Project Management Office

This article is the second in a four-part series based on the book A Field Guide to Business Valuation, written by BerryDunn’s Seth Webber and Casey Karlsen. 

In Part I of this four-part valuation overview series, we talked about the “valuation rocket ship.” The valuation rocket ship is an illustration to conceptualize the components of a business valuation. The market approach, which we'll explore in this article, is one of three different ways to estimate the value of a company. In its simplest form, the market approach is fairly straightforward. Below is a very basic model for how a valuation could be applied:

This model is called the market approach because the EBITDA multiple is estimated based on a comparison to sales of similar companies.

Application of the market approach to valuation

If you have ever had a house appraised, you have a level of familiarity with the market approach. When real estate appraisers value a house, they look for similar houses (i.e., comparables, or “comps”) that have sold and calculate the price per square foot of these comparables. They then select a reasonable price per square foot from the range indicated by the comparables and multiply this figure by the square footage of the house being valued, indicating its value.

The market approach in business valuations follows the same basic procedures. However, price per square foot is not a meaningful indicator of business value. Extremely valuable businesses may have small facilities, and less valuable companies may have sprawling facilities. Therefore, instead of using a price per square foot, the valuation analyst uses more relevant denominators, such as annual revenue or EBITDA.

There are two primary market approach methods: the guideline completed transaction method and the guideline public company method. The guideline completed transaction method relies on the prices of recently sold similar companies, as illustrated in the example above. The guideline public company method uses the stock prices of similar publicly traded companies. By summing up the market value of all outstanding stock and debt, valuation analysts calculate the total value of publicly traded companies from the disparate ownership interests.

In both the guideline completed transaction method and the guideline public company method, the analyst performs the following steps:

1. Identify sales of similar companies or calculate the value of similar publicly traded companies.
2. Calculate relevant valuation multiples by dividing the value of each guideline company by a denominator such as revenue, operating income, EBITDA, or other value drivers.
3. Select an appropriate valuation multiple(s) from the range of indicated multiples and multiply it by the subject company's financial fundamentals, indicating business value.

There are many nuances to valuing a business using the market approach, but these steps summarize the basic market approach framework.

Strengths of the market approach

A foundational text for in the business valuation community is Revenue Ruling 59-60, which defines fair market value as “the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller…”¹ The market approach can provide a convincing indication of value because it is based on exactly that—an actual transaction involving people buying and selling similar businesses.

The market approach may also be more easily understood than other valuation approaches for readers who don’t have a background in finance. In the income approach, business value is estimated by discounting or capitalizing the benefit stream of a business. If the reader is not familiar with the estimation and application of income approach variables, they may find the market approach to be more understandable and therefore reliable. The income approach is also heavily reliant on projected future cash flows, an area of uncertainty and potential bias.

Even when the income approach is applied, the market approach can be used as an indicator of reasonability. Credibility is enhanced if a valuation analyst uses two or more different processes to get similar indications of value.

Weaknesses of the market approach

While one of the strengths of the market approach is how well it relates conceptually to the definition of fair market value, it also highlights a potential weakness of the market approach. Many transactions occur because the acquirers expect to achieve synergistic benefits from the transaction. These synergies may be priced into the transaction, potentially inflating the transaction price above fair market value. Therefore, it is possible for the market approach to indicate investment value rather than fair market value. It is also difficult to know what motivated a sale. Without knowing the intent of the buyers and sellers, it is difficult to determine whether a transaction reflects fair market value or investment value.

It is often difficult to locate companies that are reasonably similar to the subject company. People often start businesses because they see a need that isn’t being met—that is, there aren’t any companies like the one they want to start. The point of a business is to be different than its competitors. While differentiation is great for creating a competitive advantage, it makes it difficult to find similar companies. Even if a market supports multiple similar businesses, these companies may not have ever sold. As a result, valuation analysts often struggle to identify guideline companies.

