Valuing shares is essential for anyone involved in business or investment decisions. Whether you’re an investor seeking to determine the worth of a potential investment or a business owner considering the sale of shares, the method of valuation you choose can significantly influence the outcome of your financial decisions. In this article, we will examine four of the main methods for share valuation: maintainable earnings, recent transactions, net assets, and dividend yield.
Maintainable Earnings Approach: Focusing on Sustainable Profitability for your share valuation
The maintainable earnings method is one of the most commonly used approaches for valuing shares. It centres on assessing a company’s ability to generate consistent, long-term profits. This approach involves analysing past earnings and adjusting them to remove any irregular, one-off events that might skew the company’s true earning potential. For example, extraordinary gains like asset sales or rare losses such as legal settlements are excluded from the calculation.
The main goal of this method is to determine the company’s true earning power, how much it can consistently generate in the future based on its current operations. After calculating the maintainable earnings, this figure is typically multiplied by an industry-specific multiple to estimate the value of the shares. This method works particularly well for businesses with stable earnings, such as established manufacturers or retailers, whose financial history follows a predictable pattern.
Recent Transactions Approach: Reflecting Current Market Activity
Another method for valuing shares is the recent transactions approach, which looks at the prices at which shares have recently been bought or sold. The idea behind this method is that recent market transactions offer an accurate snapshot of a company’s value. If a company has undergone a transaction, such as a share sale, merger, or acquisition, this method can serve as a real-time reflection of the company’s worth.
However, the recent transactions method has limitations. If there have been few transactions, or if those transactions occurred under unusual circumstances (such as during a market downturn or distressed sale), the resulting value might not accurately reflect the company’s true worth. This method is particularly useful for private companies or businesses that have recently been involved in significant deals, as it offers insight into what buyers and sellers have agreed upon in the market.
Net Assets Approach: Assessing the Value of Physical Assets
The net assets approach, or asset-based valuation method, provides a more straightforward way to value a business. It calculates the company’s worth by subtracting its liabilities from the total value of its assets. This method is ideal for businesses that have substantial physical assets, such as real estate, machinery, or inventory. Essentially, it asks: what is the company worth if all of its assets were sold off and its debts were paid?
While this method is useful for asset-heavy businesses, it doesn’t always capture the full value of a company, particularly in industries where intangible assets, like intellectual property, brand reputation, or customer relationships, are crucial drivers of value. The net assets approach is often used when companies are being liquidated or for businesses focused primarily on tangible assets, most usually property-investment companies.
Dividend Yield Approach: Valuing Shares Based on Income Generation
For businesses that regularly distribute dividends to shareholders, the dividend yield method offers an alternative way to value shares. This approach focuses on the income that shareholders can expect to receive from their investment in the form of dividends. It compares the annual dividends paid by the company to the current share price, giving investors an idea of the return they can expect.
This method is particularly valuable for companies with a strong track record of paying dividends, such as utilities or established businesses with stable cash flow. However, it’s less applicable to high-growth companies that reinvest their profits into expansion rather than paying dividends. The dividend yield approach gives investors insight into the immediate income potential of the shares, rather than their long-term growth prospects.
Choosing the Right Valuation Method
The right method for valuing shares depends largely on the circumstances of the business in question. Each of these methods provides a unique perspective on a company’s value, and in some cases, combining multiple approaches can offer a more complete and accurate valuation. As a tax adviser or investor, understanding these different methods is essential for making informed decisions about investments, mergers, acquisitions, and tax planning. The key is to select the method that best reflects the company’s financial health and aligns with your investment goals.
Next steps in share valuation
If you find yourself needing a share valuation, don’t hesitate to reach out. Our team can guide you in selecting the most suitable valuation method, perform the valuation, and, if necessary, assist with applying for clearance from HMRC to ensure compliance and peace of mind. Please contact us here.
The UK government has made several amendments to the qualifying asset holding company (QAHC) regime in the Spring Finance Bill 2023, following stakeholder discussions.
These changes are aimed at addressing issues with:
aggregator and parallel funds
corporate funds
listed equities
Aggregator and Parallel Funds
The ownership condition in the QAHC regime has caused some issues when dealing with multiple entities in a structure.
The new rules in the Spring Finance Bill 2023 create an exception for multi-vehicle arrangements, allowing feeder and parallel funds to meet the GDO condition.
The legislation allows for additional vehicles to be added to the arrangement later, which should accommodate changes in investors’ requirements.
Corporate Funds
The government has made a significant change to the ownership condition, enabling corporate funds to use the GDO condition.
The amendment in the Spring Finance Bill 2023 expands the types of entities that can meet the GDO condition to include both a CIS and an AIF that is not a CIS solely because it is a body corporate.
This change is retrospective, taking effect from the introduction of the regime on 1 April 2022.
Listed Equities
The Spring Finance Bill 2023 also amends the investment strategy condition, allowing QAHCs to hold listed securities and still meet the investment strategy condition.
