Valuation Services

Over the years of our practice, we have seen both the projects that took a few weeks to complete and those that lasted months. The difference is driven by a combination of specific factors rather than by the size of the business. Business valuation is an analytical project and, like any other project, timing is driven by the scope, complexity level and the number of the parties involved.  

What affects timelines

• Purpose of the valuation. A report for strategic planning, a report for an external auditor to close an M&A transaction and an expert opinion for international arbitration will differ in the depth of the documentation, the number of the iterations and the requirements for supporting the estimated value — and the resulting preparation time. 
• Type and number of assets subject to the valuation. Going concern valuation and Purchase Price Allocation in accordance with IFRS with dozens of identifiable assets and impairment testing of multiple CGUs  — these projects are radically different in scope, each requiring different time for analysis, modelling and documentation. 
• Business complexity and industry-specific considerations. A single-industry business with a transparent structure will take quicker to value than a vertically integrated holding with assets spanning across multiple jurisdictions, regulated activities or complex financial instruments held. 
• Readiness and quality of inputs. This is the factor the clients have the most control over — and the one most commonly driving the difference between a quick project and a long one. When the financial statements have been prepared, management accounts are structured and management personnel is available for interviews, the work moves on uninterrupted. If data needs to be collected, verified or reconstructed, each stage will add time. 
• Number of stakeholders and iterations. When valuation findings need to be confirmed by auditors, presented to a supervisory board and have to stand up to regulatory scrutiny, the process will include additional rounds of reviewing, answering the questions and potential revisions. 
• Cross-jurisdiction component. If an asset, business or transaction spans multiple countries, we involve our colleagues from the relevant global PwC offices — this ensures consistent methodology and aligned outputs but requires extra coordination. 

What we do to optimise the timing 

Our team works on valuation projects of different scopes and complexities – from targeted assignments to complex mandates spanning multiple asset classes, jurisdictions and stakeholders. This allows us to prepare realistic estimates of timing right at the planning stage — and to meet those deadlines. 

At the beginning of each project, we prepare a schedule of activities with milestones, agree on the areas of responsibility (who provides what and when) and identify potential bottlenecks in advance. Concurrent processes, standardised internal templates and multi-level PwC quality assurance system allow us to deliver predictable outcomes even on the most complex projects. 

Where to start 

An indicative estimate of timing appears based on a short preliminary discussion where we get an understanding of the valuation purpose, asset type, stakeholder expectations and data availability. 

Contact us by completing the contact-us form on this page and we will return with a preliminary timeline and activity schedule in several business days.

The choice of the valuation standard determines the basis of value, documentation requirements and suitability of the valuation report for its intended user — an auditor, regulator, court or party to a transaction. We agree the applicable standard with the client at the scoping stage based on the purpose of the valuation and jurisdiction. 

We work under three sets of standards:

• International Valuation Standards (IVS). The principal framework applied in most of our valuation engagements. IVS set consistent requirements for the valuation process, determination of the bases of value, selection of approaches and documentation of findings. The current version is IVS effective January 2025 issued by the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC). Application of IVS ensures that the report will be accepted by international investors, financial institutions and arbitration tribunals. 
• International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). When valuation is performed for financial reporting purposes, we work directly with the requirements of the relevant standard:
  • IFRS 2 (Share-based Payments);
  • IFRS 3 (Business Combinations and PPA);
  • IFRS 9 (Financial Instruments);
  • IFRS 13 (Fair Valuation);
  • IAS 16 (Property, Plant and Equipment);
  • IAS 36 (Impairment of Assets);
  • IAS 38 (Intangible Assets);
  • IAS 40 (Investment Property).

This ensures that the findings will be accepted by external auditors without any additional iterations. 

• National Valuation Standards of Ukraine. When valuation needs to comply with Ukrainian law — e.g. for privatisation, taxation, authorised capital contributions, squeeze-out procedures, the NSSMC or SPF submissions — we apply National Valuation Standards (NVS 1, NVS 2, NVS 3, NVS 4) and the Law of Ukraine on Valuation of Property, Property Rights and Professional Valuation Practice in Ukraine.

For valuations of real estate properties and tangible assets in an international context, we also consider RICS (Red Book Global Standards), an industry benchmark accepted by international banks, investors and financial institutions. 

In many projects, we will use multiple sets of standards, e.g. IVS as a process framework and IFRS 13 as a standard defining the basis of value. Our team is experienced in working at this intersection and will ensure compliance of the report with all applicable frameworks. 

