The price of a recent investment, if it is deemed to be representative of Fair Value (arm’s length: willing buyer- willing seller) would always be a relevant input for a period of time in estimating Fair Value at subsequent Measurement Dates. The overall principle governing the IPEV Valuation Guidelines is that Fair Value is determined consistently with relevant accounting standards, in particular IFRS 13 and ASC Topic 820. The price of a recent investment is a relevant input that should be considered in the estimation of Fair Value and calibrating inputs used subsequently with other valuation techniques as appropriate. Emphasis should be on determining that the recent investment remains relevant, i.e. there should not be a default assumption that it is relevant without performing further assessments to demonstrate this.

Where the last funding round involved significant funds from third parties not involved in previous rounds, or where the funding was not pro rata to previous funding rounds, the valuation derived from such rounds would be expected to be a more robust indicator of Fair Value compared to a funding round in which all parties simply participated pro-rata to previous rounds.

The IPEV Valuation Guidelines and relevant accounting standards require investments to be valued at Fair Value at each Measurement Date. In the case of early-stage companies, at each Measurement Date, consideration should be given to changes in the macro market and the commercial viability of the business to see whether there are indications of upward or downward changes in value. In this context, the Valuer should give consideration to the business’ key performance indicators at the Measurement Date compared to previous Measurement Dates. Further, performance against milestones in the context of the investment thesis should be considered. The weight placed on the price of a recent investment input would be evaluated after taking such items into account. Depending on individual facts and circumstances, in some cases the estimate of Fair Value at a Measurement Date may be equal to price of the latest round. In other cases, it may not. Care should be taken not to automatically apply the headline value of a round of financing to other share classes which have different rights and preferences.

At each Measurement Date, the Fair Value of each investment should be estimated to take into account changes in Fair Value.

In the case of early-stage businesses, it is recognised that there may be a high degree of unpredictability and/or volatility inherent in such businesses. Valuers may argue that it may not be appropriate to make valuation adjustments in respect of short-term metrics when the outcome of these impacts remain uncertain on the developments or performance of the business. However, at each Measurement Date the Valuer needs to consider these factors when determining Fair Value and determine whether they should be adjusted for, remembering the overarching requirement of determining a Fair value which represents what a willing buyer might pay for the asset.

These Valuation Guidelines should be implemented for reporting period post 1 January 2019. However, this recommendation does not override contractual or regulatory requirements.

These Valuation Guidelines should be implemented for reporting period post 1 January 2013. However, this recommendation does not override contractual or regulatory requirements.

It is not the intention of these Guidelines to prescribe or recommend the basis on which Investments are included in the accounts of funds. However, the requirements and implications of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) and US GAAP have been considered in the preparation of these Guidelines. This has been done in order to provide a framework for arriving at a Fair Value for private equity and venture capital Investments which is consistent with these accounting principles.

The Guidelines are intended to represent current best practice and therefore the Valuer should be predisposed towards those methodologies that are generally accepted. However, the Valuer can apply a methodology not presented in the Guidelines so that the results of one particular methodology presented in the Guidelines can be cross-checked.

The guidelines do suggest that where significant positions of options and warrants are held that these may need to be valued separately from the underlying investment using an appropriate option pricing model.


The Guidelines are intended to represent current best practice and therefore the Valuer should be predisposed towards those methodologies that are generally accepted. However, the Valuer can use a methodology not presented in the Guidelines so that the results of one particular methodology presented in the Guidelines can be cross-checked. Moreover, it is acceptable to use alternatives when you have invested in an industry that has particular valuation dynamics, such as Life Assurance businesses that use an embedded value calculation.

When estimating the Fair Value, the Valuer should take account of events taking place subsequent to the reporting date where they provide additional evidence of conditions that existed at the reporting date. In the example above, a reliable offer may provide such additional evidence of conditions at the reporting date, however variations in the value of the currency after the reporting date are in most of the cases indicative of conditions that arose after the reporting date.

The Price of Recent Investment methodology requires the use of the post money valuation.

The entry multiple is only appropriate to use if it remains indicative of current market conditions.

Where market-based multiples are used, the aim is to identify companies that are similar both in terms of risk attributes and earnings growth prospects. Many private equity companies are more highly leveraged than their quoted comparables, making a comparison of earnings (after interest charges) less relevant. Using an EBIT, adjusted for tax, as an approximation of earnings is a way of adjusting for differences in the working capital structure of the companies. In this context EBIT is adjusted by deducting the expected tax charge, calculated at the applicable tax rate.

The treatment of indicative offers are presented in Section III-5.7 of the International Private Equity and Venture Capital Valuation Guidelines. Typically, indicative offers provide useful additional support for a valuation estimated by one of the valuation methodologies, but are insufficiently robust to be used in isolation.

