDs/SDm.
 Thus, Total Beta = Beta/R = SDs/SDm.
 Has the technique been peerreviewed?
 The calculation is dependent upon the CAPM, which, obviously, has been subject to significant academic
debate. The calculation is also dependent upon a relatively new metric called Total Beta.
Professor
Aswath Damodaran developed the Total Beta calculation in the late 1990s (or at least the equation: TCOE
=
riskfree rate + Total beta*ERP). We have subsequently learned that total beta was introduced in
1981.
Please see “The Beta Quotient: A New Measure of Portfolio Risk” by Robert C. Camp and
Arthur A.
Eubank, Jr. published in the Journal of Portfolio Management. (Note: Total Beta was referred to
as the Beta
Quotient in the article). Damodaran published a textbook in 2002 titled Investment
Valuation,
2nd edition, which references the Total Beta technique in Chapter 24. Numerous other finance
professors refer to Total Beta and other publications reference Total Beta.
 We have published numerous articles in business valuation journals related to this technique, including one ebook in collaboration with Morningstar. (View many of the articles here and testimonials by PhDs and other highly qualified appraisers here.)
 We have a standing invitation to the business valuation community to critique the calculation. Since 2007, we have spoken at numerous regional and/or national business valuation conferences (ASA, AICPA, NACVA, IBA) and/or national webinars as well as one international conference (CICBV). To date, we have not received any materially relevant criticism related to the calculation of Total Beta and have not heard any feedback which would render the BPC inferior to the purely subjective factor models. In fact, at each conference/webinar after initial skepticism and indepth question and answer sessions, we left with the impression that most participants thought the technique was sound and superior to the traditional factor models.
 The main criticism today is the technique is subjective. Our simple response is
relative to what – the purely subjective factor models? Remember, this technique
uses
empirical, marketdriven evidence. Our industry has been severely criticized for our use of
the
traditional factor models. “To judges, the company specific risk premium often
seems like
the device experts employ to bring their final results into line with their clients’
objectives,
when other valuation inputs fail to do the trick.” Delaware Open MRI Radiology
Associates v. Howard B. Kessler, et al. We believe the BPC effectively eliminates
this
criticism.
 To properly use the BPC, be able to defend and support your assumptions/inputs into the calculations – no different than any other technique. The BPC depends on the CAPM. If you accept the CAPM, and by extension the buildup method, then the math is irrefutable.
 While a limited number of appraisers have their concerns related to the technique (specifically related to the subjectivity of beta), other noteworthy appraisers, as well as PhDs, have expressed public praise and adoption of the technique (Please see testimonials link). For those appraisers who have concerns about the subjectivity of beta, they should also have these same concerns when applying any size premium or industry risk premium as these data points also rely upon beta and the CAPM. Moreover, total beta is generally less volatile than beta – over the same lookback period and/or over time.
 For more information on the peerreview question, please see the " Winter 2008 BVReview Rebuttal" and the “Academic Commentary on Winter 2008 BVReview Article” under the articles link, as we covered this issue in great detail there. In summary, total beta and the BPC have been peerreviewed. Appraisers can use the Calculator with confidence.
 The calculation is dependent upon the CAPM, which, obviously, has been subject to significant academic
debate. The calculation is also dependent upon a relatively new metric called Total Beta.
Professor
Aswath Damodaran developed the Total Beta calculation in the late 1990s (or at least the equation: TCOE
=
riskfree rate + Total beta*ERP). We have subsequently learned that total beta was introduced in
1981.
Please see “The Beta Quotient: A New Measure of Portfolio Risk” by Robert C. Camp and
Arthur A.
Eubank, Jr. published in the Journal of Portfolio Management. (Note: Total Beta was referred to
as the Beta
Quotient in the article). Damodaran published a textbook in 2002 titled Investment
Valuation,
2nd edition, which references the Total Beta technique in Chapter 24. Numerous other finance
professors refer to Total Beta and other publications reference Total Beta.
 Has the technique been accepted by the Courts?
 The BPC and Peter Butler (Valtrend) passed a Daubert challenge in midDecember 2010 in Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, a decision by the United States District Court (Idaho)(Civil Case No. 1:09cv00004 BLW). In response to the challenge, Peter submitted sworn testimony listing the numerous instances of very favorable and independent peer comments regarding the BPC (see the testimonial page). As Peter also mentioned, he and Keith Pinkerton have spoken on the BPC on more than twentyfive different occasions and have written numerous articles in all of the U.S. professional business valuation journals as well as in one international journal. Hence, the technique has been subject to peer review; it’s been tested and gained acceptance among the professional BV community as well as the courts. In the Alamar Ranch case, Peter also described the positive developments in Mr. Skorheim’s case (see below). Trial testimony also highlighted the numerous positive endorsements of the BPC – some from Ph.D.s and finance professors  that recognize the model’s central technique stems from modern portfolio theory and is theoretically sound.
 Bankruptcy court says BPC is ‘Daubertproof’ (BVWire Issue #1112):
In Village at Camp Bowie I, No. 1045097 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.)(August 4, 2011), the debtor planned to build a southwest Texas urban development in 2006—but by 2010, it defaulted on over $32 million in notes and filed for bankruptcy. A real estate equity group purchased the notes at an auction (and at a discount) and then objected to the debtor’s proposed reorganization plan in favor of its own ownership. To assess the debtor’s plan, the U.S. Bankruptcy court heard from several appraisal experts, including Paul French (Lain Faulkner & Co.), who estimated the required interest rate to return the present value of the equity investors’ claims.
Starting with the fiveyear Tbill rate of 1.71% as his riskfree rate, French adjusted it to account for specific risk factors associated with the debtor, the property, and the loan agreements, and then adjusted it further for each tranche (senior, junior, and equity) to reach “final” rates, as applied to two different appraisals of the property, of 6.25% and 7.75%. Without detailing the data from which French derived his numbers, “suffice it to say that his research was extensive and wellplanned,” the court noted, adding that “his opinions are defensible under the most rigorous Daubert analysis.”
To reach his opinions, French used the Butler Pinkerton Calculator—Total Risk Calculator (BPC). In addition to the court’s approving his methodology, his “BPC calculations, along with all of my work, were entered into evidence without objections,” French tells the ’Wire. After making its own adjustments for some of French’s assumptions, the court ultimately concluded that it would accept a “cramdown” rate between 6.27% and 6.59%.
 James Skorheim, JD, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFE, CVA, CrFA used the Butler Pinkerton Calculator to calculate the appropriate discount rate for loss of goodwill value in the following case: LB4 Fish, LLC v. Developers Diversified Realty Corporation, et al. While the case was favorably settled in his client’s favor in California’s Second Appellate Division, the Court did not specifically discuss the Butler Pinkerton Calculator. However, Mr. Skorheim’s lost profit analysis and valuation were sustained after substantial consideration by the Court.
We also have heard other appraisers/subscribers comment it was one of the reasons that lead to a favorable settlement for their clients. Butler and Pinkerton have used and are currently using the technique on a number of litigated matters. We look forward to showing the technique in more courtroom settings. Remember, the alternative is to use completely subjective factor models which have no empirical support.
 The BPC and Peter Butler (Valtrend) passed a Daubert challenge in midDecember 2010 in Alamar Ranch, LLC v. County of Boise, a decision by the United States District Court (Idaho)(Civil Case No. 1:09cv00004 BLW). In response to the challenge, Peter submitted sworn testimony listing the numerous instances of very favorable and independent peer comments regarding the BPC (see the testimonial page). As Peter also mentioned, he and Keith Pinkerton have spoken on the BPC on more than twentyfive different occasions and have written numerous articles in all of the U.S. professional business valuation journals as well as in one international journal. Hence, the technique has been subject to peer review; it’s been tested and gained acceptance among the professional BV community as well as the courts. In the Alamar Ranch case, Peter also described the positive developments in Mr. Skorheim’s case (see below). Trial testimony also highlighted the numerous positive endorsements of the BPC – some from Ph.D.s and finance professors  that recognize the model’s central technique stems from modern portfolio theory and is theoretically sound.
 Traditional methods that "quantify" CSRPs, if well documented and supported, have been accepted
by the Courts. Why should we use this technique now?
 When the Courts accepted these “calculations”, no empirical evidence
existed. With the introduction of this technique, this data now exists.
Wouldn’t it be well advised to use empirical data, if it exists? We believe
that if you do not use empirical data that exists, then your explanation as to why you chose to
ignore it better be compelling. We do not believe that an appraiser’s experience and
judgment alone are good enough any more. We, however, recognize that this technique might
not be appropriate for all valuations.