Not sure what standard applies in your situation? Reach out to our team and we will help identify an appropriate framework for your engagement. 

Our analytical work leverages the combination of recognised valuation techniques, global databases and the PwC proprietary technology platforms to select the right approach given the nature of the asset, the purpose of the valuation and expectations of the end users of the report.

Valuation approaches and methods:

• Income approach
  • Key methods: Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method, Dividend Discount Model (DDM), Income Capitalisation Method, Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method (MEEM), Relief-from-Royalty Method.
  • Typical application: Business valuation, intangible asset valuation, financial instrument valuation, PPA.
• Comparative (market) approach
  • Key methods: Guideline Public Company Method, Guideline Transaction Method, Industry Multiple Method.
  • Typical application: Business valuation, equity valuation, cross-checking DCF results.
• Cost approach
  • Key methods: Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) Method, Reproduction Cost Method, Net Asset Value (NAV) Method.
  • Typical application: Valuation of PPE, real estate, specialised assets and business startups.

Specialised Methods: 

• Option pricing models (Black-Scholes, Binomial Models, Monte Carlo Simulations) — for the valuation of share-based payment arrangements (IFRS 2), contingent consideration (earn-outs), convertible instruments and guarantees;
• Probability-Weighted Expected Return Method (PWERM) / Scenario-Based Methods — for the valuation of early-stage companies and the allocation of value among share classes;
• Backsolve / OPM Backsolve — for determining equity value based on the most recent arm’s-length equity transaction;
• With-and-Without Method — for valuing intangible assets based on the difference in cash flows generated with and without the asset;
• Greenfield Method — for valuing intangible assets by modelling a business from scratch;
• Distributor Method — for isolating the value of intangible assets within distribution activities;
• Adjusted Net Asset Method (ANAM) — for holding companies and investment structures.

Databases and information sources:

• PwC proprietary databases — global benchmarks, industry multiples and country risk premiums;
• S&P Capital IQ — public company financial data, valuation multiples and transaction data;
• Bloomberg Terminal — market data, interest rates, market quotations and macroeconomic analysis;
• Refinitiv (LSEG) Eikon — market data, quotations and macroeconomic analysis;
• Mergermarket / Dealogic — M&A transaction databases; 
• Duff & Phelps (Kroll) Cost of Capital Navigator — discount rates, equity risk premiums (ERP) and size premiums (always scrutinised by auditors);
• Orbis (Bureau van Dijk / Moody’s) — private company data and financial performance information.

Talk to our specialists in advance to help identify the best-fit approach before the start of the project. Contact us and we will help you select the right approach for your purpose and stakeholder expectations. 

To start, we only need to understand of your goal and some basic financial information.  

Following the initial discussion, we will prepare a detailed information request list tailored to your specific project. The scope will depend on the engagement type, e.g. updating a prior-year valuation involves less data, while a PPA with identification of dozens of assets would require a substantially broader base. 

Information will typically cover four areas:

• Financial information — financial statements for the last 3 to 5 years, interim accounts, budgets and forecasts, breakdowns of key balance sheet items.
• Corporate and legal information — ownership structure, statutory documents, shareholder agreements, significant contracts, intellectual property rights.
• Operational information — business model, organisational structure, revenue breakdown by segment, competitive environment. 
• Industry and market information — internal analyses, previous valuation or due diligence reports.

The key point to keep in mind: the better your inputs are structured, the quicker and more efficiently the project will progress.

The PwC multi-disciplinary structure allows us to involve additional capabilities to support the preparation of the report, particularly in complex projects where information is divided between multiple business units or jurisdictions. This means that we do not simply send you the list and sit down and wait. Instead, we help identify any gaps and prioritise the collection of data to make sure the work progresses seamlessly, helping structure the available information if required.

At the planning stage, we will always discuss with the client what information is critical and what is beneficial to have, where we can take over a part of data verification workload and what is the realistic data collection timeline.

If you are ready to start, please contact us for a preliminary consultation.

The valuation fee is driven by the scope and complexity level of the engagement – from targeted valuation of a single asset to complex mandates spanning multiple asset classes, jurisdictions and stakeholders. We charge a fixed fee agreed prior to beginning our work, without any hidden extra charges and without conditional fees linked to the result of the valuation, which is a mandatory requirement of professional standards to ensure independence of the valuer.

