Buy-Sell Valuation of a Concentrated-Revenue Molder: Normalizations and Discount Discipline
Meridian Plastics is a custom injection molder with revenue of $21.5 million and reported EBITDA of $2.58 million in the most recent year. The founder, age 68, is retiring, and the shareholders' agreement requires a buy-sell at fair market value for his 100% interest. Diligence reveals: officer compensation of $450,000 versus a market replacement cost of $210,000; a company-owned aircraft costing $180,000 per year to operate, of which 60% is documented personal use; and a building leased from the founder's LLC at $120,000 annually when third-party appraisals indicate $260,000 market rent. One customer, Apex, generated 38% of revenue under a supply agreement with 14 months remaining and no minimum purchase obligation. Management projects revenue of $24 million next year, including $2.5 million from a program still in tooling. The appraiser selected a 6.5x EBITDA multiple from guideline transactions but then applied a 25% discount for lack of marketability and a 10% discount for lack of control.
1. Identify each EBITDA normalization and compute adjusted EBITDA. How should the aircraft and the below-market lease be handled so the adjustment is internally consistent with the multiple selected?
Read the worked answer
Officer compensation: +$240,000. Only the excess over a market replacement salary is discretionary; adding back the full $450,000 would assume the business needs no management.
Aircraft: +$108,000, or +$180,000 with a separate asset. The 60% personal-use portion ($108,000) is discretionary and is added back in every case. The $72,000 balance is a real operating cost only if a hypothetical buyer would keep the aircraft. The defensible alternative is to add back the full $180,000, remove the aircraft from operating assets, and add its net realizable value as a non-operating asset. What is not defensible is adding back the full cost while leaving the aircraft inside the operating value - that double counts.
Lease: +$140,000. The subject must be stated at market rent so its expense structure matches guideline companies that pay arm's-length rent. This adjustment also removes a related-party benefit that would not survive a sale.
Adjusted EBITDA = 2,580 + 240 + 108 + 140 = $3,068,000 (or $3,140,000 under the full aircraft add-back).
Finally, test consistency: if the guideline companies carry heavier management and market-rate facilities, the adjusted figure - not the reported one - is the correct numerator, and the applied multiple must have been derived on a comparable basis.
2. The appraiser applied a 25% DLOM and a 10% DLOC to the indicated value. Evaluate both adjustments.
Read the worked answer
The DLOC should be removed. The subject is a 100% controlling interest, and guideline transaction multiples are themselves controlling-interest prices. Layering a minority discount onto a controlling interest is a category error that double counts and will not survive cross-examination.
The DLOM is supportable in concept but not at 25% without evidence. A controlling interest in a company of this size is still illiquid, so some marketability discount is defensible; however, 25% sits at the top of the range typically drawn from restricted-stock and pre-IPO studies, which mostly involve minority positions in much smaller companies. The appraiser must cite the specific empirical source, explain why it transfers, and consider whether the customer concentration is being punished twice - once through the discount and again through the multiple or projections.
Sequencing matters. Discounts apply to the concluded equity value after the enterprise-to-equity bridge, not to EBITDA or enterprise value, and only once. If the shareholders' agreement defines value as "fair value" without reference to discounts, the agreement controls and the analysis changes. Recommendation: delete the DLOC, cut the DLOM to a documented 10–15%, and disclose the sensitivity - each 5% of DLOM moves value by roughly $880,000 here.
3. Quantify the Apex concentration risk and recommend how to reflect it in the conclusion.
Read the worked answer
Size the exposure. Apex revenue = 38% × $21.5M = $8.17M. At a 30% contribution margin, Apex contributes roughly $2.45M of EBITDA - about 80% of adjusted EBITDA of $3.07M. Losing the account without replacement takes adjusted EBITDA to roughly $0.6M, which is the real headline for a buyer.
Build scenarios rather than asserting a single number: renewal at current volume (say 40% probability), renewal at half volume (35%), and loss (25%). Probability-weighted EBITDA = (0.40 × 3.07) + (0.35 × 1.85) + (0.25 × 0.62) = $2.03M, or a 34% haircut to the point estimate.
Choose one mechanism, not three. Either probability-weight the cash flows, or apply a company-specific risk premium in the discount rate, or select a lower multiple from less-concentrated comparables. Doing all three is the most common error in concentrated-customer valuations and is easy for an opposing expert to expose.
Also test the projection. The $2.5M new program is in tooling with no purchase order; it should be excluded or heavily discounted until tooling is complete and a purchase order exists. Recommend presenting a base case, a scenario-weighted case, and an Apex-loss case, with the concluded value anchored to the weighted case and the concentration disclosed prominently.