 When the Courts accepted these “calculations”, no empirical evidence
existed. With the introduction of this technique, this data now exists.
Wouldn’t it be well advised to use empirical data, if it exists? We believe
that if you do not use empirical data that exists, then your explanation as to why you chose to
ignore it better be compelling. We do not believe that an appraiser’s experience and
judgment alone are good enough any more. We, however, recognize that this technique might
not be appropriate for all valuations.
 How do your subscribers pass along the cost of this program to their clients?
 Some of our subscribers impose a separate resource/technology charge for every valuation
assignment. They know approximately how many appraisals they do per year and divide that
number into the annual costs of the service, thereby passing along the resource (or technology)
charges.
 Some of our subscribers impose a separate resource/technology charge for every valuation
assignment. They know approximately how many appraisals they do per year and divide that
number into the annual costs of the service, thereby passing along the resource (or technology)
charges.
 The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) has many unrealistic assumptions. How does this impact
this technique?
 Those same assumptions are used in the calculation of Total Beta. However, Total
Beta describes 100% of the guideline comparables’ total risk, whereas Beta (CAPM)
may only explain 1%, or less, of a stock’s total risk.
 Remember, the CAPM is a NobelPrize winning theory. Despite its faults, it is the most popular cost of capital model in practical use today. Other models, such as the Fama French 3factor, also have their limitations and, for whatever reason, are not as popular as the CAPM. Therefore, the Calculator will continue to use the CAPM as its underlying theory.
 While the technique violates CAPM (You can see that merely by the replacement of beta with total beta in the TCOE equation), it does not violate the financial theory behind the CAPM. The TCOE equation prices total risk (standard deviation). Often times, total risk is priced for privatelyheld companies. Why else have we added a CSRP in the first place? On the other hand, we know that total risk (standard deviation) is not priced for publiclytraded stocks since they are held in portfolios.
 Also, remember that every privatelyheld company violates CAPM. CAPM indicates that we should all hold the market portfolio. Some people (such as private business owners) choose not to hold the market portfolio and endure more risk in pursuit of a potentially higher return.
 Those same assumptions are used in the calculation of Total Beta. However, Total
Beta describes 100% of the guideline comparables’ total risk, whereas Beta (CAPM)
may only explain 1%, or less, of a stock’s total risk.
 Can you use this technique with the buildup approach?
 Even though we believe the CAPM and the buildup approach are essentially the same thing, we
believe this technique is better suited with the CAPM. In the buildup approach, one assumes the Beta
is 1.0 and then generally makes an adjustment for the industry premium.
Whereas in the CAPM approach, one calculates Betas for guideline companies, which includes the
industry premium when multiplied by the equity risk premium – a more specific calculation, in our
opinion. Thus, even prior to this technique we were partial to the CAPM.
After the introduction of this technique, we continue to recommend that you use the CAPM, instead
of the buildup approach.
 First, to calculate Total Beta and the CSRPs, you need to calculate Beta, so why not use it?
You can calculate Beta up to your exact date of value, whereas Ibbotson’s industry risk premium
may be a bit stale. Note: in a matter of seconds, this Calculator will calculate all of these
metrics.
 Second, if you use the buildup approach with this technique, you are comparing apples to
oranges. For example, if you calculate CSRPs from guideline companies, then select an industry risk
premium – an industry average of systematic risk, instead of the guideline companies’ actual
Beta, you have no idea if the systematic risk of the industry average closely matches the industry risk
of your specific guideline companies – which you used to calculate their CSRPs.
 Having noted the criticisms with the buildup method above, should you still choose to use the
buildup approach over the CAPM with this technique, as always be prepared to defend each of the
components of the cost of equity. We believe strongly that this technique in combination with the
buildup approach, is still superior to merely relying upon purely subjective factor models.
 Moreover, one always has the option of just comparing the TCOE among guideline benchmarks in
relation to their subject company. If one focuses on this level of risk, keep in mind that one must
analyze all relative risk factors, not just companyspecific risk factors.
Calculation of CSRPs is an added value of the Calculator.
 Even though we believe the CAPM and the buildup approach are essentially the same thing, we
believe this technique is better suited with the CAPM. In the buildup approach, one assumes the Beta
is 1.0 and then generally makes an adjustment for the industry premium.
Whereas in the CAPM approach, one calculates Betas for guideline companies, which includes the
industry premium when multiplied by the equity risk premium – a more specific calculation, in our
opinion. Thus, even prior to this technique we were partial to the CAPM.
After the introduction of this technique, we continue to recommend that you use the CAPM, instead
of the buildup approach.
 Beta and, therefore Total Beta, depend on various assumptions, such as the selection of the
market proxy, the frequency of measurement (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) and the duration of the
measurement period (3 years or 5 years, for example). One must also select the
appropriate equity risk premium. Does this subjectivity adversely impact this technique?
 We do not believe it does. All of these assumptions are required to calculate Beta, and we
still use the CAPM. Therefore, one should not exclude this technique either.
Remember, this technique captures 100% of a stock’s total risk, whereas Beta may only
capture a very small component of total risk. Moreover, our alternatives are to rely on
purelysubjective factor models with no empirical support.
 If you are consistent within every engagement, then this will help mitigate some of these subjective issues.
 Let’s not forget that risks change and the pricing of risks change every day. This
technique is no more subjective than the risk it attempts to measure. We believe this is one big
benefit
of the Calculator: The ability to see the trends in the pricing of risk.
 We do not believe it does. All of these assumptions are required to calculate Beta, and we
still use the CAPM. Therefore, one should not exclude this technique either.
Remember, this technique captures 100% of a stock’s total risk, whereas Beta may only
capture a very small component of total risk. Moreover, our alternatives are to rely on
purelysubjective factor models with no empirical support.
 Is this a purely robotic technique?
 Absolutely not. The appraiser is still required to use judgment and compare/contrast the indications of TCOEs and/or CSRPs from publiclytraded stock to his or her subject company.
 We recommend reviewing a guideline publiclytraded stock’s SEC filings to analyze CSR factors to compare and contrast with your subject company. If one only calculates TCOE, then all risk factors must be considered and compared to appropriately quantify total risk for your subject company.
 Absolutely not. The appraiser is still required to use judgment and compare/contrast the indications of TCOEs and/or CSRPs from publiclytraded stock to his or her subject company.
 Is this technique appropriate to consider for all valuation engagements?
 Yes, we think it is. However, if a public company is purchasing a private company,
one could make the argument that the public company may not care about the private
company’s CSR – at least according to traditional financial theory. If a
company is going public, one could also make the argument that CSR should not be priced.
However, there is recent research to indicate that CSR cannot be fully diversified away even
for publiclytraded stock.
 We have used the technique, but then excluded its findings from further consideration. For example, this technique might not be appropriate for earlystage companies, if the publiclytraded benchmarks are significantly more established and mature. If this happened to be the case, we believe one would still gain some benefit by running the calculations – by understanding the potential “floor” for their subject company’s TCOE and/or CSRP.
 Yes, we think it is. However, if a public company is purchasing a private company,
one could make the argument that the public company may not care about the private
company’s CSR – at least according to traditional financial theory. If a
company is going public, one could also make the argument that CSR should not be priced.
However, there is recent research to indicate that CSR cannot be fully diversified away even
for publiclytraded stock.
 Do you recommend using a minimum number of guidelines to help select a CSRP for a privatelyheld
company?
 It seems that the best answer is the more, the better. However, as pointed out above, even one “comparable” can give you very valuable information.
 In your practice, have you "thrownout" all of the old techniques such as the Black/Green model
or other factor models?
 No, absolutely not. These older techniques are very good in getting appraisers to consider the factors that comprise TCOE and/or CSR. However, we believe it is more appropriate to use them with this technique. We now have empirical data to better support our TCOE and/or CSRP conclusions.
 No, absolutely not. These older techniques are very good in getting appraisers to consider the factors that comprise TCOE and/or CSR. However, we believe it is more appropriate to use them with this technique. We now have empirical data to better support our TCOE and/or CSRP conclusions.
 What data do I need to enter or select to allow the Calculator to quantify TCOE and/or CSRP for each guideline comparable?
 Riskfree rate
 Equity risk premium
 Ticker symbol
 Size premium
 Length of the lookback period
 Market proxy
 What Riskfree rate should I use?
 We generally use a long term rate, such as the 20year treasury rate to be consistent with a
longterm valuation perspective. However, whatever rate you choose, be able to support it. You
can find interest rates at the Federal
Reserve Statistical Release website or by using the BVR RiskFree Rate Lookup™ tool.
