16.2 Precedent Transactions and the Football Field
Key Takeaways
- Precedent multiples come from actual completed-deal prices and typically sit above trading comps because they include a control premium and often expected synergies.
- Northline's three-deal set prints 13.8x, 14.5x, and 16.0x EV/EBITDA; the 14.5x median × $150 million EBITDA implies $2,175 million of EV versus $1,800 million at the 12.0x trading-comp median.
- A football field places DCF, trading-comp, and precedent ranges side by side so no single method is treated as the answer; current trading EV is a reference line, not a fourth method.
- In the teaching field, DCF spans $1,450–$1,950 million of EV, trading comps $1,350–$1,800 million, and precedents $2,070–$2,400 million, against a current EV of $1,500 million.
- Full comparable-company analysis, LBO bars, and merger-model mechanics are FMVA electives and are not tested; the final still tests multiples, precedents, and triangulation.
Precedent Transactions as a Relative Method
Precedent transactions analysis values the target off actual prices paid in completed deals for similar companies. Like trading comps, it is relative: you apply a deal multiple to the target's metric. Unlike trading comps, the prices are control prices. A public share price is a minority, marketable interest. An acquisition price is what a buyer paid for the whole firm (or a controlling stake), and it usually includes a control premium. CFI's exam-relevant point is simple: precedent multiples often sit above trading multiples for the same industry, and that gap is not automatically a modeling error.
The longer deal-process course — merger models, accretion and dilution, leveraged buyouts — is elective and not on the final. You will not be asked to build a full purchase-price allocation or a sources-and-uses. You will be expected to know that precedents exist, that they use the same multiple families (especially EV/EBITDA), that they embed control, and that they belong on the football field next to DCF and trading comps.
What a Precedent Multiple Measures
A deal multiple is:
Deal EV / target metric at announcement (or LTM at close)
Deal EV uses the offer value of equity plus net debt (and preferred and non-controlling interest), the same identity as Chapter 14. If the buyer paid $40.00 per share for 20 million diluted shares ($800 million of equity) and assumed $200 million of net debt, deal EV is $1,000 million. If LTM EBITDA was $70 million, the precedent is 14.3x EV/EBITDA.
That 14.3x is not comparable to an 11x trading multiple without comment. The buyer may have paid for:
- Control — the right to change strategy, capital structure, and management.
- Synergies — cost takeout or revenue upside that a portfolio investor does not receive.
- Competitive tension — an auction bids the price up.
- A different point in the cycle — a 2021 packaging deal is not a 2026 packaging deal.
Screening Deals (Fundamentals, Not the Elective Database)
Keep the same five filters as trading comps — industry, size, growth, margins, geography — and add:
- Time. Prefer recent deals. A 2016 multiple in a different rate world is a weak comparable.
- Deal type. Strategic corporate buyers often pay more than financial sponsors because they can underwrite synergies. If a stem flags a financial sponsor, do not assume the same premium as a strategic.
- Stake. A 15% toehold is not a control deal. Control precedents need a controlling stake.
- Metric quality. Normalize the target's EBITDA the same way you normalized trading comps. One-time items in a sale process inflate the denominator and understate the multiple.
You do not need a 40-deal sample for the exam. You need to show that you can read three honest deals, take a median, and apply it.
Worked Precedent Set for Northline
Three packaging deals (teaching set, not a published CFI table):
| Deal (closed) | Buyer type | Deal EV ($m) | LTM EBITDA ($m) | EV/EBITDA | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoxCraft / PackGlobal (2025) | Strategic | 1,104 | 80 | 13.8x | Unaffected trading 11.0x |
| FibreForm / Atlas Packaging (2024) | Strategic | 2,175 | 150 | 14.5x | Closest size to Northline |
| WrapCo / Northstar (2025) | Strategic | 800 | 50 | 16.0x | Buyer underwrote cost synergies |
- Mean EV/EBITDA = (13.8 + 14.5 + 16.0) / 3 = 14.8x
- Median = 14.5x (FibreForm)
Apply the median to Northline's $150 million LTM EBITDA:
- Median: 14.5 × 150 = $2,175 million implied EV
- Mean: 14.8 × 150 = $2,220 million implied EV
Recall the trading-comp median of 12.0x, which implied $1,800 million. Precedents sit $375 million (about 21%) above that trading median on EV. That gap is the control-premium signature in this set, not a reason to throw out comps.
Equity bridge: 2,175 − 300 net debt = $1,875 million of equity, or $37.50 per diluted share versus the $24.00 market. Nobody should be shocked. The market is pricing a minority share. Precedents are pricing control.
Control Premium, Worked on BoxCraft
BoxCraft's unaffected trading EV/EBITDA was 11.0x. The deal multiple was 13.8x. The multiple premium = 13.8 / 11.0 − 1 = 25%.
