I wrote a memo, titled “ABZs of Solid Valuation Conclusions and Reports,” for Mercer Capital’s analytical staff in 1989. The introduction and conclusion to this memo were written for its republication in Valuing Financial Institutions, my first book, published in 1992. The memo is reproduced as written with the exception of a few [explanatory comments]. Nevertheless, I believe that this 1989 memo is worth the time to read or reread as we think about developing solid valuation conclusions and reports in 2018.

I just returned from the 2018 American Society of Appraisers Advanced Business Valuation and International Appraisers Conference held in Anaheim, California. I presented twice at the conference, first in a panel and then solo. In this post, I provide a brief overview of my two presentations.

Video depositions, which were an infrequent event during my career for many years, are being used much more frequently these days. I’ve had depositions taken by video on many occasions to date. Until last week, I had never seen myself on the screen at a trial. I’ve only ever seen a video clip of another expert’s deposition one time, which was quite a few years ago.

The idea for naming the appraiser at the time a buy-sell agreement is signed was not original to me. I first heard of the idea in the late 1980s when I learned that I had been named as the appraiser in a buy-sell agreement that had been signed a few years before. However, since learning of the idea, I’ve adopted it and promoted it widely in my books and articles on buy-sell agreements.

Customer service is something that we cannot think about enough. It’s applicable whenever we (or our companies) interface with customers, whatever the nature might be. This post describes two such customer service interfaces I encountered on a recent trip to Minneapolis to deliver a speech. One was good and the other was not so good.

While many buy-sell agreements call for the issuance of promissory notes for at least partial funding of purchases, there is no corollary consideration of the fair market values of the promissory notes to be issued. A previous post discussed promissory notes in terms of rates and terms. This post examines the concept of the fair market value of promissory notes issued in connection with buy-sell agreements.

The Wall Street Journal recently featured an article about the AICPA’s move to open up its ABV credential to non-CPAs. This article caused me to think about the significance of the AICPA’s new position for business valuation.

Promissory notes are used as funding mechanisms in many buy-sell agreements. Yet the potential notes to be issued when trigger events occur are often given little thought by drafting attorneys or parties to buy-sell agreements. They should because the terms of these promissory notes matter both to issuing companies and to receiving shareholders who sell their shares.

Today I discuss another buy-sell agreement story where shareholders bet on the company’s value upon a trigger event. This story’s protagonist “wins;” unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the other shareholders. While the price was updated annually, incongruent contexts led to a dichotomy in the price of what should have been paid and what was actually paid per the agreement.