Identifying guideline public companies has its own set of challenges. Publicly traded companies often diversify their operations to reduce risk. The lack of pure-play public companies may limit the number of guideline companies available to the analyst. Further, publicly traded companies are often significantly larger than privately held companies, posing additional comparability challenges.

Another common limitation when applying the market approach is the lack of data from completed transactions. Financial data is often incomplete as it may have never been disclosed by either party in the sale of a business. Much of the data necessary for the market approach is also from subscription-based databases. If analysts choose to forgo this cost, they may lack sufficient data to apply the market approach.

The consideration paid in completed transactions is another potential weakness in the market approach. Consideration may include stock of the acquiring party, earn-outs, non-compete agreements, and other items. Adjusting these to a cash equivalent can be a subjective exercise. And where there is subjectivity, there is room for error.

Another area of subjectivity and potential errors is in the selection of valuation multiples. When valuing a house, the price per square foot of the selected comparables is typically in a much narrower range than the range of multiples when valuing a business. Analyst judgement is required to select a valuation multiple from the reported range. Analysts may err by selecting a multiple that is not warranted by the subject company’s operational risk profile and/or historical and projected financial performance.

At a high level, the application of the market approach is a straightforward three-step process: (1) identify sales of similar companies, (2) calculate relevant valuation multiples, and (3) select and apply an appropriate valuation multiple.

The discussion above should provide high-level clarity as to the application of the market approach. Keep in mind the strengths and weaknesses of the market approach when formulating an opinion about the usefulness of this indication of value.

BerryDunn’s Business Valuation Group partners with clients to bring clarity to the complexities of business valuation while adhering to strict development and reporting standards. We render an independent, objective opinion of your company’s value in a reporting format tailored to meet your needs. We thoroughly analyze the financial and operational performance of your company to understand the story behind the numbers. We assess current and forecasted market conditions as they impact present and future cash flows, which in turn drives value. Learn more about our team and services. 

¹ Revenue Ruling 59-60, 1959-1 CB 237; Estate Tax Regulations §20.2031-1(b); Gift Tax Regulations §25.2512-1.

Employees in the construction industry have come to expect high physical demands, unrelenting deadlines, and a culture that discourages vulnerability. Unsurprisingly, the sector is now confronting a crisis in mental health and employee satisfaction. So-called “diseases of despair,” including substance abuse disorder, alcohol use disorder, isolation, depression, and suicide, are shockingly common. Suicide rates among construction workers totaled 5,200 in 2022—over five times the number of safety-related injuries in the same time period. A study by the Center for Construction Research and Training showed nearly one in five construction workers reported symptoms of anxiety or depression, yet less than 16% of these workers sought professional help.   

Barriers to well-being in the construction industry 

Like many male-dominated industries, construction workplaces are often aligned with traditional masculine values such as self-reliance and stoicism, which can encourage resistance to traditional well-being approaches. Language barriers or literacy challenges may also exist, further complicating any potential interventions. Organizations often rely on ad-hoc, individual-level programs, rather than comprehensively integrating well-being into their operations. This approach “encourag[es] workers to identify and seek help for their problems but does not commit organizations or the industry to tak[e] action to reduce the risks inherent to the sector.”  As I previously explored in Cultivating a culture of well-being, such interventions fail to address key workplace factors such as workload, autonomy, communication, and culture – the factors that ultimately help support employee health and well-being. 

Strategies for building a culture of well-being 

Just as it took decades for workplace safety and physical health to be holistically integrated into the construction industry, creating a sustainable culture of well-being will require focus, dedication, and time. The effort is worthwhile: Studies have shown that investing in employee well-being increases productivity, reduces absenteeism, and improves employee retention. 

