Blog

In Australian transactions, the phrase “fair and reasonable” is not a slogan, it is a valuation conclusion reached by an independent expert after assessing whether a proposed deal is fair to shareholders as a group and reasonable for each class of security holder. For business owners, directors, advisers, and investors, understanding how a valuer reaches that opinion is critical because the conclusion can influence whether a scheme of arrangement, related-party transaction, capital restructure, or takeover proceeds on terms that withstand scrutiny under Australian valuation practice.

What “Fair and Reasonable” Means in a Valuation Context

In practice, a fair and reasonable opinion asks two separate questions. First, is the transaction fair, meaning does it provide value that is appropriate when measured against the subject interest’s underlying economic worth? Second, is it reasonable, meaning does the transaction sit within a range that an informed shareholder could sensibly accept having regard to the circumstances, alternatives, risks, and market evidence?

Those questions are not answered by intuition. They are answered through a structured valuation engagement, grounded in APES 225 Valuation Services and supported by observable market data where available. The objective is to form an independent view of value, often in circumstances where management, a major shareholder, or a related party has an interest in the outcome. For private businesses, this usually means assessing the enterprise on a going-concern basis, then testing whether the offer or restructuring aligns with that assessed value after allowing for control, liquidity, and transaction-specific considerations.

How Independent Experts Reach Their Opinion

Establishing the subject of the valuation

The first step is defining exactly what is being valued. Is it 100 per cent of the equity in a private company, a minority parcel, a controlling interest, or a single class of shares with different rights? The answer matters because control rights, dividends, liquidation rights, and voting power can materially affect value. A controlling interest may command a premium if it allows the holder to direct strategy, capital allocation, remuneration, and distributions. A minority parcel may attract a discount for lack of control, particularly where access to cash flow is constrained.

Before any multiple or model is applied, the valuer must also understand the business model, industry position, customer concentration, recurring revenue profile, capital intensity, and cyclicality. A manufacturing group, a software business with strong annual recurring revenue, and a professional services practice will not be valued on the same basis, even if each has similar revenue. The valuation engagement must reflect the specific economic characteristics of the business.

Normalising earnings and cash flow

For private businesses, the reported financial statements are rarely the right starting point for valuation without adjustment. A valuer will typically normalise EBITDA or maintainable earnings to remove owner-specific perks, one-off legal costs, unusual repairs, non-recurring government support, related-party charges, and remuneration above or below market. Working capital levels are also tested to ensure they are consistent with sustainable trading needs, because a business that is underfunded in receivables and inventory may not be worth the same as one operating with adequate working capital.

In smaller businesses, seller’s discretionary earnings (SDE) may be more relevant than EBITDA, particularly where the owner-manager’s compensation is intertwined with profit. For larger private companies, EBITDA is often preferred because it better supports a market multiple or discounted cash flow approach. Where growth is predictable and recurring, revenue or ARR multiples can also be relevant, especially in software and subscription-based models. However, a multiple is only meaningful when tied to the quality of the earnings base behind it.

Applying market and income-based methodologies

The most common methods are the market approach and the income approach. Under the market approach, the valuer considers industry comparables, listed peers, and precedent transactions. Under the income approach, future cash flows are projected and discounted back to present value using a weighted average cost of capital (WACC) or a risk-adjusted discount rate appropriate to the business. In fair and reasonable matters, experts often compare both methods to ensure conclusions are internally consistent.

Multiples vary materially by sector. Mature industrial businesses may trade on single-digit EBITDA multiples, often in the 4 to 7 times range, depending on scale, margins, customer concentration, and growth. Strong business services businesses may attract higher ranges where earnings are resilient and owner dependence is low. Software and recurring revenue businesses can trade on ARR multiples or higher EBITDA multiples if net revenue retention is strong, churn is low, and customer lifetime value is durable. As a general rule, higher growth and lower risk support higher valuation multiples, but only when the growth is evidenced and sustainable.

For businesses with limited comparability, the discounted cash flow method is often more persuasive because it captures the specific earnings trajectory, capital needs, tax effects, and terminal value of the business. However, DCF outputs are highly sensitive to assumptions. A modest change in terminal growth, churn, margin expansion, or discount rate can materially alter value. That is why an independent expert will often test multiple scenarios and reconcile the result against market evidence rather than relying on a single point estimate.