 We generally use a long term rate, such as the 20year treasury rate to be consistent with a
longterm valuation perspective. However, whatever rate you choose, be able to support it. You
can find interest rates at the Federal
Reserve Statistical Release website or by using the BVR RiskFree Rate Lookup™ tool.
 What Equity risk premium should I use?
 This is up to you – whether from Ibbotson’s Stock, Bonds, Bills, & Inflation Yearbook (expost), from a supplyside perspective (expost), from a forwardlooking perspective (exante) or from a combination.
 This is up to you – whether from Ibbotson’s Stock, Bonds, Bills, & Inflation Yearbook (expost), from a supplyside perspective (expost), from a forwardlooking perspective (exante) or from a combination.
What are the minimum and maximum values I can enter for the Riskfree rate and the Equity risk premium?
 Riskfree rate: The minimum is 2% and maximum is 9%.
 Equity risk premium: The minimum is 3% and the maximum is 10%.
 Riskfree rate: The minimum is 2% and maximum is 9%.
 Is the calculation of a CSRP and TCOE dependent on the Equity risk premium?
 Yes, they are positively correlated. The higher the expected equity risk premium, the higher the TCOE and the CSRP. This is based on the assumption that company specific risk is priced the same as the market prices risk (See Sharpe ratio in FAQ 2d).
 If market participants expect the stock market to return higher rates of return, it stands to reason
that individual stocks’ required rate of return and expected volatility will
also
increase. Risk and return are linearly related.
 Yes, they are positively correlated. The higher the expected equity risk premium, the higher the TCOE and the CSRP. This is based on the assumption that company specific risk is priced the same as the market prices risk (See Sharpe ratio in FAQ 2d).
 How do I select my guideline comparable companies?
 One should use the same thought process as one uses in the guideline publiclytraded company method. First, focus on the relevant industry. Then, try to narrow it down based on all the typical metrics of observation. Keep in mind; however, this is the income approach to valuation – not the market approach. As such, we can foresee using more companies in this method than in the market approach. After all, companyspecific risk is just that – companyspecific. Any data is better than no data, and more data is better than less data. You can add up to 12 comparable companies at any one time.
 We have added a Canadian index (S&P/TSX Composite) and access to Canadian publiclytraded companies as well as a German index (CDAX). If you are valuing a privatelyheld Canadian company, then we recommend that you run the Calculator with the Canadian index and Canadian guidelines. The same goes for German companies. Similarly, if you are valuing a U.S. privatelyheld company, then we recommend only using U.S. data. Otherwise, you will be mixing rates of return from different markets and different currencies.
 If using Canadian tickers enter .TSE after the ticker; if using a German ticker, then enter .DE after the ticker.
 Where do I go to look up my guideline comparable companies’ ticker symbols?
While not an exhaustive list, the following are a few of the sources we have used:
 If you visit Yahoo! Finance, you can
select the “Symbol Lookup” option towards the top of the screen. Simply enter the
company’s name and click “Look Up.” Please note that the calculator
contains a link to Yahoo! Finance in order to look up
tickers.
 The respective company’s Form 10K.
 The Wall Street Journal.
 If you visit Yahoo! Finance, you can
select the “Symbol Lookup” option towards the top of the screen. Simply enter the
company’s name and click “Look Up.” Please note that the calculator
contains a link to Yahoo! Finance in order to look up
tickers.
 How do I determine the Size premium for each comparable company?
 There are four options: 1) One could use Morningstar/Ibbotson's size premiums; or 2) The Duff & Phelps Risk Premium Report
data, as appropriate. One would need to know the market capitalization of the comparable company
before
referencing either of one of these databases (which can be found at Yahoo! Finance). 3) While subjective, one could calculate the
guidelines’ size premium themselves. Remember, the size premium is just the actual return
minus the
expected return. The reason this is subjective is that each analyst probably will have a different
estimate of the expected return over the lookback period. Even though this approach is
subjective, it is
intuitively appealing from the standpoint that the data would all be guideline specific. When we
introduce
data from either Morningstar/Ibbotson or Duff & Phelps, the data is no longer guideline specific
(Please see
FAQ #43 below for more details). 4) This last option eliminates any criticism related to a)
introducing
nonspecific guideline information into the formula and b) the subjectivity of calculating size premiums
for each
guideline yourself. Under this approach, merely plug in 0% for the size premium. The result
would
be a combined CSRP:SP guideline specific output. (Please see FAQ #45 below for more details).
 There are four options: 1) One could use Morningstar/Ibbotson's size premiums; or 2) The Duff & Phelps Risk Premium Report
data, as appropriate. One would need to know the market capitalization of the comparable company
before
referencing either of one of these databases (which can be found at Yahoo! Finance). 3) While subjective, one could calculate the
guidelines’ size premium themselves. Remember, the size premium is just the actual return
minus the
expected return. The reason this is subjective is that each analyst probably will have a different
estimate of the expected return over the lookback period. Even though this approach is
subjective, it is
intuitively appealing from the standpoint that the data would all be guideline specific. When we
introduce
data from either Morningstar/Ibbotson or Duff & Phelps, the data is no longer guideline specific
(Please see
FAQ #43 below for more details). 4) This last option eliminates any criticism related to a)
introducing
nonspecific guideline information into the formula and b) the subjectivity of calculating size premiums
for each
guideline yourself. Under this approach, merely plug in 0% for the size premium. The result
would
be a combined CSRP:SP guideline specific output. (Please see FAQ #45 below for more details).
 How long should the lookback period be?
 In general, we use 5 years to be somewhat consistent with many commercial sources that calculate
Beta. The Calculator has a maximum of 261 data points, or observations. If the frequency is
weekly,
this correlates into 5 years worth of data. However, if the analyst is aware of changes in the
guidelines
between year 5 and year 3, for example, which potentially make the longer lookback period problematic
for
comparison purposes, then the appraiser should select only three years of data. In summary, the
choice of
the length of the lookback period is up to the appraiser. We believe this is another benefit of the
Calculator. Previously, if you relied upon a commercialized source for your Beta calculations, you
were
beholden to those assumptions whether they were appropriate for your valuation or not. We believe
this
Calculator empowers analysts to make decisions. Just be able to defend and support your
assumptions/decisions, which is no different than any other technique.
 However, often times, guideline companies will not have historical trading data covering this number of years, and you will have to make do with what is available. The Calculator will handle gaps in the data (for more information, see question 30).
 We are aware of a leading investment textbook which recommends at least 3 years worth of
weekly stock price returns to calculate Beta.
 What proxy for the market should I use?
 We often use the S&P 500 (this is the Calculator’s default) since this is a very common measure of the U.S. stock market’s performance. In theory, any proxy can be used. However, practicallyspeaking, one should use a broad market index. Other options that this Calculator allows are the NYSE Composite, the Russell 3000, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, the Toronto Stock Exchange (S&P 500/TSX) for Canadian valuations and the CDAX for German valuations.
 If you are valuing a foreign company other than a Canadian or German company, you will want to use an appropriate foreign stock market index. Currently, this is not an automatic lookup option, however, you can select the cut/paste method and paste this data in, if required.
 We often use the S&P 500 (this is the Calculator’s default) since this is a very common measure of the U.S. stock market’s performance. In theory, any proxy can be used. However, practicallyspeaking, one should use a broad market index. Other options that this Calculator allows are the NYSE Composite, the Russell 3000, the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000, the Toronto Stock Exchange (S&P 500/TSX) for Canadian valuations and the CDAX for German valuations.
 What is the source of the guideline comparables’ historical stock price
information?
 Xignite. Specifically, the Calculator obtains data
from the adjusted closing stock prices as reported by Xignite. The adjusted closing prices are
adjusted for stock splits. Alternatively, the user has the ability of manually copying
and pasting closing stock prices from Yahoo! Finance,
Google Finance, or any other source.
 Xignite. Specifically, the Calculator obtains data
from the adjusted closing stock prices as reported by Xignite. The adjusted closing prices are
adjusted for stock splits. Alternatively, the user has the ability of manually copying
and pasting closing stock prices from Yahoo! Finance,
Google Finance, or any other source.
 What is the source of the historical index information?
 Xignite. Specifically, the Calculator obtains data
from the closing index prices as reported by Xignite. Alternatively, the user has the ability
of manually copying and pasting index prices from Yahoo!
Finance, Google Finance, or any other source.
 Xignite. Specifically, the Calculator obtains data
from the closing index prices as reported by Xignite. Alternatively, the user has the ability
of manually copying and pasting index prices from Yahoo!
Finance, Google Finance, or any other source.
 What is the frequency of stock price data that you obtain?