Key drivers affecting the fees:

• Engagement type. Valuation of a single business for internal purposes, Purchase Price Allocation involving identification of dozens of assets and an expert opinion for international arbitration — these represent engagements that are very different in scope and, as a result, in fees.
• Number and type of assets subject to the valuation. Valuation of shares of a single company requires less resources than complex valuation of a group comprising business, real estate, intangible assets and financial instruments.
• Requirements for the report. A report for management decision-making and a report to be scrutinised by external auditors, a regulator or court will differ in the depth of the documentation, the number of the iterations and the scope of the supporting materials.
• Industry complexity. Regulated sectors (such as a banking or energy sector) require modelling involving tariff regulation or capital adequacy ratios. Industries with predominantly intangible assets (tech, pharmaceuticals) require specialised valuation techniques. This is an additional analytical scope reflected in the engagement fees.
• Urgency. Engagements with tight deadlines require deeper involvement from the team with a respective impact on fees.
• Cross-jurisdiction component. Involving our colleagues from other global PwC offices adds a coordination element reflected in the project budget estimate.
• Scope of post-project support. Presenting findings to auditors, responding to the regulator's inquiries, providing support in legal proceedings or supporting adjustments during the valuation period under IFRS 3 — all of this may be part of the mandate and have an impact on the total fees.

The fees will be paid in stages, based on the key project milestones set out in the engagement letter. The final fee will be fixed in the engagement letter prior to beginning the work and will not change as long as the project scope stays the same.

Contact us for a preliminary consultation and we will prepare an estimated project budget.

The short answer is: It depends on the extent to which the requirements of each purpose align in terms of the basis of value, applicable standard, valuation date and the depth of the documentation. 

Each valuation report is prepared for a specific purpose set out in the engagement letter, e.g. a transaction, financial reporting, legal dispute, tax planning or regulatory requirement. The purpose of the valuation defines the basis of value (market value, fair value under IFRS 13, investment value, liquidation value) and sometimes even the findings since different value bases may produce different numbers for the same asset. 

When it is possible

If two purposes require the same bases of value, the same valuation date and compatible documentation requirements, then one report may serve both needs. For example, estimation of the fair value of a business under IFRS 13 for financial reporting and supporting the price to the supervisory board are often compatible tasks. 

When it is impossible or risky

Valuation for a sale/purchase transaction and valuation for tax purposes may require different bases of value, different assumptions and different levels of support. A report prepared for the purpose of negotiating with an investor may not meet procedural requirements of a court or arbitration. Relying on a report outside of the defined purpose gives rise to risks both for the client and for the valuer and is contrary to the requirements of IVS in terms of clear definition of the purpose and restrictions on use of the report.  

What we recommend

If you expect that you will need the valuation findings for multiple purposes, let us know at the planning stage. This will help us design the scope in such a way that one project can cover as many needs as possible, i.e. to align the basis of value, to consider the needs of all stakeholders and to prepare additional materials, as appropriate, such as a separate opinion or an adapted version of the report for a different user. 

This approach is more effective than requesting separate valuations for each purpose, both in terms of the budget and in terms of the consistent findings. 

Expecting to use valuation for multiple purposes? Discuss it with our team at the planning state and we will help identify the right scope of work. 

A discount rate is one of the most sensitive parameters in any valuation, when a one or two percent point change may have a significant impact on the resulting value. This is why both auditors and arbitration tribunals subject the rationale to special scrutiny. For Ukrainian businesses, this task comes with extra complications — Ukraine is not classified as a developed capital market, which limits using standard models directly without extra adjustments.

Our approach is based on a weighted average cost of capital model (WACC), where each component is identified and estimated separately:

• Cost of Equity. We use a modified CAPM model adapted for developing markets. The risk-free rate is determined based on the currency of cash flows: for valuations in USD, it is generally derived from the yield on long-term U.S. Treasury securities; for valuations in UAH, it is generally derived from the yield curve of Ukrainian government bonds published by the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. The base rate is adjusted for the industry beta adjusted for financial leverage of a specific company.
• Equity risk premium (ERP) and country risk premium (CRP). For the base market premium, we use long-term implied ERPs for mature markets. Ukraine’s country risk is assessed based on the sovereign credit rating and/or CDS spreads scaled for the relative volatility of the equity market in relation to bond market to better reflect the risk of equity investments compared with debt instruments.
• Additional premiums. Depending on the nature of the asset and engagement, we assess and support the appropriateness and size of additional premiums: size premium, asset-specific risk premium, illiquidity premium. Each premium is documented separately with reference to data sources and estimation logic.
• Cost of Debt. Determined based on the company’s actual borrowing terms or, where market data is unavailable, by reference to a synthetic credit rating and the corresponding default spread, considering both sovereign and corporate credit risks.
• Capital structure. We use target or optimal capital structure derived from the analysis of comparable entities and industry benchmarks, rather than solely the current balance sheet structure that may not be representative.

