Have you ever thought EBITDA's single 'expected' operating performance and its industry 'norm' and 'comps' EBITDA Multiple seem like a macroeconomic approach to a microeconomic asset valuation? Does valuing specific assets with a macroeconomic approach ever cause a reason to pause and reflect?

A new hybrid investment methodology melds EBITDA, NPV and IRR's strengths.  The new hybrid investment methodology has the benefit of discounting multiple future EBITDAs. The new hybrid investment methodology also makes the numerous hidden EBITDA Multiple investment components accessible (18 and counting).  Accessing the Multiple's components and discounting multiple future EBITDAs provides a microeconomic investment methodology with a first ever microeconomic validation. A validation occurring through affirming financial statements.  The unprecedented financial statement affirmation is achieved by the financial statements reproducing and exhibiting the return imbedded in the investment opportunity's EBITDA Multiple.

IRR and NPV are the dominant Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) investment evaluation tools.  DCF’s concept values a future dollar at a discount to a dollar today.  DCF’s simple premise drives both IRR and NPV’s mechanics.  So, how are conflicting and irreconcilable IRR and NPV results created using DCF’s straightforward concept? What definitive explanation exists to resolve DCF’s simple time-value concept and conflicting IRR and NPV results?  . . . “because conflicting and irreconcilable IRR and NPV results have always existed” does not comfort. 

Have you ever considered conflicting IRR and NPV results as possibly an indicator of flawed evaluation techniques? Have you ever contemplated IRR and NPV could possibly need upgraded?

Conflicting and irreconcilable IRR and NPV results and other IRR and NPV shortcomings are traceable to an ignored time-value axiom.  Addressing the ignored time-value axiom creates the ability to reproduce and exhibit an investment opportunity’s return in financial statements.   Addressing the ignored time-value axiom  begins a path towards IRR and NPV’s upgrade.

Have you ever wondered why there is not a way to reciprocally answer a non-trivial investment analysis?  An analysis can start with a present value assumption and solve for the investment’s future value.  Re-starting the analysis should be able to use the recently solved future value as an assumption and reciprocally solve for the original present value.  However, today the re-start present value answer does not match the original present value assumption.  Have you ever contemplated how reciprocally transitioning between an investment opportunity’s present and future values could benchmark a new investment methodology?

To better evaluate investment opportunities, EBITDA, NPV and IRR's upgrade needs to demonstrate the new investment benchmark.  The benchmark’s name is Solve/Assumption Synchronicity. 

Today, business professionals struggle to communicate an investment opportunity’s outcome.  Have you ever thought of the trial and error nature of IRR hurdle rates as a poor process to correlate investment outcomes to financial targets?  Have you ever considered traditional evaluation shortcomings are so severe as to question the validity of the results?  

For the first time, compelling evaluations occur as return calculated from the investment’s financial statements now matches the investment’s return.  Affirming financial statements, exhibiting their investment’s return, set a new standard of excellence and invoke unprecedented validation and credibility in investment opportunities through advanced evaluation outcomes.  Prospective financial statements are now a purposeful vehicle to reproduce, exhibit and affirm an investment’s return.  Evaluation outcome validation turn an investment’s financial statements into a comforting investment road map. Evaluation outcome credibility invigorates the investment opportunity’s messaging.