 We use trading data in weekly steps, once again, to be somewhat consistent with some other commercial sources (Value Line, for example) that calculate Beta. While a monthly lookback is popular, there are generally 30 days in a month. Given the variability in beta, we think a weekly frequency measure is most appropriate and a better timesaver. One can compare the variability by only looking at the five trading days in the week, as opposed to 30 days in any given month.
 You, however, can cut and paste data if you desire. Remember, the lesser the
frequency, the longer your historical period should be to ensure a robust sample, all else
being equal. One makes the selection of automatic lookup with Xignite, or manual copy and
paste from another source, in Step 2 of the calculation.
 We use trading data in weekly steps, once again, to be somewhat consistent with some other commercial sources (Value Line, for example) that calculate Beta. While a monthly lookback is popular, there are generally 30 days in a month. Given the variability in beta, we think a weekly frequency measure is most appropriate and a better timesaver. One can compare the variability by only looking at the five trading days in the week, as opposed to 30 days in any given month.
 What pricing data does the Calculator obtain from Xignite?
 The Calculator pulls weekly, adjusted closing stock price data. Adjusted means
adjusted for stock splits. The Calculator reports the closing price on the
“Effective date” first, and then the closing price seven days prior, and so forth for
the number of weeks in the “Lookback period.” If there was no trading
for the stock on the day when the Calculator is searching (e.g. Christmas day), the Calculator
will pull the closing price for the prior day.
 Example: If a user selected an “Effective date” of 7/18/07, the Calculator
would report the adjusted closing stock price for 7/18/07 (a Wednesday) and would provide the
historical adjusted closing prices on a weekly basis for length of the “Lookback
period.” When the Calculator gets to 7/4/07 (a Wednesday, but a holiday, so no
trading), it will pull the adjusted closing price for 7/3/07 (a Tuesday). After
that, the Calculator will return to pulling the adjusted closing stock prices each Wednesday for
the length of the “Lookback period.”
 The Calculator pulls weekly, adjusted closing stock price data. Adjusted means
adjusted for stock splits. The Calculator reports the closing price on the
“Effective date” first, and then the closing price seven days prior, and so forth for
the number of weeks in the “Lookback period.” If there was no trading
for the stock on the day when the Calculator is searching (e.g. Christmas day), the Calculator
will pull the closing price for the prior day.
 What if there is a gap in the historical trading prices for one (or more) of my guideline
comparable companies (e.g. the stock didn’t trade for several weeks)?
 If there is a gap in the historical trading prices for one (or more) of your comparable companies, the Calculator will fill in these weeks with the last historical closing price (essentially reporting no change in price, an assumption of zero return for these periods).
 If gaps exist in trading, the user will be notified via a popup window. The popup window will
ask the user if he or she wants to continue with the calculation.
 The Calculator automatically obtains adjusted closing stock price data,
meaning adjusted for splits, but not adjusted for dividends. Is this a concern?
 If the stock had no dividends, the CSRP and TCOE calculations would be the same, all else being equal.
 If the stock distributes dividends, then “adjusted for dividends closing prices” will lead to different conclusions than “nonadjusted for dividends closing prices”. From our experience, since generally dividends only occur once per quarter, the differences in the calculations are immaterial. Moreover, the differences do not occur in any one direction. For example, nonadjusted for dividend data may lead to a larger TCOE and/or CSRP than adjusted for dividend data for one stock, but lead to the opposite conclusions for another stock.
 You can compare the calculations by pulling the nonadjusted dividend closing prices from Xignite and then manually cutting/pasting the adjusted dividend closing prices from Yahoo! Finance.
BVR is providing adjusted closing values as a service to the user. BVR gets this data from a service provider. Xignite, that makes no warranties as to its accuracy. Users may want to verify with another source the accuracy of the adjusted closing values displayed in the Calculator results. Keep in mind, this data is adjusted for splits and not adjusted for dividends. As an alternative, the user may want to provide the data themselves in Step 1.
 If you use the Calculator to calculate TCOEs and/or CSRPs for REITs, we recommend you use the cut/paste function from Yahoo! Finance to pull adjusted for dividends closing prices since REITs’ rates of return are so dependent upon dividends.
 If the stock had no dividends, the CSRP and TCOE calculations would be the same, all else being equal.
 If I have an effective/valuation date which is a Tuesday, for example, should I only
look at Tuesday closing prices?
 No, we recommend looking at all days of the week (Monday – Friday). When you pull stock
price data for an effective date such as a Tuesday, for example, as opposed to a Monday, it is much
more than one more day of trading. It actually represents 261 days worth of different data for a
fiveyear lookback. For instance, if your effective date is a Monday, the Calculator will pull 261
Mondays (for five years) of closing prices and similarly for Tuesdays. There may be (material)
differences in the outputs.
 Before this Calculator, analysts may not have considered just how sensitive the calculation of beta might be to various inputs. When you subscribe to printed commercial beta sources, you are at the publishers’ mercy for the accuracy and lack of sensitivity of the data. Here, you can control and understand the reasons behind each input and see the sensitivity, or lack thereof, in your own calculations
 Thus, we recommend that you look at all days of the week (Monday – Friday, making sure not to pull pricing after your date of value) and then calculate an average (or median) of the benchmark CSRPs (for those which are statistically significant) and TCOEs, for example.
 Generally, what you will find is that total betas are much more stable than betas (over time and
during the same lookback period). This has to do with the higher variability in the correlation
coefficient of many betas. This is one reason why some appraisers like to key in on Total Beta and
TCOE.
 No, we recommend looking at all days of the week (Monday – Friday). When you pull stock
price data for an effective date such as a Tuesday, for example, as opposed to a Monday, it is much
more than one more day of trading. It actually represents 261 days worth of different data for a
fiveyear lookback. For instance, if your effective date is a Monday, the Calculator will pull 261
Mondays (for five years) of closing prices and similarly for Tuesdays. There may be (material)
differences in the outputs.
 What happens if Xignite experiences a glitch on its website and we are not able to
upload guideline historical stock price and/or index data?
 While this may never occur, we have programmed the Calculator to be able to use a copy
and paste function to allow the user to still populate the input page. Other
(although certainly not a complete list) potential sources of historical stock price information
are Yahoo! Finance and Google Finance.
 Under this, hopefully, unlikely event, the user would be responsible for appropriately
populating the input page. (For more information, see question 34).
 While this may never occur, we have programmed the Calculator to be able to use a copy
and paste function to allow the user to still populate the input page. Other
(although certainly not a complete list) potential sources of historical stock price information
are Yahoo! Finance and Google Finance.
 If I select the cut and paste method, how do I retrieve the historical stock prices for
my guideline comparable companies and input them into the Calculator?
 If one were to visit Yahoo! Finance, for example,
they could search for their guideline comparable company by entering the ticker symbol into the appropriate box on the website. The user can then select the option to search for historical prices. The user would need to enter the “Lookup period” (date range) for the historical prices (with the end date being the “Effective date”). The user would also want to ensure that they select “weekly” returns. When the results for the historical prices appear, the user will want to select the “Download to Spreadsheet” option at the bottom of the page. Once the spreadsheet of historical prices has been opened, the user will want to select the “copy” function for historical prices and then will want to use the “paste” function to paste them into the Calculator. This would be repeated for each guideline comparable company.
 The Calculator’s weekly pricing will (most of the time) be different than Yahoo’s pricing.
Therefore, appraisers must be careful when using the Calculator to compare results between the two
pricing sources. For example, the Calculator will report (and use) weekly closing prices for every
Thursday for a given benchmark if the effective date is a Thursday (not accounting for any holidays).
However, Yahoo will pull the latest Thursday’s close and then report the Friday’s close the week before
and for every Friday before that for the length of the lookback period. Essentially, Yahoo reports the
closing prices on Friday for any search performed with a weekly frequency – regardless of the effective
date. If your goal is to match Yahoo and the Calculator’s pricing service, enter an effective date of
Friday into the Calculator. Remember, if the stock pays a dividend, the pricing will be slightly
different between the two sources.
 If one were to visit Yahoo! Finance, for example,
they could search for their guideline comparable company by entering the ticker symbol into the appropriate box on the website. The user can then select the option to search for historical prices. The user would need to enter the “Lookup period” (date range) for the historical prices (with the end date being the “Effective date”). The user would also want to ensure that they select “weekly” returns. When the results for the historical prices appear, the user will want to select the “Download to Spreadsheet” option at the bottom of the page. Once the spreadsheet of historical prices has been opened, the user will want to select the “copy” function for historical prices and then will want to use the “paste” function to paste them into the Calculator. This would be repeated for each guideline comparable company.
 Do these guideline comparables have to exactly match the guideline comparables in my
market approach to valuation?