Given the unique nature of the construction industry, here are some strategies to consider: 

1. Leadership commitment. Well-being should be a core value, championed by leadership. When executives and on-site managers prioritize their own well-being and actively participate in wellness programs, it sets a powerful example for the entire organization by making mental health needs more visible to the organization as a whole. Over time, this commitment can serve to reduce the perceived stigma associated with mental health. 
2. Enhanced communication. Improving communication between management and on-site workers reduces ambiguity and anxiety, while helping workers feel more autonomous. Simultaneously, using enhanced workforce planning tools can help management better allocate resources, helping to prevent burnout.  
3. Integrated policies. Policies should reflect a holistic commitment to well-being. This includes alternative scheduling models (e.g., flexible hours/four-day workweeks) and comprehensive health and financial benefits. Policies should be tailored to the unique needs of the employees, such as offering financial literacy workshops or Earned Wage Access programs.   
4. Community building. Foster a sense of community from day one. Design onboarding practices that introduce new hires to the values, norms, and expectations of your organization. Provide opportunities for socialization, mentoring, and collaboration, as a strong sense of belonging can enhance overall well-being. Encourage team-building activities, social events, and peer support networks. Programs like MATES in Construction and the Construction Industry Alliance for Suicide Prevention are actively raising awareness. 
5. Continuous feedback. Well-being means different things to different people. Regularly ask for feedback from employees about their overall employee experience – not just your well-being initiatives. Use this feedback to make continuous improvements, and then communicate those improvements. When employees feel heard and valued, their engagement and satisfaction increase.  
6. Safety beyond compliance. Companies should aim to move beyond a culture of ‘safety-as-compliance’ to one in which safety and well-being are considered symbiotic. Inherent to this understanding is the need to cultivate environments in which workers feel safe discussing all elements of their well-being without fear of retaliation. Government and regulatory agencies are increasingly mandating mental health and well-being requirements in occupational health and safety guidelines; savvy organizations may wish to address these proactively. Standards such as ISO 453003 (Psychological Health and Safety) are rapidly gaining traction, and provide clear and implementable frameworks for: 

• Identifying workload as a hazard 
• Engaging workers for input 
• Monitoring and controlling psychosocial risks 

As an example, Clause 5.4 of ISO 45003 emphasizes the identification and management of psychosocial hazards, with particular focus paid to those hazards stemming from excessive workloads, unrealistic deadlines, or conflicting demands.  

7. Embracing technology. Devices that monitor fatigue, physical strain, and exposure to harmful conditions are being introduced to improve safety and reduce workplace accidents; moreover, AI-powered tools are currently being developed to predict worker fatigue, identify stress triggers, and address workplace hazards—both seen and unseen.  While still new, these technologies could one day enable a proactive approach to workforce well-being and safety, shifting the focus from reactive interventions to predictive well-being management. 

The construction industry has long been defined by resilience, precision, and a commitment to craft – while the well-being of those doing the work has largely been neglected. It’s time for that approach to change. Just as physical safety transformed from an afterthought to an industry cornerstone, mental health and holistic employee well-being must be prioritized and integral to every facet of construction operations.

This shift is not merely a moral imperative but a strategic necessity—one that fosters a healthier, more productive, and more sustainable workforce. By championing leadership commitment, enhancing communication, embracing innovative technologies, and fostering a culture of trust and inclusion, the industry can pave the way for lasting change. The journey ahead is complex, but the blueprint is clear: a workforce that feels valued, supported, and heard will not only thrive but also drive the construction industry toward a stronger and more resilient future.  

If you have any questions about well-being programs or questions about your specific situation, please contact our Well-being Consulting team. We’re here to help. 

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has recently issued two significant Accounting Standards Updates (ASUs): ASU No. 2023-07 and ASU No. 2024-03. These updates aim to enhance the transparency and usefulness of financial disclosures for public business entities (PBEs) and are only applicable to PBEs.

ASU No. 2023-07: Improvements to Reportable Segment Disclosures

Issued in November 2023, ASU No. 2023-07 seeks to improve the disclosures about a public entity's reportable segments.

