Gordon growth model vs. exit multiple — which terminal value method should I use?
CFA Level II presents two approaches for terminal value in a DCF: the Gordon growth model and the exit multiple method. They can give very different answers. When should I use each, and how do I reconcile the difference?
Terminal value (TV) typically represents 60-80% of a company's total DCF value, so this choice matters enormously. Here are both methods and their trade-offs.
Method 1: Gordon Growth Model (Perpetuity Growth)
TV = FCF_n × (1 + g) / (WACC - g)
Assumes free cash flow grows at a constant rate forever after the explicit forecast period.
Strengths:
- Theoretically sound for stable, mature businesses
- Does not rely on comparable companies
- Forces you to think about long-term fundamentals
Weaknesses:
- Extremely sensitive to g (terminal growth) and WACC
- Assumes a perpetuity, which may be unrealistic for many businesses
- g must be ≤ long-term nominal GDP growth (otherwise the company overtakes the economy)
Method 2: Exit Multiple
TV = EBITDA_n × Exit Multiple (or Revenue_n × Exit Multiple)
Assumes the company is sold at the end of the forecast period for a market-based multiple.
Strengths:
- Grounded in observable market data
- Easier to benchmark against current trading multiples
- Less sensitive to a single growth assumption
Weaknesses:
- Relies on current market conditions (multiples may be elevated or depressed)
- Circular reasoning if used alongside comparable analysis
- Assumes comparable companies exist at the terminal date
Example — Horizon Robotics DCF:
- FCF in Year 5: $80M
- WACC: 10%
- Terminal growth: 2.5%
- Year 5 EBITDA: $120M
- Peer average EV/EBITDA: 12x
| Method | Calculation | Terminal Value |
|---|---|---|
| Gordon Growth | $80M × 1.025 / (0.10 - 0.025) | $1,093M |
| Exit Multiple | $120M × 12x | $1,440M |
| Difference | 32% |
Reconciliation approach:
- Calculate TV using both methods
- If they differ significantly, investigate why:
- Is the exit multiple implying an unreasonable growth rate? Back-solve: g = WACC - (FCF/TV) = check if it's realistic
- Are current comparable multiples at a cyclical peak/trough?
- Use the average or the method more appropriate for the business
Best practice: Present both in your analysis, explain the assumptions behind each, and let the reader see the range. Many professionals use Gordon Growth as the primary method and cross-check with exit multiples.
Exam tip: CFA Level II may ask you to calculate terminal value using both methods and explain why they differ. Know the implied growth rate formula to back-solve from an exit multiple.
Practice terminal value calculations in our CFA Level II course.
Master Level II with our CFA Course
107 lessons · 200+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
What exactly is the Capital Market Expectations (CME) framework and why does it matter for asset allocation?
How do business cycle phases affect asset class return expectations?
Can someone explain the Grinold–Kroner model step by step with numbers?
How do you forecast fixed-income returns using the building-blocks approach?
PPP vs Interest Rate Parity for forecasting exchange rates — when do I use which?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.