 No, this technique is separate and distinct from the market approach. We believe
that CSR is just that – companyspecific. Thus, we perceive the possibility of
having more “comparables” to help quantify a CSRP than you use in the guideline
publiclytraded method under the market approach.
 No, this technique is separate and distinct from the market approach. We believe
that CSR is just that – companyspecific. Thus, we perceive the possibility of
having more “comparables” to help quantify a CSRP than you use in the guideline
publiclytraded method under the market approach.
 What do you do if you do not consider any guideline companies as comparables?
 In the past this has not stopped you from “quantifying” TCOE and/or the CSRP. It should not stop you now. Thus, we believe this technique is appropriate to consider in all valuations that use the income approach to valuation. It is up to the analyst to appropriately weight the indications of value.
 Alternatives to quantify companyspecific risk (CSR) lack any empirical data. The BPC supplies empirical data. So, the choice is use the BPC with maybe “notso great” guidelines or use the various factor models alone, for example, which do not have any empirical data.
 Any time we appraisers use the income approach, as you well know, we generally get our discount rate inputs (beta, equity risk premium, size premium, and industry premium) from publiclytraded stock data. We do not throw out the income approach because there are no good guideline companies. Thus in our opinion, we should not throw out the BPC if there are no “good” guideline companies. We calculate TCOE and/or the CSRP from the same publiclytraded data.
 We have used the microbrewery industry as an example in our articles, so we will use it again to make our point. Let’s say hypothetically, we have a small private brewer and we believe it has less CSR than the smallest indication of CSR of the guideline companies equal to 6%. We cannot think of a good reason not to use Anheuser Busch (AB) when it traded as a “comparable” to give us a better indication of companyspecific risk for our private brewer. We are confident that our small private brewer will not have a companyspecific risk premium (CSRP) less than AB at 3.5%, for example. Thus, AB has given us guidance on a CSRP for our small, private brewer. We feel confident that our subject company’s CSRP is now between 3.5% and 6.0%, for example – even though we would never consider using it in the market approach. So, we believe that since this is the income approach to value, and that companyspecific risk is just that – companyspecific  that you can widen your search for guidelines.
 Having said all of that, we do want “good” guidelines with the BPC. Good, however, is
relative and varies from engagement to engagement.
For example in a recent engagement, we valued a subject company which had significant customer
concentration risk (Two customers represented almost 90% of the firm’s revenues). We
specifically searched for “guidelines” in the particular industry as well as for guidelines
outside the industry, keying in on public companies which reported significant sales concentration
risks.
 In the past this has not stopped you from “quantifying” TCOE and/or the CSRP. It should not stop you now. Thus, we believe this technique is appropriate to consider in all valuations that use the income approach to valuation. It is up to the analyst to appropriately weight the indications of value.
 Some appraisers believe that the public stock market and the market for privatelyheld
companies are different “animals” and do not feel comfortable using public stock to
value private companies. What is your response to this?
 We have a hard time accepting this viewpoint. The same economic and industry forces
act upon companies whether they are public or private. Business owners, as well as prospective
business owners, have a choice to invest in private companies or to invest in the stock
market. Therefore, the law of substitution (as well as revenue Ruling 5960!)
requires us to look at rates of return available from alternative investments. This
technique does just that.
 It is always up to the analyst in any particular engagement to weight the relative
indications of value accordingly.
 We have a hard time accepting this viewpoint. The same economic and industry forces
act upon companies whether they are public or private. Business owners, as well as prospective
business owners, have a choice to invest in private companies or to invest in the stock
market. Therefore, the law of substitution (as well as revenue Ruling 5960!)
requires us to look at rates of return available from alternative investments. This
technique does just that.
 What do the outputs of the Calculator mean? (Please see other references for more
detailed definitions)
 Standard deviation: The positive square root of the variance. This is the
standard statistical measure of the spread of the sample. The sample that we
recommend is the weekly stock price returns of your guideline comparables. Standard
deviation is the accepted measure of risk for standalone assets – generally, the
perspective to value privatelyheld companies.
 Levered beta: A measure of systematic risk. It measures the
sensitivity of a security’s return to movements in the underlying market (S&P 500, for
example). According to traditional financial theory for a welldiversified portfolio, which
is under constant debate, this is the only measure of risk we care about. Thus, if a
stock’s Beta is 1.05, we would expect the stock to be up 1.05% when the market is up 1%,
and down 1.05% when the market is down 1%.
 Correlation coefficient (R): A standardized statistical measure of the
correlation between two variables. It measures the degree of linear association between two
variables, in this case – the guideline comparables’ stock price returns with
the returns of the market. This measure always falls between 1.0 (perfect negative linear
association) and 1.0 (perfect positive linear association). If R is 0, then no relationship
exists.
A low correlation coefficient may mask significant volatility of the guideline. Thus a
very low beta may have a commensurate very high total beta.
 Total cost of equity (TCOE): TCOE is the comparables’ required rate of
return if the security was a standalone asset – not part of a welldiversified portfolio.
The more the TCOE is allocated to size (i.e. using a larger size premium), the lower the CSRP and
vice/versa.
TCOE = Riskfree rate + Total Beta*Equity risk premium or
TCOE = Riskfree rate + Beta*Equity risk premium + Size premium + CSRP.
 Companyspecific risk premium (CSRP): Also known as the unsystematic risk premium or the idiosyncratic risk premium. According to traditional financial theory, this is the risk that, as the name implies is companyspecific and, therefore, completely diversifiable in a welldiversified portfolio. Note: CSR may, in fact, be priced (Some portion of CSR may be priced given the inability of investors to properly diversify. However, the benefits of diversification will always be present and will always eliminate some, but possibly not all, CSR) in the public markets.
 Coefficient of determination (Rsquared or R2): The square of the correlation
coefficient (R). This measures the ability of the variation about the mean in the market
index (independent variable) to describe the variation about the mean in the guideline
company (dependent variable). This measures the “goodness of fit” of the best
fit linear regression line. In this case, the best fit linear regression line is the
following:
Weekly return of comparable = constant + Beta*Weekly return of market index
The Beta is the slope of the best fit linear regression line. The Rsquare always falls between 0.0 (no explanatory power) and 1.0 (complete explanatory power).
 TStat: Beta/standard error. If the Tstat is greater than a certain value,
it indicates the confidence we have that Beta is something other than 0. See Confidence Level below.
 Confidence level: If for example, the level of statistical significance is 1%, we are 99% confident that the slope (Beta) is something other than 0.
 Degrees of freedom: The number of observations (weekly returns) minus the number
of coefficients estimated. Since in this case, we estimate the constant and Beta,
the degrees of freedom will always be two less than the number of observations.
 Standard deviation: The positive square root of the variance. This is the
standard statistical measure of the spread of the sample. The sample that we
recommend is the weekly stock price returns of your guideline comparables. Standard
deviation is the accepted measure of risk for standalone assets – generally, the
perspective to value privatelyheld companies.
 Why do you calculate CSRPs? Couldn’t you just calculate the publiclytraded
stock’s TCOE and stop there?
 Yes, you could. In certain cases, maybe that would be best. (See answer #40 below). However, you also may want to look at the combined size:CSRP for the following reason. We like to understand why the guideline TCOEs are what they are, so we allocate the total risk among systematic risk and the rest (size:CSRP) when not too subjective to do so.
 Yes, you could. In certain cases, maybe that would be best. (See answer #40 below). However, you also may want to look at the combined size:CSRP for the following reason. We like to understand why the guideline TCOEs are what they are, so we allocate the total risk among systematic risk and the rest (size:CSRP) when not too subjective to do so.
 Do you recommend ignoring, or excluding, a guideline’s results if its Tstat
indicates a confidence level below a certain level?
 Admittedly, this is another subjective part of the calculation. We typically exclude a reference point if the Tstat confidence level is below 80%. (You can pick a different hurdle rate, if you desire). However, remember since Total Beta captures 100% of the stock’s total risk, one could key in on the TCOE as a reference point – rather than depend on CSRP calculations based on questionable determinations of Beta. A low Tstat may be an indictment of the CAPM, not necessarily this technique, which captures 100% of a stock’s total risk from a standalone perspective.
 One other item to keep in mind, maybe a low beta (and, therefore, low tstat) are capturing exactly what they should be capturing  a stock with low systematic risk.
 Does one need to be concerned if a guideline comparable could be considered a
thinlytraded stock?
 Yes. There might be some lack of liquidity issues in the calculation of a benchmark TCOE and CSRP. Thus, you should be aware of this when assigning a lack of marketability to a minority interest in a privatelyheld firm.
