How should valuation multiples be adjusted for cross-country comparisons?

Question

AcadiFi · Accepted Answer

Direct cross-country multiple comparison is misleading because multiples are driven by growth, profitability, cost of capital, and accounting differences — all of which vary by country.

Key adjustments:

1. GROWTH DIFFERENCES: PEG-style ratios normalize. If German industrials grow EPS at 3% vs US at 7%, a 9x/13x EBITDA gap may be justified. Implied PE/growth ≈ comparable.

2. DISCOUNT RATE (CAPM+CRP): Germany's CRP is ~0.4%; a country with CRP 3% would warrant materially lower multiples.

3. ACCOUNTING (IFRS vs GAAP): IFRS reports often include more operating lease capitalizations, R&D choices, and goodwill that differ from US GAAP.

4. TAX RATES: Effective tax differences change net income and DCF value.

5. CAPITAL STRUCTURE / LEASE NORMS: Some regions rely more on bank debt than bonds.

6. LIQUIDITY DISCOUNT: Thinner markets get lower multiples.

Methodology for fair cross-country comparison:

Step 1: Adjust to common accounting standards (reconcile IFRS to US GAAP or vice versa).
Step 2: Compute EV/EBIT (less capex-sensitive than P/E).
Step 3: Compare on PEG or EV/EBIT-to-growth.
Step 4: Regress multiple against growth, ROIC, and cost of capital to find the 'fair' multiple.

Case: Meridian Capital compares Westphalia AG (German industrial) at EV/EBITDA 8.8x vs. Appalachia Corp (US) at 12.5x. Key differences:
- Westphalia growth 3.5%, ROIC 10%, WACC 8%
- Appalachia growth 7%, ROIC 14%, WACC 9.2%

Regression predicts fair multiples: Westphalia 9.0x, Appalachia 12.4x. Both are FAIRLY valued — the apparent discount on Westphalia is explained by lower growth/ROIC.

Takeaway: low-multiple countries aren't automatically bargains.

How should valuation multiples be adjusted for cross-country comparisons?

Master Level II with our CFA Course

Related Questions

Practice Questions