What is "the most supportable valuation position"?
The framework that defines how Prismi concludes every engagement. Plain English, with the discipline that makes it defensible.
The most supportable valuation position is the position within the supportable valuation range that the methodology and evidence most strongly defend. It is neither the highest nor the lowest the evidence allows — it is the position with the strongest reasoning behind it, given the entity, the available documents, and the commercial purpose of the engagement. Where the evidence allows a more favourable position, it is identified. Where the evidence requires a conservative position, it is reported as such.
Why valuation is rarely a single number
Two qualified valuers, using accepted methodologies on the same business, can produce different supportable conclusions. The difference is not opinion — it is methodology selection, evidence weighting, and the commercial purpose of the engagement. A business valued for one purpose may sit at one point on the supportable range; the same business valued at the same date for a different purpose may sit at a different point. Both can be correct.
How the supportable range is identified
We test multiple accepted methodologies (CME, EBITDA multiples, NAV, DCF where appropriate). Each methodology produces a calculated outcome. Across methodologies, the range is the bracket of defensible conclusions the evidence supports. Sensitivity analysis tests how the range moves under different assumption choices (multiple selection, discount rate, add-back treatment, applicable discounts). The supportable range is the framework within which the most supportable position sits.
How the position within the range is selected
The most supportable position is the one the methodology and evidence best defend. The criteria: (1) which methodology is most appropriate for the entity and purpose; (2) which comparable evidence is strongest; (3) which add-back adjustments are documented; (4) which discounts and premia are applicable; (5) which assumptions are most reasonable given the available facts. The position is reasoned in the Valuation Position Analysis section of every report.
Favourable and conservative positions
Where the evidence allows a more favourable supportable position, we identify it. Where the evidence requires a more conservative position, we report it. The favourable position must be defensible — methodology, evidence and reasoning sufficient that a reviewer can see why it is concluded. The conservative position is reported where the evidence does not support a higher conclusion, or where insufficient evidence requires caution. Both are evidence-led. Neither is target-driven.
The line that holds it together
We never agree on a value at intake. We never let client preference influence the analysis. We never reverse-engineer to a target number. The methodology and evidence determine the position. If the most supportable position happens to be commercially favourable to the client, that is a fact about the evidence. If the most supportable position is commercially unfavourable, we report it that way. The fee is fixed at engagement and is not contingent on the outcome.
Common questions.
Is the most supportable position always the middle of the range?+
No. It is the position the methodology and evidence best defend, which may be at the favourable end, the central area, or the conservative end of the range. The framework does not default to the midpoint — it defaults to whatever the evidence most strongly supports.
Can two valuers arrive at different most-supportable positions?+
Yes — and both can be correct. Different methodology weighting, different evidence treatment and different purpose interpretation can produce different defensible conclusions. The professional standard is supportability, not exact agreement between valuers.