As an aside, but on a somewhat related matter, appraisers need to be cognizant of the fact that some of the preIPO transactions used for guidance to determine lack of marketability discounts may have been entered into by an underdiversified investor. Therefore, the difference between the preIPO price and the IPO price may incorporate more than just marketability, such as the difference in required rates of return between underdiversified and diversified investors (read: CSR may have mattered in the preIPO transaction and not mattered in the IPO transaction as investment bankers do not price CSR since the company is going public). This unquantifiable impact is probably more substantial as the period between transactions (PreIPO and IPO) increases since the underdiversified investor’s “assurance” of an IPO would be less as the window between transactions increases. This issue may also be relevant for restricted stock studies, albeit to a lesser extent, if the purchaser of the restricted stock was underdiversified and priced CSR in some fashion.
 The Calculator’s output shows each benchmark’s reported volume for the
analyst to make a determination on this issue.
 The reported volume for any given week is the average daily volume for the last five trading days, including volume for the effective date.
 If a guideline is inefficiently/thinly traded (i.e., gaps in trading), then analysts may wish
to look at the following options:
 Compute a “Corrected Total Beta”. (Note: The Calculator will not perform
this function). Corrected Total Beta = Sum Beta/R as opposed to Beta/R. The
correlation
coefficient, R, (See FAQ 38c) would (most likely) be different for both the total beta and the
corrected total
beta. Please refer to SBBI, 2008 Valuation Yearbook for the definition and calculation
of Sum
Beta. In summary, sum betas allegedly capture the lagged response of a company’s
reactions to
movements in the overall stock market. With rare exceptions, this modification effectively
increases the
beta measurement and the calculation of the stock’s systematic risk. Some items to
consider if one
wants to pursue this calculation:
 Other than when gaps exist in trading, it could be viewed as quite subjective to determine when it might be appropriate to use this Corrected Total Beta calculation. Just because a stock is thinly traded does not necessarily mean that it traded in an inefficient market where one would question the merits of OLS beta. For example, Sum Betas for Decile 3 stocks (market capitalization between $5.0 billion and $9.2 billion) increase the measure of systematic risk from an OLS beta of1.08 to a Sum Beta of 1.13 (Source: SBBI, 2008 Valuation Yearbook – Tables 710 and 711). We will leave it up to the individual analysts to determine if this correction is necessary or not, but please consider the following when making the determination:
Quoting Morningstar’s Beta Book, 2006 ed.:
“Because of nonsynchronous price reactions, the traditional betas estimated by ordinary least squares are biased down for all but the largest companies.” (Emphasis added)
The nonsynchronous price reactions referenced above are companyspecific price reactions. We know that Total Beta already captures all of these price reactions. Since Total Beta captures these along with every other known risk, the fact that some small guideline companies have potentially low measurements of systematic risk should not be a concern for the business appraiser.
Total Beta’s measurement of CSR picks up the OLS Market Beta’s “slack” in the measurement of total risk – again, our reference point when we value privatelyheld companies. Thus, there is no need to “correct” systematic risk if our reference point is total risk and the benchmark is an efficiently traded stock. Please note that the above quote does not say:
“Because of market inefficiency, the traditional betas estimated by ordinary least squares are biased down for all but the largest companies.”
The market for many smaller stocks is efficient. Their total risk just happens to be dominated by CSR, rather than systematic risk. If the market for a particular stock is efficient, regardless of its “low” measure of systematic risk, its corresponding Total Beta never needs corrective action (at least from the authors’ perspectives). This, obviously, is another benefit to the Total Beta measurement.
Why bother with this Sum Beta adjustment if the stock trades in an efficient market? While the OLS Market Beta may be low (although who really knows for sure?), by apportioning more of the total risk to systematic risk through the sum beta calculation, the natural result is a smaller and artificially low CSRP – since the total risk of the company should not change for an efficient stock. Thus, we believe that Sum Beta is an unnecessary and subjective step for efficient stocks after the introduction of Total Beta.
 This “correction” results in an inequality as far as how Total Beta is calculated from the other side of the identity: standard deviation of the stock/standard deviation of the market. While it is fairly easy to manipulate the Beta and R (by calculating Sum Beta), one cannot change the historical volatility of the guidelines, representing a mismatch between Sum Beta/R and standard deviation of the stock/standard deviation of the market.
 Even with the CAPM’s many unrealistic assumptions, the investment community strongly relies upon OLS betas, rather than sum betas.
 If gaps exist in trading (possibly an inefficient market), ignore the guideline from consideration.
 If gaps exist in trading over a fiveyear lookback period, for example, then shorten the lookback period to see if the gaps can be eliminated over this shortened period. If no gaps exist and the analyst determines the guideline traded efficiently, the authors believe there is no need to calculate a sum beta for CSRP determination.
 Compute a “Corrected Total Beta”. (Note: The Calculator will not perform
this function). Corrected Total Beta = Sum Beta/R as opposed to Beta/R. The
correlation
coefficient, R, (See FAQ 38c) would (most likely) be different for both the total beta and the
corrected total
beta. Please refer to SBBI, 2008 Valuation Yearbook for the definition and calculation
of Sum
Beta. In summary, sum betas allegedly capture the lagged response of a company’s
reactions to
movements in the overall stock market. With rare exceptions, this modification effectively
increases the
beta measurement and the calculation of the stock’s systematic risk. Some items to
consider if one
wants to pursue this calculation:
 Yes. There might be some lack of liquidity issues in the calculation of a benchmark TCOE and CSRP. Thus, you should be aware of this when assigning a lack of marketability to a minority interest in a privatelyheld firm.
 Have you ever calculated a CSRP less than 0%?
 No, with the following disclaimers (see b and c below). All publiclytraded stocks we have
analyzed exhibit a positive CSRP – whether it is priced or not. Thus, never apply a negative (meaning
less than 0%) CSRP to any private company.
 For short time periods, we have calculated negative CSRPs on some occasions. Our thought is
that anything is possible over relatively short measurement periods.
 After working with the Calculator and running hundreds of searches, we have calculated (or have had
the calculations pointed out to us) indications of negative CSRPs for a fiveyear lookback period,
for
example. These occasions occur when, for example, the guideline company drops in market value from a
Decile 9
stock to a Decile 10 stock and we originally chose to rely upon the significantly larger size premium
in
Decile 10 for our calculation. However, if one chooses to use the size premium correlated to Decile 9,
or an
average of the two, we end up calculating positive CSRPs. A CSRP is dependent upon our choice of
the size
premium since CSRP is the residual in the formula: CSRP = (Total beta – beta)*Equity risk
premium
– Size premium. The size premium has always presented interesting issues – whether in this
technique
or other techniques to calculate a cost of equity. (Please see question 43 below).
 We have been given hypothetical (unrealistic?) examples of companies during our presentations
where the audience participant believes a negative companyspecific risk premium is appropriate. The
following is one such example: A company that has had a government contract for the last 100 years and
is expected to have the same government contract for the next 100 years. Why can it not have a negative
CSRP? Well, there must be some possibility that the company could lose the contract (presumably a very
large customer) in the next 100 years. The company may deserve a very low CSRP, possibly even less than
Exxon Mobil or General Electric, but it does not deserve a negative premium. We have yet to calculate a
publiclytraded stock’s CSRP at less than 0% (with the disclaimers noted above). We call it risk for a
reason.
 No, with the following disclaimers (see b and c below). All publiclytraded stocks we have
analyzed exhibit a positive CSRP – whether it is priced or not. Thus, never apply a negative (meaning
less than 0%) CSRP to any private company.
 The calculation of Beta and Total Beta are stockspecific for guideline comparables, yet
you use an average for the size premium (Decile 1  10 from Ibbotson’s Stock, Bonds, Bills
& Inflation Yearbook or Portfolios 1 – 25 from Duff & Phelps Risk Premium
Report). Is this an inconsistency?
 In a perfect world, calculating a size premium for each specific guideline company would be ideal.
However, we do not believe this is practical, given the inherent subjectivity in calculating this piece of the
overall risk (Actual return minus expected return from CAPM theory). The expected return may be quite
subjective depending on the inputs to the CAPM, particularly what beta to use to calculate expected return over
your lookback period. In fact, this is one of the criticisms of the CAPM  it might not be that helpful in
estimating future returns. Moreover, if everyone uses the same data, such as the accepted size premium
databases (Morningstar/Ibbotson’s or Duff & Phelps), as opposed to calculating their own subjective
size premiums, one result should be a certain amount of “stability” to the determination of
guideline CSRPs and ultimately private company CSRPs.