However, this change comes with the denial of the distribution exemption for all listed securities, disadvantaging holdings that would otherwise qualify under the investment strategy condition. This change will take effect upon Royal Assent.
Overall, these amendments to the QAHC regime demonstrate the government’s willingness to engage with stakeholders and address issues as they arise. The changes should make the regime more workable for a variety of investment arrangements and structures.
The multi-vehicle arrangement rule is expected to take effect when the Spring Finance Bill 2023 receives Royal Assent, likely in the summer of 2023.
QAHC changes: Conclusion
In summary, the UK government has made several important changes to the QAHC regime in the Spring Finance Bill 2023.
These amendments address issues with:
aggregator and parallel funds
corporate funds
listed equities
Demonstrating the government’s commitment to making the QAHC regime more workable for a variety of investment arrangements and structures.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis faucibus neque in blandit tempus. Proin venenatis convallis ante, non pharetra magna dapibus id. Donec id diam eget mauris consequat porta sed ac quam. Nulla et purus neque. Donec eget ipsum metus. Nunc nec quam id mi dapibus luctus vel nec nunc. Integer sed aliquet nisl. Morbi molestie diam sem, pulvinar dignissim diam lobortis sed. Aliquam vel ipsum a mi rutrum hendrerit. Vestibulum venenatis ullamcorper turpis, imperdiet pretium enim blandit in.
Pellentesque eu orci nisl. Maecenas sed porta felis, sit amet tristique tortor. Praesent tincidunt non purus non feugiat. Quisque ut dictum augue. Vivamus ac turpis accumsan, suscipit quam blandit, lobortis ipsum. Vestibulum eu eros nisi. Aliquam orci turpis, venenatis ut tincidunt at, finibus eu tortor. Aliquam at ornare purus, convallis faucibus enim. Maecenas iaculis, arcu id tempor placerat, nisl odio dapibus lacus, sed rhoncus odio libero vitae sapien. Nunc viverra lacus at dolor bibendum mattis.
Pellentesque dignissim faucibus sem, luctus efficitur neque mattis at. Vestibulum semper, lorem in interdum condimentum, libero ex tincidunt velit, sed tincidunt nibh lacus et nisi. Vivamus sem sapien, scelerisque vitae tortor vel, faucibus hendrerit elit. Cras vulputate lectus sed ligula congue, vitae aliquam risus hendrerit. Duis vulputate ornare faucibus. Sed ultricies augue vel ante sodales rhoncus. Praesent eget eros vel tellus lobortis accumsan a a velit. Vestibulum sed elit ut neque vulputate tincidunt at non enim. Praesent maximus dictum lectus, et ornare nisi. Phasellus aliquet turpis at nibh cursus, vel gravida sapien elementum. Mauris vehicula erat in lacus vehicula viverra. In id ex egestas nulla tempor rhoncus vitae in erat.
Duis id commodo ipsum, eget porta lacus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis sed molestie libero. In accumsan, ligula interdum lobortis malesuada, urna nulla faucibus lectus, nec tincidunt velit dui sed eros. Proin dictum orci nec sapien egestas, finibus ultricies purus bibendum. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curae; Vivamus a ante in mauris vehicula malesuada. Maecenas nec lobortis eros, varius ultricies urna. Nunc fermentum varius nisi. Donec at lacus semper nibh pharetra dapibus. Quisque interdum justo non iaculis porttitor.
Quisque ut volutpat magna. Praesent eget luctus odio, sed dapibus dui. Duis faucibus lacus eget felis pulvinar, vitae porttitor tortor pharetra. Pellentesque sit amet nibh ultricies, iaculis sapien eget, dignissim dolor. Vivamus faucibus, felis sit amet dapibus ultricies, massa dolor volutpat velit, id aliquam nunc nulla eget urna. Nulla facilisi. Nunc id dui nibh. Nunc posuere eros eu orci gravida, sed iaculis sem congue. Morbi id consequat ex, a scelerisque risus. Fusce facilisis eros egestas tellus feugiat, eget dapibus lorem pellentesque. Etiam vel convallis lorem. Donec varius, metus a malesuada feugiat, elit ipsum fermentum nisl, eu ullamcorper ipsum nibh at justo.
Tax Considerations for Your Clients when Business Exit Planning!
The Accountants’ Mastermind and Andy Wood Director at ETC Tax talksTax Considerations for Your Clients When Business Exit Planning.
During this meeting, Mark was joined by ETC Tax Director Andy, who talked about the key tax considerations for owners of owner-managed and family businesses when looking to exit from them. Andy puts a Willy Wonka spin on the important tax considerations for your clients.
Andy shared the three main routes to exit planning:
* Sale of business to a third party
* Sale of business to employees and key management
TA demerger typically involves the splitting of a company’s business into two or more parts.
There are many reasons why a company demerger may be desirable. Some of these examples include:
The shareholders of the business may wish to part ways and run their ‘parts’ of the business via separate entities.
The shareholders wish to incentivise employees of different service lines and for commercial purposes, view it is as more beneficial to do this under separate entities.