Why Fairness Depends on Australian Transaction Context

Australian transactions do not occur in a tax vacuum. A fair and reasonable opinion must be framed with an understanding of how the structure affects shareholders and the business itself. CGT can influence the net economic outcome to a shareholder, while the small business CGT concessions, including the 15-year exemption and active asset rules, can materially change the after-tax proceeds available to a departing owner. A transaction involving a private company may also need to account for Division 7A risks where funds or value are extracted improperly through loans or payments to shareholders or associates.

GST treatment also matters, particularly where a business sale is structured as a going concern. If the transaction is not properly documented and implemented, the economic value to buyer and seller may differ from the headline price once tax leakage and completion adjustments are considered. An expert valuer does not provide tax advice, but will recognise that tax settings can influence market behaviour, pricing, and the practical fairness of a proposal.

Australian market conditions also shape the valuation outcome. Interest rates, credit availability, labour constraints, and sector demand all affect buyer appetite and capitalisation rates. In a higher rate environment, discount rates rise and valuation multiples can compress, especially for lower quality or more leveraged businesses. Conversely, businesses with recurring revenue, strong gross margins, and low churn may remain resilient in softer markets because buyers place a premium on predictability.

Control, Minority, and Marketability Adjustments

One of the most important issues in a fair and reasonable analysis is whether the subject interest should be valued on a controlling basis or as a minority interest. If a shareholder cannot influence dividends, strategy, or exit timing, the interest may be worth less on a per-share basis than a controlling stake. That difference is often reflected through discounts for lack of control or, in some cases, a control premium when valuing a controlling block relative to the underlying equity on a minority basis.

Discounts for lack of marketability can also be relevant in private companies because ownership cannot be sold instantly and buyers are limited. The size of that discount depends on the duration, legal constraints, dividend capacity, and marketability of the underlying business. A profitable, dividend-paying business with a clear exit pathway may attract a smaller discount than an illiquid, owner-dependent operation with uncertain cash flow. The valuer must justify these adjustments with valuation evidence, not assumptions borrowed from unrelated cases.

Common Misconceptions in Independent Expert Reports

A common misconception is that the highest price automatically represents a fair outcome. In reality, a nominally high price can still be unfair if it ignores shareholder rights, completion risk, earn-out dependence, or tax and liquidity consequences. Another misunderstanding is that an offer near book value is inherently reasonable. Book value may bear little relationship to economic value for a service business, a software platform, or a brand-led company with strong future earnings.

Another error is to treat all multiples as interchangeable. A revenue multiple may be useful for a recurring revenue business, but it is usually inappropriate for a low-margin contractor business with lumpy cash flow. Likewise, comparing a growing SaaS company with 120 per cent net revenue retention and low churn to a one-off project business is not meaningful. A proper valuation engagement adjusts for business quality, not just headline metrics.

Finally, parties sometimes confuse a valuation engagement with a limited scope valuation engagement or a calculation engagement. Under APES 225, those are distinct assignments. A fair and reasonable opinion generally requires a full valuation engagement, not a simplified calculation, because the expert must examine assumptions, evidence, and sensitivity in enough depth to support an independent opinion capable of withstanding challenge.

Division 296 and the Need for Current Market Values

From a practical valuation perspective, Division 296 has increased the need for current market valuations where SMSFs hold business real property, shares in private companies, or other business assets. Division 296 is a personal tax, assessed to the individual rather than the fund, and the final law taxes realised earnings only. The thresholds of $3 million and $10 million are indexed, with an additional 15 per cent applying to earnings attributable to a member’s Total Superannuation Balance between $3 million and $10 million, and an additional 25 per cent above $10 million. First assessments are issued in the 2027-28 year for the 2026-27 financial year.

For business owners, the valuation relevance is direct. If a self-managed superannuation fund holds an interest in a privately held company or other business asset, it may need a current market valuation, including for the optional cost base reset to market value as at 30 June 2026. That requirement can drive a genuine need for an independent valuation from a qualified valuer, especially where the asset is illiquid and the market evidence is limited.

Conclusion

A fair and reasonable opinion is ultimately a disciplined valuation conclusion, not a negotiating position. It requires careful identification of the interest being valued, normalisation of earnings, selection of the right methodology, and appropriate consideration of Australian tax, governance, and market conditions. For business owners and shareholders, the quality of the valuation often determines the quality of the decision.

If you need an independent valuation for a transaction, shareholder matter, restructure, or superannuation-related asset review, InteleK Business Valuations & Advisory can assist with a confidential valuation engagement tailored to the circumstances of your business.