IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i7p2699-d338728.html

Modern Methods of Business Valuation—Case Study and New Concepts

Author

Listed:
  • Ireneusz Miciuła

    (Faculty of Economics, Finance and Management, Department of Sustainable Finance and Capital Markets, University of Szczecin, 70-453 Szczecin, Poland)

  • Marta Kadłubek

    (Faculty of Management, Department of Logistics and International Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland)

  • Paweł Stępień

    (Faculty of Economics, Finance and Management, Department of Sustainable Finance and Capital Markets, University of Szczecin, 70-453 Szczecin, Poland)

Abstract

In the modern world, the terms enterprise value and valuation are of great importance. Knowledge about how much an enterprise is worth is of fundamental importance for both the owner of that company and investors when negotiating the price of an enterprise at the time of conducting a commercial transaction. The article presents the goals of the company’s valuation and characteristic stages of the company’s life at which such valuation is necessary. The article classifies the methods of enterprise valuation used today. On this basis, the valuation methodology is presented according to the MDI-R concept (Assets, Income, Intellectual Capital-Market), which in a broad spectrum measures the effectiveness of the company’s operations and, in accordance with the current features of good valuation, aims to determine the fair value of the company. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate the need to improve the code of conduct and valuation standards. As part of the implementation of the objective, multi-faceted and complex valuation issues are presented, as well as factors that may distort the determination of fair value. The methodology of the study is based on inferences about the methodology of business valuation, and verification is based on practical examples, by which a hypothesis on the existence of critical elements of valuation is verified that allows the use of broad subjectivity in estimating the value of assets. At the same time, the factors that determine the possibility of the existence of too wide a subjectivity in estimating assets, which is in contradiction with the features of good valuation, are presented. The attempt is made to draw attention to the threats arising from modern business valuation methodologies and their challenges in the future. Additionally, this article offers the authors’ proposed hybrid method MDI-R, which draws from existing solutions to improve their functionality and applicability.

Suggested Citation

  • Ireneusz Miciuła & Marta Kadłubek & Paweł Stępień, 2020. "Modern Methods of Business Valuation—Case Study and New Concepts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-22, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2699-:d:338728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2699/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/7/2699/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Mohnen & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2013. "Innovation and Productivity: An Update," Eurasian Business Review, Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 47-65, Spring.
    2. Galindo, Miguel-Ángel & Méndez, María Teresa, 2014. "Entrepreneurship, economic growth, and innovation: Are feedback effects at work?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 825-829.
    3. Shad S Morris & Scott A Snell, 2011. "Intellectual capital configurations and organizational capability: An empirical examination of human resource subunits in the multinational enterprise," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(6), pages 805-827, August.
    4. Klingenberg, Beate & Timberlake, Rachel & Geurts, Tom G. & Brown, Roger J., 2013. "The relationship of operational innovation and financial performance—A critical perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 317-323.
    5. Engel, Dirk & Keilbach, Max, 2007. "Firm-level implications of early stage venture capital investment -- An empirical investigation," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 150-167, March.
    6. Pierre Mohnen & Bronwyn Hall, 2013. "Innovation and Productivity: An Update," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 47-65, June.
    7. Ngo, Liem Viet & O'Cass, Aron, 2013. "Innovation and business success: The mediating role of customer participation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(8), pages 1134-1142.
    8. Fernandez, Pablo, 2002. "Valuation Methods and Shareholder Value Creation," Elsevier Monographs, Elsevier, edition 1, number 9780122538414.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Henryk Wojtaszek & Ireneusz Miciuła, 2019. "Analysis of Factors Giving the Opportunity for Implementation of Innovations on the Example of Manufacturing Enterprises in the Silesian Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-28, October.
    2. Othmani, Abdelhafidh & Ben Yedder, Nadia & Bakari, Sayef, 2023. "The Cointegration Relationship between Patent, Domestic Investment and Economic Growth in United States of America," MPRA Paper 118245, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Santos, Anabela M. & Cincera, Michele & Cerulli, Giovanni, 2024. "Sources of financing: Which ones are more effective in innovation–growth linkage?," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(2).
    4. Teimuraz Gogokhia & George Berulava, 2021. "Business environment reforms, innovation and firm productivity in transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 221-245, June.
    5. Grande, Rafael & Muñoz de Bustillo, Rafael & Fernández Macías, Enrique & Antón, José Ignacio, 2020. "Innovation and job quality. A firm-level exploration," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 130-142.
    6. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello, 2022. "Top R&D investors, structural change and the R&D growth performance of young and old firms," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 1-33, March.
    7. Jaan Masso & Amaresh K Tiwari, 2021. "Productivity Implications Of R&D, Innovation And Capital Accumulation For Incumbents And Entrants: The Case Of Estonia," University of Tartu - Faculty of Economics and Business Administration Working Paper Series 130, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu (Estonia).
    8. Jun Liu & Yu Qian & Huihong Chang & Jeffrey Yi-Lin Forrest, 2022. "The Impact of Technology Innovation on Enterprise Capacity Utilization—Evidence from China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Dawid, Herbert & Pellegrino, Gabriele & Vivarelli, Marco, 2017. "Is the demand-pull driver equally crucial for product vs process innovation?," MERIT Working Papers 2017-035, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    10. Sangil Kim & Jungmin Yoo, 2017. "Does R&D Expenditure with Heavy Related Party Transactions Harm Firm Value?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-15, July.
    11. Klaus Friesenbichler & Michael Peneder, 2016. "Innovation, competition and productivity," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 24(3), pages 535-580, July.
    12. Halima Jibril & Stephen Roper, 2022. "Of chickens and eggs: Exporting, innovation novelty and productivity," Working Papers 027, The Productivity Institute.
    13. Başak Dalgıç & Burcu Fazlıoğlu, 2021. "Innovation and firm growth: Turkish manufacturing and services SMEs," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(3), pages 395-419, September.
    14. Vahter, Priit & Vadi, Maaja, 2024. "The relationship of technological and organizational innovation with firm performance: Opening the black box of dynamic complementarities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    15. Carlo Altomonte & Tommaso Aquilante & Gábor Békés & Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano, 2013. "Internationalization and innovation of firms: evidence and policy [Managing knowledge within and outside the multinational corporation]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 28(76), pages 663-700.
    16. Spyros Arvanitis & Euripidis N. Loukis, 2014. "Investigating the effects of ICT on innovation and performance of European hospitals," KOF Working papers 14-366, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    17. Avenyo, Elvis Korku & Konte, Maty & Mohnen, Pierre, 2019. "The employment impact of product innovations in sub-Saharan Africa: Firm-level evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    18. Nguyen Thi Canh & Nguyen Thanh Liem & Phung Anh Thu & Nguyen Vinh Khuong, 2019. "The Impact of Innovation on the Firm Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility of Vietnamese Manufacturing Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-14, July.
    19. Simon Bruhn & Thomas Grebel, 2025. "Allocative Efficiency, Plant Dynamics and Regional Productivity: Evidence from Germany," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 48(1), pages 62-91, January.
    20. V. A. Barinova & S. P. Zemtsov & A. V. Sorokina, 2015. "Innovation activity as a condition for growing companied to improve their competitiveness," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 1(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:7:p:2699-:d:338728. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.