Whenever the Valuer is estimating Fair Value, this should be based on the current circumstances, facts and assumptions considered relevant by the Valuer, rather than using ‘standard’ or formulaic deductions.

The Valuer should assess the impact of these associates on the P/E ratio of the comparator. If this impact is deemed to be material, the Valuer might consider adjusting both the numerator and denominator of the P/E ratio to eliminate the impact of these associates. The fact that associates are active in different industries than the ones of the comparator is one indication among other different factors that associates might have an impact on the P/E ratio.

The taxed EBIT would preferably not include earnings from equity method associates, unless these associates can be assessed as similar in nature with the company being valued.

If associates are not similar in nature, the Valuer should consider if they have an impact on the value of the company being valued. If the impact is material, the Valuer should estimate the fair value of these assets to adjust accordingly the amount derived from applying the multiple observed for the comparator.

The IPEV Guidelines indicate that the validity of the Price of Recent Investment methodology is inevitably eroded over time, especially in a dynamic environment with changes in market conditions and other factors. The IPEV Guidelines also specify that the “Valuer should in any case assess at each Reporting Date whether changes or events subsequent to the relevant transaction would imply a change in the Investment’s Fair Value” (see Part I-Section 3.3. Price of Recent Investment). Therefore this methodology is likely only relevant for private equity investments for a limited period only. If the Valuer assesses that the price no longer reflects the Fair Value of the investment, another appropriate methodology should be applied instead.

Marketability is defined as the time required to effect a transaction or sell an investment. Accounting standards dictate that the Marketability period begins sufficiently in advance of the Measurement Date such that the hypothetical transaction determining Fair Value occurs on the Measurement Date. Therefore, accounting standards do not allow a discount for Marketability when determining Fair Value.

However, the impact of liquidity or illiquidity should be taken into account when determining Fair Value (see the Valuation Guidelines Section II -3.4. Reasonable multiple).

Such situation is presented in Section III-5.2 of the Valuation Guidelines. If a market where data is extracted is viewed as ‘distressed’ this does not mean that all transactions within that market are necessarily distressed. Significant judgement is needed in determining whether individual transactions are indicative of Fair Value considering any legal requirements to transact and indications of a forced sale. Fair value is indicative of an “orderly” transaction given current market conditions, even if the current market is deemed distressed.

The reported Net Asset Value is an appropriate starting point for the Valuer. It may be necessary to make adjustments. Many factors should be assessed as to whether there is a need to adjust the NAV as reported. This consideration should include anything which might have changed since the reporting date. Suggested potential areas of adjustment are set out in (Section II-4.2. Adjustments to Net Asset Value).

By referring to the fact that quoted prices are indicative of the value of the company as a whole, the Guidelines appear to forbid the use of control premia.

The Guidelines suggest that the Valuer should always use their judgement to assess the adjustments required to any quoted multiple to appropriately reflect the value of an unquoted entity. This consideration might include an assessment of whether a third party might pay a higher price than that quoted, on the basis that they would acquire a sufficient portion of the company to give them control (the ‘control premium’). In assessing the size of any adjustment, the Valuer should seek to support their judgement with market evidence. Commonly an acquirer pays a premium to acquire a majority in a public company. Conversely, significant stakes in public companies are frequently placed at a discount to the market price. The Guidelines focus on the use of judgment to estimate the price at which an orderly transaction would take place between knowledgeable Market Participants at the Reporting Date.

Yes. The Valuation Guidelines are entirely consistent with US GAAP. The Valuation Guidelines Edition December 2012 are endorsed by the US National Venture Capital Association and the Private Equity Growth Capital Council.

NAV (Net Asset Value) is defined as the amount estimated as being attributable to the investors in that Fund on the basis of the Fair Value of the underlying Investee Companies and other assets and liabilities (as defined in the Definitions section of the IPEV Guidelines).

The NPV (Net Present Value) is defined as the present value of the fund’s expected cash flows and thus combines the value of current investments as well as the expected future value of undrawn commitments.

The NPV requires complex assumptions about future cash flows, value development and an appropriate discount rate (further details can be found in the EVCA Private Equity Fund Risk Measurement Guidelines).

NPV can be useful in the context of measuring private equity risk as is required for some institutions in the context of Basle II and Solvency II.

An issuer should take the following steps to make reference to its use of the IPEV Valuation Guidelines in their financial statements:

- Formally adopt the use of the IPEV Guidelines in their Valuation Policies and Procedures.
- Include in their footnotes accompanying the financial statements the following or similar statement:

In developing the specific procedures and processes used for developing its estimates of fair value, the Fund has used the industry guidance set forth in the IPEV Valuation Guidelines.”

Typically this statement would be included in the footnotes either where the accounting policies are discussed or where the fair value disclosures are made.