Key provisions

• Significant expense principle: Entities must disclose, annually, and on an interim basis, significant segment expenses that are regularly provided to the chief operating decision maker (CODM) and included within each reported measure of segment profit or loss. The term “significant” is not defined but PBEs should consider relevant qualitative and quantitative factors when determining whether segment expense categories and amounts are significant. The FASB also acknowledged in Basis for Conclusions (BC) paragraph 35 that this disclosure requirement will likely vary depending on the level of expense information provided to a PBE’s CODM. This variation will likely exist between entities in the same industry and possibly even within a PBE’s reportable segments.
• Other segment items: Entities must disclose annually and on an interim basis, an amount for other segment items by reportable segment and a description of its composition. The other segment items category is the difference between segment revenue less the segment expenses disclosed under the significant expense principle (see above) and each reported measure of segment profit or loss.
• Interim disclosures: A PBE must provide all annual disclosures about a reportable segment’s profit or loss and assets currently required by Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic 280 in interim periods.
• Segment profit or loss measurement: PBEs must disclose the measure of segment profit or loss that most closely aligns with the measurement principles under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (US GAAP). However, a PBE may disclose additional measures of segment profit or loss if used by the CODM in assessing segment performance and deciding how to allocate resources. However, the PBE is not required to disclose these additional measurements.
• CODM disclosure: PBEs must disclose the title and position of the CODM and an explanation of how the CODM uses the reported measure(s) of segment profit or loss in assessing segment performance and deciding how to allocate resources. The CODM could be an individual or a group of individuals, such as a committee.
• Single reportable segments: PBEs with a single reportable segment are still required to meet the disclosure requirements of this ASU and any existing disclosure requirements in ASC Topic 280. The ASU also adds a disclosure example for those PBEs that only have one reportable segment starting at ASC 280-10-55-53.

It should be noted this ASU is not changing the method in which an entity identifies its operating segments and ultimately its reportable segments. Also, the FASB acknowledged there may be a duplication of information with these new disclosure requirements. For instance, some of this information may already be disclosed in the entity’s income statement. In BC paragraph 32, the FASB indicated, “While duplication is not prohibited, the Board believes that duplication of the entire consolidated income statement in the segment footnote is unnecessary; rather, a public entity may choose to reference the primary financial statements in the segment footnote.”

Effective date:

The amendments in ASU No. 2023-07 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2023, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2024. So, for calendar year-end PBEs, this ASU will be effective in their December 31, 2024, financial statements.

ASU No. 2024-03: Disaggregation of Income Statement Expenses

On November 4, 2024, the FASB issued ASU No. 2024-03, which requires PBEs to provide expanded disclosures about specific expense categories in interim and annual reporting periods.

Key provisions

• Tabular disclosure: Entities must disclose, in a tabular format, amounts recognized in each relevant expense caption in the income statement for the following specific natural expenses:
  • Purchases of inventory*
  • Employee compensation**
  • Depreciation
  • Intangible asset amortization
  • Depreciation, depletion, and amortization recognized as part of oil- and gas-producing activities (DD&A)
• Other amounts: Certain amounts that are already required to be disclosed under U.S. GAAP must be included in the same tabular disclosure if those expenses are included in a relevant expense caption. These certain amounts are listed in ASC 220-40-50-21 and 22.
• Qualitative descriptions: A qualitative description of the amounts remaining in relevant expense captions that are not separately disaggregated quantitatively is also required. Relevant expense captions are those that include one of the specific natural expenses listed above. So, for example, if depreciation is included in “occupancy expense” on the income statement, a qualitative description of the other expenses comprising “occupancy expense” would be required. If a relevant expense caption consists entirely of one expense category listed above, it is not subject to the requirements of this ASU.
• Selling expenses: Entities must disclose the total amount of selling expenses and, in annual reporting periods, provide their definition of selling expenses.

The ASU also provides some example disclosures broken down by industry (manufacturing, service operations, and a bank) in the “Implementation Guidance and Illustrations” section of the ASU.

*ASC 220-40-50-19 provides a practical expedient for inventory when substantially all of an entity’s income statement expense caption comprises purchases of inventory. In this case, the entity does not have to disclose this amount in its tabular disclosures but does need to provide a qualitative description of the composition of the expense caption.