On equity, keep net debt fixed at $200 million:
- Unaffected EV = 11.0 × 80 = $880 million → unaffected equity = 880 − 200 = $680 million
- Offer EV = $1,104 million → offer equity = 1,104 − 200 = $904 million
- Equity control premium = 904 / 680 − 1 = 33%
Two exam traps sit in that arithmetic:
- Do not apply a 33% equity premium to EV, or a 25% EV-multiple premium to equity value. Premiums are not interchangeable across the stack because net debt does not take a premium.
- Do not add a control premium on top of a precedent multiple. The deal price already includes it. Adding 25% to 14.5x is double-counting.
Trading comps do not include control. If a stem asks for minority value, lead with trading comps and DCF. If it asks what a strategic buyer might pay, lead with precedents — and still show the other two.
WrapCo at 16.0x is the high print because Northstar underwrote cost synergies. If those synergies are run-rate EBITDA the target does not yet have, part of the 16.0x is payment for a cost takeout a financial-sponsor bid cannot claim. On the final, do not force every deal to the high print just because one strategic paid it.
The Football Field
A football field (valuation football-field chart) places ranges from each method side by side so a reader can see overlap instead of a fake single number. CFI's three going-concern methods — DCF, trading comps, precedents — are the core bars. Current trading EV is drawn as a reference, not as a fourth method. Leveraged-buyout bars appear in some industry pictures; they are elective and do not belong on an FMVA-final field.
Northline's teaching field in enterprise value ($ millions):
| Method | Low | Mid | High | How the ends were set |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DCF | 1,450 | 1,700 | 1,950 | WACC 10.5% → 8.5% and g 2.0% → 3.0% from Chapter 15 |
| Trading comps | 1,350 | 1,575 | 1,800 | 9.0x–12.0x × $150 million EBITDA, Summit excluded |
| Precedent transactions | 2,070 | 2,175 | 2,400 | 13.8x–16.0x × $150 million EBITDA |
| Current market EV | 1,500 | 1,500 | 1,500 | Equity $1,200 million + net debt $300 million |
Read the field; do not average it blindly. Overlap between DCF and trading comps around $1,450–$1,800 million is the minority / going-concern cluster. Precedents sit above that cluster, which is what you want if the deals included control. Current EV of $1,500 million sits at the low end of DCF and inside the trading-comp bar — Northline does not look wildly mispriced as a public minority stub. It does look cheap versus control values, which is the usual pattern, not a "buy the company tomorrow" signal by itself.
A naive average of the three mids — (1,700 + 1,575 + 2,175) / 3 = $1,817 million — blends a control price into a minority value. If the assignment is a share-price target for a public investor, do not let precedents dominate the midpoint. If the assignment is what a strategic might pay in an auction, do not let last week's close dominate.
From EV Ranges to a Per-Share Field
Subtract Northline's $300 million of net debt from every EV node, then divide by 50.0 million diluted shares:
| Method | Low $/share | Mid $/share | High $/share |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCF | $23.00 | $28.00 | $33.00 |
| Trading comps | $21.00 | $25.50 | $30.00 |
| Precedents | $35.40 | $37.50 | $42.00 |
| Current | $24.00 | $24.00 | $24.00 |
The pitchbook version of this table is the football field: horizontal bars, methods on the y-axis, dollars on the x-axis, a vertical line at $24.00. Chapter 18 will care about how you draw it. This chapter cares that the numbers are consistent: same EV identity, same share count, same metric period, Summit not secretly back in the comps bar, and no control premium stacked onto a deal multiple that already has one.
If you used adjusted EBITDA of $165 million after the litigation add-back, every multiple-based bar would shift. Trading-comp mid becomes 10.5 × 165 = $1,733 million of EV ($28.65 per share after net debt). Precedent mid becomes 14.5 × 165 = $2,393 million ($41.85 per share). State the metric. A field that mixes unadjusted DCF cash flows with adjusted-EBITDA comps is two pictures taped together.
Scope, Electives, and Exam Habits
Comparable Valuation Fundamentals plus the valuation methods named in CFI's exam tips are in scope: you must be fluent in multiples, precedents, and comps, and you must be able to triangulate with DCF. Full comparable-company analysis as a standalone elective — large peer screens, statistical fits, 20-deal merger models — is not a final-exam requirement. If you see an LBO bar in a teaching picture, do not import it into the 50-question core exam.
Exam habits for this section:
- Label every bar EV or equity and do not mix them on one axis.
- State whether the multiple is LTM or forward.
- Use median over mean in small, skewed sets.
- Never add a control premium to a precedent multiple.
- Never apply a deal multiple to unadjusted EBITDA if the process flagged a one-time gain.
- Current price is a reference, not a valuation method.
- Elective deal mechanics can wait; the football field cannot.
Why do precedent-transaction multiples usually sit above trading-comp multiples for the same industry?
What is a football field used for in CFI's going-concern valuation toolkit?
Using Northline's $150 million LTM EBITDA, the 12.0x trading-comp median and the 14.5x precedent median imply which enterprise values?