The Terminal Value That Swallows the Valuation
An analyst is valuing Kestrel Logistics, a mature regional trucking firm, using a DCF. Free cash flow to the firm for the explicit five-year forecast averages $48 million. The analyst sets a terminal growth rate of 4.5%, a WACC of 8.0%, and computes terminal value as FCFF × (1+g)/(WACC − g) = 48 × 1.045 / 0.035 = $1.43 billion. The explicit-period present value is only $192 million. The resulting enterprise value is $1.62 billion, of which 88% is terminal value. Kestrel's revenue is growing at 2% and its industry is expected to grow at 2.5% long term. A partner asks whether the valuation is defensible.
1. Is the 4.5% terminal growth rate internally consistent with the explicit forecast and the industry outlook? What is the effect on the valuation?
Read the worked answer
It is not internally consistent.
- The explicit forecast grows FCFF at a rate implied by the $48M average; if revenue grows at 2% and the industry at 2.5%, a 4.5% perpetual growth rate exceeds both the company's own near-term trajectory and the industry's long-run growth. A terminal growth rate should not exceed long-run nominal GDP growth, and certainly not the industry rate for a mature firm.
- Sensitivity is extreme: At g = 4.5%, the denominator is 8.0% − 4.5% = 3.5%. At g = 2.5%, the denominator is 5.5%, and TV falls to 48 × 1.025 / 0.055 = $895M - a 37% reduction in terminal value and a roughly $500M+ drop in enterprise value. At g = 2.0%, TV = 48 × 1.02 / 0.06 = $816M.
The 4.5% assumption is doing most of the work and is not supported. A defensible range is 2.0%–2.5%, consistent with the mature industry.
2. The partner notes terminal value is 88% of EV. What does this signal about the reliability of the valuation, and how should the analyst respond?
Read the worked answer
Signal: When terminal value dominates EV, the valuation is highly sensitive to two inputs (g and WACC) and rests on assumptions about a distant, uncertain future. It is a warning that the explicit forecast is too short or too shallow, or that the business's economics are not well captured.
Response:
- Extend or deepen the explicit forecast so that the firm reaches a steady state (constant margins, reinvestment, growth) by the terminal year - then the terminal value reflects a genuinely stable business rather than a plug.
- Reconcile reinvestment with growth: terminal-year reinvestment must be consistent with g (g = ROIC × reinvestment rate). If g is high, reinvestment must be high too, reducing FCFF - the current formula ignores this.
- Cross-check with a market multiples approach (EV/EBITDA of comparable trucking firms) and a sanity check on implied exit multiple: TV / terminal EBITDA should be plausible versus peers.
- Run a sensitivity/scenario table across g and WACC and present a range, not a point estimate.
A valuation where 88% of value is a single formula output is not decision-grade until these checks are performed.