What’s the price of this company? A word on M&A valuations

19 February 2024 | Knowledge, News, The Right Focus

Money is King. These three words mean everything. This is especially true in M&A transactions, which are primarily ‘for the money’. In this context, the valuation of a company being sold, i.e. the way of setting the share price and any post-purchase adjustments, is crucial.

EBITDA

The fundamental measure of a company’s value, most often used in M&A transactions, is EBITDA which in a nutshell shows the profitability and liquidity of a business, i.e. the cash flow achieved or achievable.

The choice of EBITDA as a measure of the price of shares to be sold allows the value of a company to be easily calculated and adjusted according to objective criteria.

Briefly, EBITDA is defined as:

  • Earnings (E) – revenue minus operating costs
  • Before (B) – the following cost items are not costs deducted from company revenue:
  • Interest (I) – the cost of a company’s debt financing
  • Taxes (T) – income taxes paid by a company
  • Depreciation & Amortisation (D+A) – write-offs that reduce the value of selected assets of a company for accounting purposes, rather than for actual costs incurred by the company

Interest, which represents the cost of a company’s debt financing, income taxes and accounting depreciation & amortisation do not reduce its valuation but, on the contrary, ‘add to the bottom line’. This is because all these elements (I, T, D&A) can change completely or substantially after a transaction and are therefore not treated by buyers as being permanently linked to the business.

In other words, the cash a company spends on financial interest, income taxes and depreciation & amortisation is not deducted from its revenue. In fact, each of these items (I, T, D&A), which are demonstrated as ‘expenses’ in company accounts, may be treated quite differently by a buyer than by a seller prior to a transaction.

For example, financial interest may ‘disappear’ as a result of the repayment of company loans, which is common at the closing of a transaction.

This is because, in most cases, a buyer will require that a company’s existing financial debt be repaid by the company itself or by a seller, either before or at the time of closing.

The same applies to tax liabilities. A new owner may reorganise a company, resulting in a taxation change and lower tax paid.

The depreciation & amortisation of fixed assets and other selected assets of a company are treated in a similar way. These are not real operating costs and do not need to be continued after a transaction. Therefore, when calculating EBITDA, the above items are not deducted from company revenue.

Multiples in M&A transactions

EBITDA alone is not sufficient to determine the share sale price. It is also necessary to apply an appropriate multiple, i.e. a multiple of the annual EBITDA value. The size of the multiple depends, among other things, on the sector in which a particular company operates, its sales and its EBITDA.

Higher multiples are applied to companies with higher revenues.

For example, if a buyer agrees to pay the price set at 10 times EBITDA, where EBITDA is calculated for a given financial year, a company will present this value to the buyer, taking into account the assumed investment horizon and the expected payback period.

The absence of a multiple would result in the sale price, set as one year’s EBITDA, being disproportionately low compared to the true value of a company, understood as the potential for the company to deliver EBITDA at a similar or higher level in subsequent years, with its buyer being a ‘beneficiary’ of the company’s EBITDA growth.

Adjusted EBITDA

Standard EBITDA is also insufficient to determine the share price, as certain allocated costs included in the calculation of standard EBITDA should be excluded when determining the true (objectified) value of a company.

These include, in particular, one-off (extraordinary) costs resulting from completely exceptional situations, which should therefore not be allowed to unduly prejudge the value of a company.

Litigation costs, for example, are an extraordinary expense not treated as a fixed, recurring cost of a company affecting its valuation.

Personal expenses paid out of company funds are treated in a similar manner. A shareholder paying for their holiday from the company account is unlikely to be a normal business expense and also one unlikely to be continued by a new owner, especially if it is a company.

Similarly, Adjusted EBITDA does not include any non-recurring revenue that is atypical for a company, such as compensation payments or other similar but infrequent transactions.

To avoid problems with the calculation of Adjusted EBITDA, transaction documents should accurately describe the types of costs and revenues by which a company’s valuation will be adjusted.

