The starting principle
A business is rarely worth a single number. It is worth a range — and within that range, there is a position the methodology and evidence most strongly defend. That position is what we call the most supportable valuation position. Identifying it is the substantive work of professional valuation. Producing a single number without identifying the range first is the work an online calculator does. Identifying the range without selecting the most supportable position within it is the work an inexperienced analyst does. Both fall short of what tax-purpose valuation actually requires.
How the range gets identified
Every Comprehensive and Defensible engagement tests multiple accepted methodologies. Capitalisation of Maintainable Earnings produces one outcome. EBITDA multiples produce another. Net Asset Value produces a third. Where appropriate, Discounted Cash Flow produces a fourth. The range across these methodologies is the bracket of defensible conclusions the evidence supports. Sensitivity analysis tests how the range moves under different assumption choices — different multiple selections, different add-back treatments, different discount magnitudes. The output is a documented range, not a guess.
How the position within the range gets selected
The criteria are evidence-led: (1) which methodology is most appropriate for the entity, evidence available and purpose; (2) which comparable evidence is strongest and most current; (3) which add-back adjustments are documented with supporting evidence; (4) which discounts and premia are applicable and at what magnitude; (5) which assumptions are most reasonable given the available facts. We weight these criteria and conclude at the position the analysis best defends. The reasoning is written into the Valuation Position Analysis section of every report.
Where the favourable position comes from — and where it doesn't
Where the evidence allows a more favourable supportable position than the central point of the range, we identify it and explain why. Maybe the recurring revenue base is stronger than maintainable earnings alone suggests. Maybe the comparable transaction evidence supports a higher multiple than the central case. Maybe the minority discount applicable is at the lower end of the typical range because the class rights are favourable. These are evidence-led reasons. They are not preferences. They are not adjustments to suit the tax outcome. They are what the methodology and facts support.
Where the conservative position comes from
Where the evidence requires a more conservative position than the central point of the range, we report it. Maybe the historical financial performance has volatility that limits the maintainable earnings figure. Maybe key person dependency requires a risk discount. Maybe forecast assumptions cannot be substantiated and DCF cannot be the primary methodology. Maybe limited comparables evidence requires reliance on a single methodology with broader sensitivity range. These also are evidence-led. The conservative position is reported as the most supportable, not the lowest defensible — there is a difference.
The line that holds it together
The framework only works if it is genuinely evidence-led. That means: fees fixed at engagement, never tied to outcome. No conclusion discussed with the client before analysis is complete. No revision of the conclusion in response to client preference (only in response to new evidence). Documented refer-out where a client demands a target value. Every report signed under an independence statement by a named accredited reviewer. This is the discipline that makes "the most supportable position" mean something rather than being a polite phrase for "the value we picked." Without the discipline, the phrase is marketing. With it, it is the substance of professional valuation work.