 Given the valuation community’s acceptance of Morningstar/Ibbotson’s size premium (and in the
future, potentially Duff & Phelps’ research), we have also chosen to accept these average calculations
as representative for our guideline companies. We believe we are being consistent when we use data from
the same source for both our guideline companies as well as our subject private company. We believe
inconsistencies might develop if one uses the standard size premium databases (Morningstar/Ibbotson, Duff &
Phelps) for private companies and then calculates subjective size premiums for the guidelines. In other
words, if you calculate size premiums yourself for your guidelines then you should consider these size premiums
in some fashion for your private company to be consistent. The Calculator presents other options on how to
handle size, however. Please see FAQ #45 below.
 Do you recommend using decile 10b from Ibbotson?
 The user should be aware of certain controversies regarding the use of decile 10b; in
general, we do not use 10b by itself.
 The user should be aware of certain controversies regarding the use of decile 10b; in
general, we do not use 10b by itself.
 I do not believe the size premium exists. Why does the program rely on this
concept?
 Even though the size effect is cyclical, over the longterm it has manifested itself. Therefore, we have programmed the Calculator to account for its existence. If you do not believe in, or want to use a size premium in your calculations (see 45 b. below), you can: 1) Completely focus on the guideline’s TCOE; or 2) Calculate the guidelines’ combined CSRP and size premium. Under this approach, the equation becomes:
TCOE = Riskfree rate + Total Beta*Equity risk premium = Riskfree rate + Beta*Equity risk premium + combined CSRP:SP. To effectively accomplish this, merely plug in 0% for the size premium when prompted by the Calculator, resulting in the following equation:
Combined CSRP:SP = (Total Beta – Beta)*Equity risk premium.
Note: the combined CSRP:SP will be higher (for all but Decile 1 stocks) than we otherwise would have calculated if we had accounted for the size premium using either Morningstar/Ibbotson or Duff & Phelps’ data. However, the TCOE remains the same – the allocation of the total risk premium just changes. Remember, this Calculator is also a riskallocator.  Plugging in 0% for the size premium is also effectively concluding that it is somewhat subjective, if not impossible, to separate CSR from size. For example, we have often used the microbrewery industry in our writings and presentations. After we reviewed the pertinent 10Ks, we developed 18 different “CSR” factors to compare our subject company to the guidelines. Of the 18, it is relatively easy to consider 8 factors (product line diversification, number of companyowned breweries, number of contractleased breweries, number of distributors used, geographic location of sales, number of suppliers, management depth, and access to capital) as having elements of size imbedded in the factor. Thus, this potentially could be another reason to use 0% when prompted for the size premium as it is somewhat subjective to attempt to separate out size and companyspecific risk factors, even though they are two different components of risk.
Remember, if you decide to separate out size and CSR, you always have the TCOEs as reasonableness checks. You also have the TCOEs as reasonableness checks if you decide to allocate total risk into systematic risk (beta) and all of the rest (such as when we plug in 0% for the size premium, resulting in a combined CSR:SP output from the Calculator. In this case, the output of the Calculator for all guidelines (Total Beta, Beta, combined CSR:SP) would all be guidelinespecific).
Moreover, if CSRP is priced in some fashion (which is still a controversial statement, but may be possible), then it appears that the standard industry sources for size premiums may include at least some CSR (Please see recent academic research indicating that it is not possible to completely diversify away CSR). Thus, the size premiums in Duff & Phelps and/or Morningstar/Ibbotson may also be capturing CSR, leading to artificially low CSRPs for the guidelines, all else being equal, and not considering the stockspecific calculation of size premiums. This potentially is another reason to plug in 0% for the size premium and then carefully look to both size and CSR factors when qualitatively comparing your subject company to the guidelines as accepted data sources (Morningstar/Ibbotson and Duff & Phelps) may not be able to separate the two components of risk as alluded to in the academic research cited below conducted by Burton G. Malkiel and Yexiao Xu in their research titled “Risk and Return Revisited” and Idiosynchratic Risk and Security Returns”.
These two researchers claim that the residual risk or idiosyncratic volatility (read: CSR) of individual stocks is strongly related to the size of the company. They hypothesize that the size effect found by Fama and French may be reflecting idiosyncratic volatility.
 Even though the size effect is cyclical, over the longterm it has manifested itself. Therefore, we have programmed the Calculator to account for its existence. If you do not believe in, or want to use a size premium in your calculations (see 45 b. below), you can: 1) Completely focus on the guideline’s TCOE; or 2) Calculate the guidelines’ combined CSRP and size premium. Under this approach, the equation becomes:
 What are the "holes" in this technique?
 Relative to traditional methods to “quantify” CSRPs, we have found no holes. Yes, subjectivity still remains, as described in more detail throughout the answers to the questions on this page. However, if you are consistent in each valuation and use the same assumptions for every guideline company, you will arrive at a defensible range of CSRPs and/or TCOEs, which you will be able to use to better defend and support your determination of a CSRP and/or TCOE for your private company.
 Beta, for many stocks (but not all), is inherently unstable. We believe it is appropriate to account for this “fact” by examining the tstat and related statistical confidence calculations. Reiterating, if the tstat correlates to a confidence level less than 80%, we do not bother allocating the total risk. However, unless the stock traded in an inefficient market, we still rely upon the guidelines’ TCOE. We have never claimed that the BPC is any better (or worse) than other methods in projecting the future. However, the calculated historical beta for each guideline (assuming efficiency) is what it was, sotospeak.
One can test the historical stability of beta if desired (In fact, we recommend calculating TCOEs, Total Betas, Betas and combined size:CSRPs using all five days of the week. Please see FAQ #32). One can also use different lookback periods to gain an appreciation for the stability, or lack thereof, of the guidelines’ betas. We actually believe this to be one of the great benefits of the Calculator. If you rely upon printedsources for betas, you have no idea their sensitivity to different assumptions.
Assuming betas are normally distributed, one can also review the expected range of betas falling under 95% of the distribution, for example. However, keep in mind that both the mean and median of a normal distribution are equal. In the authors’ estimation, analysts should have a very good reason to use a guidelines’ beta (and total beta) other than the calculated beta and total beta, such as the beta and/or total beta correlating to the 95th percentile, for example. While there is a range for any probability curve, the mean/median (using all five trading days) is the best estimate of the appropriate representation of beta and/or total beta.

CSRP and/or TCOE are impacted by many “types” of risk, including both operational risk (supplier concentration risk, etc.) as well as financial (leverage) risk. Analysts must compare the guidelines and their subject company on the impact of leverage on their relative CSRPs and/or TCOEs. The authors view this no differently than comparing the guidelines on any operational risk factor. The Calculator determines the guidelines’ total CSRP, which is dependent upon both operational and financial risks. The Calculator cannot separate the CSRP due to leverage versus operational risk – similar to its inability to separate customer concentration risk from supplier concentration risk, for example.
However, while the Calculator will not automatically perform the following calculation, analysts can measure the impact of leverage on their guidelines. We are all familiar with various formulas to unlever Beta (Hamada, MilesEzzell, HarrisPringle). We can apply these same formulas to unlever Total Beta. Remember, the Calculator calculates a levered Total Beta as well as a levered CSRP. We merely have to replace levered Beta in the formulas with levered Total Beta to calculate an unlevered Total Beta. Appraisers can then select the appropriate unlevered Total Beta for their subject company and then relever with an appropriate capital structure if they want to key in on TCOE directly.
Also, using the Hamada formula as an example, one can determine a guidelines' unlevered CSRP.
CSRP unlevered =
((Total Beta levered – Beta levered)/(1+(Debt/equity)*(1tax rate)))*ERP  SP
Thus, one can compare the guidelines’ CSRP levered with CSRP unlevered to appreciate the impact of leverage if one wanted to buildup the discount rate.
 Yes, subjectivity still exists, which is a good thing. If CSR was purely objective, we might all have much less valuation work to perform. However, regardless of the subjectivity and/or criticisms mentioned above, should you choose to solely rely upon purely subjective factor models, you are implicitly saying that no empirical evidence is better than some modestly subjective empirical evidence.
 We believe that analysts distinguish themselves from the competition by properly quantifying CSR and total risk, not necessarily systematic risk. CSR is what makes the subject company’s TCOE truly unique. We recommend that you use the BPC. Regardless of the subjectivity, it is much better than using an educated guess alone, which is what appraisers do by relying upon purely subjective factor models.
 Many of the criticisms described above relate to CAPM (and must also apply to the buildup approach since the buildup approach is essentially the CAPM). We do not believe it is appropriate to place these burdens or hurdles upon the BPC as arguments for its exclusion. In other words, if you use the CAPM or buildup method, the BPC is a natural extension of that data. The math is incontrovertible if you accept the CAPM (and the buildup method). The BPC merely fills in a blank – a blank that appraisers have always filledin somehow. The BPC provides empirical evidence of what that blank should be, contrary to the ability of purely subjective factor models.