Each M&A transaction requires an appropriate approach and level of effort to establish the valuation of a company and the mechanism for its potential adjustment.

Any questions? Contact:

Paweł Mardas

Latest Knowledge

NIS2 and the National Cybersecurity System Act in transport: what you need to do before October 2026

The amended Act on the National Cybersecurity System (UKSC) has been in force since 3 April 2026. For transport sector undertakings, this means a specific compliance timeline, including an obligation to register with the National Cybersecurity System (KSC) registry by 3 October 2026. Failure to do so may result in substantial financial penalties, coupled with the risk of personal liability for senior management. Not every undertaking, however, automatically falls within the scope of the new regime. Read on to find out whether your organisation is affected and what you need to do before the deadline for preparation.

Family foundations: the government has done the maths and presented the bill

Three years. That’s how long we’ve been waiting for what the Council of Ministers had seen in the data from the outset – and has now disclosed in its review of the Family Foundation Act. The document not only diagnoses the problems, but also previews substantial changes to rules that founders and their advisers treated as settled and stable. And therein lies a problem that goes far beyond tax matters. If the rules of the game are changed while the game is being played, there can be neither planning stability nor trust in the law. It is no coincidence that one of the greatest concerns among entrepreneurs considering setting up a foundation is not the level of taxation, but the stability of the legal framework – which today is once again being called into question.

What the new swiss franc act means for banks

We now have a new Act on Special Measures for the Adjudication of Cases Concerning Loan Agreements Denominated in or Indexed to the Swiss Franc. The provisions come into force 14 days after publication. So now is a good time to look at what lies ahead and what banks should be doing today.

New draft Pay Transparency Act – what has changed since December 2025?

A second version of the draft act on strengthening the application of the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value between men and women has now been published. It refines procedures and deadlines and introduces a new supervisory body. We have already discussed the changes affecting the recruitment stage and the three pillars of the forthcoming pay transparency framework, noting that Poland will miss the EU transposition deadline of 7 June 2026. Now, we take a closer look at the further changes, new developments and risks that have emerged in the latest, April version of the draft.

Payment Services Regulation (PSR) – between consumer protection and due diligence

The draft Payment Services Regulation (PSR) is one of the most significant elements of the reform of the EU legal framework for payment services. Its principal aim is to enhance the security of cashless transactions and to reduce the scale of financial fraud, in particular that arising from the growth of digital channels. At the same time, the new rules are intended to introduce a liability model that will not result in risk being transferred entirely to financial institutions, whilst retaining an important role for independent due diligence on the part of the user.

Energy deregulation – key changes for businesses and energy consumers

The President has now signed the Energy Deregulation Act (UDER92). The new provisions cover both the relationships between energy undertakings and consumers, and matters relating to investment, district heating, and the administrative obligations of energy market participants. The Act introduces changes in the areas of billing, communication with consumers, grid connection, and the operations of undertakings in the energy and district heating sectors. We set out the key points to note.

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | July 2026

Under the draft legislation, banks will be required to offer existing borrowers a switch from WIBOR-based to POLSTR-based interest rates, a mechanism intended to speed up the voluntary transition of financial instruments to the new benchmark. The banking sector has responded positively to the proposal, according to Tadeusz Białek, President of the Polish Bank Association.

“Withdraw from contract here” – what next for the new button in online shops, on trading platforms and in mobile apps?

From 19 June, national legislation was to require businesses in the European Union entering into distance contracts with consumers via an online interface to provide consumers with the option to withdraw from the contract via a dedicated function/button. However, due to Poland’s delay in transposing Directive 2023/2673, which requires the use of such a button, this obligation has been postponed in our country. We look at what remote contract withdrawal entails and which transactions the new feature will apply to.

Municipal master plans – new deadline, same old challenges

On 11 June 2026, the President signed into law a bill extending the deadline for municipalities to adopt their master plans (plany ogólne). The key deadline for adopting master plans was moved from 30 June to 31 August 2026. We examine the reasons behind this change and consider what the absence of a master plan might mean for potential investors and their future projects.