The business is serving separate market segments. The directors believe that these would serve best under different management and via separate entities.
There are typically three routes to achieving a demerger:
Statutory
Reduction of share capital
Liquidation
Recommendations are that you obtain HMRC clearance prior to implementing a demerger. Typically, this is why it is you request HMRC’s approval of the bona fide commercial purpose test in relation to the transaction.
Statutory demergers provide a relatively simple method of separating a company’s activities. They allow shareholders the flexibility to split their trading activities and assets without generally crystalling tax liabilities. Statutory demerges have strict conditions associated with them, which can make them unattractive or indeed unfeasible in certain circumstances.
For example, one of the conditions associated with statutory demergers is that there must not be a ‘chargeable payment’ for five years following the demerger. These rules state that the demerger must not form part of an arrangement. One of the main purpose of this is the making of a chargeable payment.
The definition of chargeable payment is broad. You catch scenarios where there is a sale of the demerged business post demerger. So, the main reasons for undertaking this action is to dispose of the business post demerger.
Therefore, in scenarios where there is an impending sale of the business soon after the demerger, statutory demergers would not be a feasible option.
Clearance request
We recently came across a scenario whereby a client in the pharmaceutical industry had requested clearance from HMRC under the statutory demerger provisions. There was an intention to sell one of the pharmacies post demerger. One of the reasons for undertaking the demerger was to be able to sell the pharmacy separately. So this course of action for the pharmacies into separate companies was considered an appropriate commercial route. Unsurprisingly, the clearance was refused by HMC under the chargeable payments rule set out above.
We carried out detailed analysis, redrafted and submitted a new clearance application to HMRC under a different set of provisions (in this case the reduction of share capital demerger rules) which HMRC accepted. We had to ensure that the mechanics of the transaction was amended in order to meet the detailed criteria of the demerger provisions, which did not prove to be too onerous for the client from a commercial viewpoint.
Demergers are a complex area of tax law and it is important that you seek specialist tax advice, both from tax and legal viewpoints. Our specialist corporate tax team has many years of Big Four and Top 10 experience of advising on all aspects of demergers.Get in touch today.
Prior to completing a company reorganisation or restructure, you can generally apply to HMRC for an advance statutory clearance, which serves the purpose of a written confirmation of HMRC’s view of the application of tax law to a specific transaction. This used to be a relatively straightforward process. However, the appointment of a new clearance team in 2019 resulted in a change in HMRC’s stance towards clearance applications.
One of the conditions for a statutory clearance application to be granted in respect of a company reorganisation or restructure is that the transaction must have a bona fide commercial purpose. Over the last couple of years, the new clearance team had been misinterpreting the ‘bona fide commercial purpose’ test, hence resulting in a number of cases going to Tribunal.
HMRC’s misinterpretation of the commercial purpose test seemed to be as a result of its misunderstanding of the High Court decision in Snell [2007] STC 1279. Until very recently, in cases involving insertion of a holding company for the purpose of cash / asset protection, HMRC’s view was that clearance would not be granted for such a transaction, on the basis that that excess cash could just be protected by distributing it to shareholders.
The decision in Snell was that, as long as there is a commercial reason for the transaction, such as protecting the company’s surplus cash, the transaction should qualify for relief, as long as it is not for tax avoidance purposes. HMRC’s interpretation of the Snell casewas that that the commercial reason had to comprise the exact mechanism used to achieve the commercial objective, despite the High Court decision said the opposite!
Due to HMRC refusing clearances for such straightforward transactions, this has led to a number of referrals to the First-tier Tribunal which ended up going in favour of the taxpayer.
It is also good news that over the last few months, HMRC has been engaging with the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other professional bodies, and has started to grant clearances for transactions involving insertion of new holding companies, so it is evident that they are taking into account the recent Tribunal decisions.
Having said that, we are still seeing clearances for the insertion of personal investment companies being scrutinised by HMRC. HMRC’s view is that personal investment companies are used as entities to allow the relevant shareholders to extract profits tax-free and to invest them as they wish, which in their opinion does not serve a commercial purpose.
If you have had instances where a clearance application for your client has been rejected in relation to transactions involving setting up of personal investment companies, on the basis that referrals to Tribunal in respect of such transactions are generally successful, it would be worthwhile referring the case to Tribunal.
Another aspect to consider is that HMRC must respond to a clearance application within the statutory time limit of 30 days. However, an issue which a significant number of advisers have recently had to face is that although the clearance may be eventually granted, each round of correspondence with HMRC usually takes at least a month. We have assisted with a number of clearance cases, whereby HMRC had raised queries (usually on day 30), hence ‘buying’ them an extra 30 days to review the clearance application.
Obtaining clearance approvals can be a complex process, and given the recent technical issues, it is important that you seek professional tax advice.
At ETC Tax, we have several years of specialist expertise in HMRC clearances and would be happy to have a discussion with regards to a current or prospective clearance application in respect of your client. Visit out contact page to get in touch.