**ASC 220-40-50-20 provides a practical expedient where an entity that presents an expense caption for salaries and employee benefits (or similarly named) on its income statement that complies with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s requirements, the entity may use that amount for purposes of satisfying the ASU’s disclosure requirements rather than following the definition of employee compensation specifically provided in the ASU.

Effective date

ASU No. 2024-03 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim reporting periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027.

Implications for Public Business Entities

These ASUs represent a significant shift towards greater transparency in financial reporting. Entities are encouraged to assess their current reporting practices and make necessary adjustments to comply with the new requirements. Early preparation will be crucial to ensure a smooth transition and to meet investor expectations for enhanced financial disclosures. On their surface, it may appear as if these ASUs should be relatively easy to implement. However, upon diving into these ASUs, significant changes to existing practices may be required, depending on the level of detail of information currently being generated by your organization. As always, your BerryDunn team is here to help!

Read this if you are a nonprofit finance leader or board member.

Is your nonprofit using a break-even bottom line as your ultimate budget goal? If so, you may be missing out on opportunities to strategically further your mission. By looking at your budget using a statement of financial position perspective, rather than just a profit and loss perspective, you can gain a more complete financial picture of your organization.

Don’t forget about the statement of financial position while budgeting

Most annual nonprofit budgets focus solely on profit and loss results. While a break-even bottom line is a common target for not-for-profit organizations, it may not always be the best goal. In fact, this type of budgeting approach may perpetuate financial limitations that are preventing your organization from achieving its most important goals.

Focusing on overall financial health

Focusing more on a statement of financial position approach to budgeting can help organizations address current and future opportunities or challenges. Instead of asking how much revenue you want to bring in, and then calculating expenses from there, ask, “What liquid assets do we have now, and what do we want to have at the end of the year?” in order to invest in strategic growth and opportunities. This approach will help to uncover strengths such as reserves that can help fund growth, and weaknesses such as reliance on debt and inadequate liquidity. Knowing that your statement of financial position is strong enough to absorb losses creates the ability to invest further in growth.

Liquid Unrestricted Net Assets (LUNA)

LUNA is a simple calculation utilizing audited or internal financial statements. It is the total of net assets without donor restriction or board-designations less net property, plant, and equipment plus the current and non-current portions of any debt used to finance fixed assets.

Calculating your organization’s LUNA is one great way to understand the strength of your statement of financial position. LUNA is the part of net assets without donor restrictions that can be liquidated easily and utilized for opportunities for growth or to overcome any challenges that may appear. This knowledge will allow you to use existing resources to boost long-term success. For instance, if significant capital expenditures are expected in the near future, comparing your LUNA and the expected cash requirements of the capital project may warn you that investing significantly in new programming may need to be rescheduled to be able to provide the liquidity to fund the capital project.

Getting fundraising and donors on the same page

If, through the statement of financial position approach to budgeting, your organization recognizes a need to improve liquidity, you may realize that you have limited options at the current time. You may need to reframe your fundraising strategy and educate donors that funds are needed for long-term improvements, not immediate needs. You may also consider cutting programs that are not crucial to the organization’s mission or looking into ways to increase funds received from primary donors and stakeholders.

BerryDunn’s not-for-profit team can help you develop strategies to improve your budgeting, meet complex compliance requirements, and accurately and completely measure the financial health of your organization. Learn more about our services.

As organizations navigate the complexities ahead in 2025, economic uncertainty presents both challenges and opportunities. Organizations must strategically address financial stability, donor engagement, federal compliance requirements, and workforce management to sustain their missions. This article dives into five critical finance trends and explores how nonprofits can effectively adapt.

1. Focus on donor retention

In times of economic uncertainty, acquiring new donors becomes more challenging as individuals and corporations may tighten their budgets. Consequently, retaining existing donors becomes paramount for financial stability.