 We hear that some appraisers might dismiss this technique because they believe it requires appraisers to use multibillion dollar companies as proxies for private company valuations. First, there are many “small” publiclytraded companies that appraisers can use. You just have to look for them. Second, many appraisers already use these same multibillion dollar companies to value their subject companies when they apply an equity risk premium (ERP) or an industry risk premium (IRP). Importantly, the Calculator can provide the TCOE (including the CSRP), not just the IRP, for all of the stocks in a particular SIC code. Many appraisers are finding this application particularly useful when attempting to impeach their opponent’s cost of capital derived from completely subjective guesses.
 We also hear that some appraisers might dismiss the technique because they fear that they might also have to perform the guideline publiclytraded method (market approach) with the same guidelines used with the Calculator. First, this notion is not correct. How many appraisers have felt compelled to use the market approach when they use an IRP in the income approach? Our guess is not a single one. Second, CSR is just that – companyspecific. The guideline multiples do not fully capture the CSRP anyway and, therefore, must be adjusted (Please see question 50f below). As previously stated, we can foresee many more guidelines in the income approach. We, in fact, have used the Calculator and completely ignored the market approach in certain engagements. We also have used the same guidelines for the market approach in other engagements. It just depends. As inferred, it might very well be a good idea to use the same guidelines under each approach (income and market), depending on the engagement and the budget. You have to ask yourself if you do high quality work or not? It does not make any sense to be afraid of using a far superior technique in the income approach (the most theoretically correct way to value a company) because, heaven forbid, you might want to consider (and possibly use) the same guidelines in the market approach.
 There was alleged criticism in a presentation at the 2009 ASA Advanced BV Conference in Boston that total beta and the BPC provide maximum TCOE, combined size:CSR premium and/or CSRP benchmarks, meaning that the metrics stem from a completely undiversified portfolio perspective. Yes, this is true; although, no one had to point it out. Ironically for the critics, however, this observation is an implicit endorsement of the BPC.
What the “critics” have failed to realize is that the maximum values are still data points that we have never had before. Thus, you do not have to completely guess at these metrics for your undiversified pool of buyers or, for that matter, your partially diversified pool of buyers (see below). Moreover, completely undiversified may be a reasonable perspective to assume for the pool of buyers. It depends upon the assignment.
How have the “critics” handled the level of (un)diversification for the pool of buyers before the BPC? When appraisers placed a completely subjective 5% CSRP on a company, what analyses were performed to hypothetically lower a 7% maximum CSRP to only 5% because the pool of buyers was partially diversified? Or, hypothetically, did we as an industry just assume maximum CSRP and/or TCOE? Total beta and the BPC allow appraisers at least to consider such issues.
After the conference in Boston, we have done more than just qualitatively consider the ramifications of diversification. We have developed an Excel spreadsheet to assist appraisers in making informed, quantitative decisions related to the question of diversification. Please click here to access the spreadsheet now. (This is a new spreadsheet as of April 29, 2010, which should replace the use of the prior spreadsheet).
We believe the instructions and assumptions are relatively straightforward. Please refer to the Comments Section of the spreadsheet. While somewhat subjective, the ultimate goal of this spreadsheet is to price risk depending on any level of diversification you may find is appropriate for the average investor in the buyer pool.
 Is it possible for a private company to exhibit a TCOE and/or a CSRP either above or below the range calculated for your guideline companies?
 a. Yes. Thus, the determination of a TCOE and/or a CSRP for your private company may be a little more subjective than otherwise would be the case.
 a. Yes. Thus, the determination of a TCOE and/or a CSRP for your private company may be a little more subjective than otherwise would be the case.
 After I calculate a range of TCOEs and/or CSRPs from the publiclytraded comparables, how do I use this information to select an appropriate TCOE and/or CSRP for my privatelyheld company?
 a. We recommend obtaining the relevant public filings (10K, 10Q, etc.) to compare/contrast identifiable Total risk and/or CSR factors. We have used a ranking system to help rate each company, including our subject company, within each total risk or CSR factor as well as to rate each factor by relative importance. For more information,
please
see our articles and sample templates.
 a. We recommend obtaining the relevant public filings (10K, 10Q, etc.) to compare/contrast identifiable Total risk and/or CSR factors. We have used a ranking system to help rate each company, including our subject company, within each total risk or CSR factor as well as to rate each factor by relative importance. For more information,
please
see our articles and sample templates.
 Is there potential for a mismatch if one only looks to the most recent Forms 10K, yet uses 5 years worth of historical pricing data to calculate TCOEs and/or CSRPs?
 a. Yes there might be, if for example, a total risk or CSR factor was prevalent 5 years ago, and has subsequently been eliminated in more recent filings. You may wish to review more than one Form 10K per guideline company to ensure all total risk and/or CSR factors have been accounted for over the measurement period.
 a. Yes there might be, if for example, a total risk or CSR factor was prevalent 5 years ago, and has subsequently been eliminated in more recent filings. You may wish to review more than one Form 10K per guideline company to ensure all total risk and/or CSR factors have been accounted for over the measurement period.
 Other than determining TCOE and CSRPs, are there any other uses for this Calculator?
Financial reporting:
 Yes. We discovered that the Total Beta calculations are excellent to calculate a private
company’s implicit volatility for SFAS 123R reporting purposes.
 Remember, that a firm’s TCOE = Riskfree rate + Total Beta*Equity risk premium and that Total
Beta = SDs/SDm. So, TCOE = Riskfree rate + SDs/SDm*Equity risk premium. After you use the Calculator
to determine your private company’s TCOE, you can solve for the only unknown in the above equation,
SDs.
 Your private company’s implied volatility, SDs, is an important input to calculate the value
of employee stock options required for SFAS 123R. The SDs will now correlate perfectly with your
private company’s TCOE.
 Thus, you no longer have to completely rely upon guideline public companies’ historical volatilities, implied volatilities or reported volatilities when estimating volatility for your private company. Rather, you can look to your specific private company for this information. Please see our article on this subject for more detailed information.
Calculation of marketability discounts:
 Of course, this implied volatility can also be used to help determine a lack of marketability discount for a minority interest in a privatelyheld company. There are a variety of quantitative models (one being put option theory) which depend on volatility as an input. (Please see FAQ #2e for one such method).
Adjustments to guideline publiclytraded multiples for the market approach:
 If for example, the P/E of a particular stock (a guideline) was 20 and its CSRP was equal to 5% as determined by the Calculator, an appraiser could rely upon research performed by Professors Covrig and McConaughy from California State University, Northridge and use the following formula to adjust the multiple to a private company multiple:
P/E private = 1
1 + CSRP P/E public
Thus, the P/E private = 1 = 10 1 + 0.05 20
Of course, this is just a benchmark. To estimate your subject company’s P/E multiple, differences in growth, size, systematic risk and CSR must also be analyzed.
 One benefit of the Calculator that has been understated thus far is its ability to calculate market beta. This benefit alone is valuable given the Calculator’s relative flexibility (as shown below in the table comparing the BPC Calculator to a selection of other commercial sources for market beta). As one can see, the Calculator ranks second only behind Bloomberg Professional Service (not the free website), which Wall Street firms subscribe to. While Bloomberg Professional Service offers a plethora of financial data and news, it also is exponentially more expensive than the BPC Calculator.
The BPC Calculator allows appraisers to see behind the beta calculations and to better understand the inherent stability, or instability of market beta as the case may be, for each guideline company. If appraisers rely upon a printed source of market beta rather than an online source such as either Bloomberg Professional Service or the BPC Calculator, then they will have no idea the sensitivity of the calculations to various changing inputs.
Commercial Beta Sources
Beta Source
Market Proxy
Time Period
Frequency
Adjustment
1
Bloomberg
Over 20 domestic series
Adjustable
Adjustable
None; or
(0.67*OLS Beta)+(0.33*1.0)
2
Compustat
S&P 500
5 years
Monthly
None
3
Ibbotson
S&P 500
5 years
Monthly
Adjusted toward peer group beta
weighted by stat. significance
4
Value Line
NYSE Composite
5 years
Weekly
0.35+0.67*OLS Beta
5
Yahoo!Finance
S&P 500
3 years
Monthly
None
6
BPC Calc.
4 domestic series; 2 international
Adjustable
Weekly  default
None
Adjustable  manual
BPC rank 
2nd 
Tied first 
2nd 
Debatable 
Sources: Table 611, SBBI Valuation Yearbook and definitions from Yahoo!Finance.
Last updated: 9/27/12
(503) 2917963
BVR's Glossary of BV Terms
« Top  Back