Strategies for effective donor retention

• Personalized communication: Tailor communications to acknowledge donors' contributions and demonstrate the tangible impact of their support. Personalized messages foster a deeper emotional connection and encourage continued giving.
• Impact reporting: Provide detailed and transparent reports showcasing how donations are utilized while highlighting success stories.
• Flexible giving options: Introduce diverse giving methods, such as monthly giving plans, one-time donations, legacy gifts, and digital payment options. Flexibility accommodates donors' varying financial capacities and preferences.
• Engagement opportunities: Create opportunities for donors to engage beyond financial contributions. Volunteer programs and events can strengthen relationships and enhance donor loyalty.

2. Changing compliance requirements and increased accountability

Regulatory scrutiny and donor expectations for transparency are on the rise. Nonprofits must adhere to evolving compliance standards and demonstrate accountability in their financial practices to maintain trust and secure funding.

Strategies to enhance compliance and accountability

• Regular policy updates: Continuously review and update financial policies to align with current federal, state, and local regulations. Staying informed about legislative changes ensures ongoing compliance.
• Internal audits: Conduct periodic internal audits to identify and address potential financial discrepancies or weaknesses. Regular audits help maintain financial integrity and prepare organizations for external reviews.
• Transparent reporting: Develop financial reports that clearly outline income, expenditures, and program impacts. Transparent reporting builds credibility with donors, grantors, and regulatory bodies.

3. Adapting to the changing grant funding landscape

The grant funding environment is shifting, with foundations and government agencies prioritizing emerging issues such as climate change, social justice, and technological innovation.

Strategies to navigate grant funding changes

• Mission alignment: Ensure that organizational missions and programs align with the current priorities of funders.
• Competitive grant proposals: Develop compelling grant proposals that clearly articulate goals, methodologies, and measurable impacts. Highlighting unique approaches and successful outcomes can distinguish applications.
• Collaborative partnerships: Form partnerships with other organizations to create comprehensive and innovative grant proposals. Collaborative efforts can attract larger and more diverse funding sources.

4. Inflation and Cost Management

Rising operational costs driven by inflation necessitate a reevaluation of budgets and spending practices. Nonprofits must implement effective cost management strategies to maintain program quality without compromising financial health.

Strategies for effective cost management

• Regular expense reviews: Conduct frequent reviews of all expenses to identify areas where costs can be reduced without affecting service delivery. Prioritize essential expenditures and eliminate unnecessary spending.
• Shared services and resources: Collaborate with other nonprofits to share resources such as office space, administrative services, and technology platforms. Shared services can significantly lower operational costs.
• Advocacy for inflation-adjusted funding: Negotiate multi-year grants or contracts that include inflation adjustments. Securing funding that accounts for cost increases ensures sustained financial support over time.
• Efficiency improvements: Invest in technology and process improvements that enhance operational efficiency. Streamlined workflows and automation can reduce labor costs and increase productivity.

5. Workforce challenges and compensation trends

Attracting and retaining talent in a competitive labor market remains a challenge for nonprofits. Organizations must adopt innovative compensation and workforce strategies to build a committed and capable team.

Strategies to address workforce challenges

• Competitive compensation packages: Offer salaries and benefits that are competitive within the nonprofit sector. Creatively structuring compensation (e.g., performance bonuses, benefits) can attract quality staff.
• Flexible work arrangements: Provide flexible work options such as remote work, flexible hours, and part-time positions. Flexibility can enhance job satisfaction and broaden the talent pool.
• Professional development: Invest in staff training and career development opportunities. Supporting employees' growth fosters loyalty and enhances organizational capacity.
• Inclusive workplace culture: Foster an inclusive and supportive workplace culture that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. A positive work environment attracts and retains dedicated employees.

Economic uncertainty in 2025 demands that nonprofits adopt flexible financial strategies. By prioritizing donor retention, enhancing compliance, navigating the evolving grant landscape, managing costs effectively, and addressing workforce challenges, organizations can strengthen their financial foundations and continue to make meaningful impacts. Embracing these trends not only ensures resilience in the face of economic fluctuations but also positions nonprofits for sustained growth and mission fulfillment. Learn how we can help.