For the Ukrainian market, standard market data sources have significant limitations: liquidity of the stock market is low, stock market indices are not representative for most sectors and historical earnings-per-share data is fragmented. For this reason, we use bottom-up betas based on industry data from global databases re-leveraged to reflect the specific company's circumstances. Valuations in UAH give rise to an additional challenge of interpreting yield curves on government bonds, considering the limited liquidity of some issues, uneven distribution of data points across the curve, and the impact of the NBU’s monetary policy on interest rates. An additional challenge is to accurately assess the country risk in wartime conditions, when standard rating models may lag behind the changes in risk portfolios.

To overcome these limitations, we leverage global databases maintained by PwC, Kroll Cost of Capital Navigator, S&P Capital IQ and Bloomberg and supplement them by the PwC network's own industry benchmarks covering over 50 countries.

What do you receive as a client

Each discount rate used in our report is fully supported by the breakdown of components (risk-free rate, ERP, CRP, beta, premiums, capital structure), references to data sources and sensitivity analysis, showing the impact of a change in key parameters on the resulting value. This level of documentation meets the expectations of external auditors and arbitration tribunals. 

Do you have any additional questions regarding the discount rate or cost of capital in your project? Contact our team for advice.

This is one of the most frequently asked questions in valuation practice. The market value and the fair value often provide close findings, whilst being different value bases with different definitions, different regulatory sources and, in some cases, different resulting figures.

Market Value is defined by the International Valuation Standards (IVS) as the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s-length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. This reflects a market perspective — the value that would be determined by typical market participants, without regard to the specific circumstances of any particular buyer or seller.

Fair Value has two different definitions depending on the context:

• Under IFRS 13:  the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. This is an exist price, i.e. the price of existing the position rather than entering. It is determined from the market participant perspective and assumes the highest and best use.  
• Under Ukrainian statutory rules: a value at which the asset may be exchanged or a liability may be settled in a transaction between knowledgeable, willing and independent parties. Although this definition is closer to the market value under IVS, it is used in a specific legal context, i.e. for the purpose of taxation, corporate procedures and regulatory requirements.

What is the practical difference

When the results differ

The market value and the fair value mostly provide similar or identical results. However, differences arise when: 

• Highest and best use does not match the current use. IFRS 13 requires valuation of an asset in its highest and best use, even when the owner uses the asset differently. IVS also consider this principle, though, in practice, the context of the engagement may involve valuation in the current use. 
• There is no active market for the asset. For illiquid assets, IFRS 13 establishes a fair value hierarchy (Levels 1-3) that uses, where no market quotations (Level 1) are available, valuation models with market inputs (Level 2) or significant unobservable inputs (Level 3).
• Transaction-specific context. Forced sale, squeeze-out or liquidation — each of these situations may require a different basis of value (liquidation value or investment value) that will differ from the market value and the fair value.

Why it is important 

The choice of the basis of value has a direct impact on the valuation conclusion and determines whether the report will be accepted by its intended users. The market value-based valuation report may not be appropriate for external auditors expecting the fair value under IFRS 13. And vice versa, the IFRS 13-based valuation may not be appropriate for the court requiring the market value under National Valuation Standards. 

We determine the basis of value at the planning stage, based on the purpose of the valuation, the applicable framework and the requirements of the intended users of the report. This is among the first questions we discuss with the client before starting the work. 

The international tax environment evolves more rapidly than ever before in the last decades, and each of these developments has an immediate impact on how asset, business or intangible asset valuations should be performed within the context of intercompany transactions, including their purpose and the valuation methodologies applied.

Below are the key developments with practical impact on valuation engagements in Ukraine: 

Pillar Two (the global minimum tax of 15%)

Pillar Two Rules already implemented in more than 35 jurisdictions introduce a minimum effective corporate profit tax rate of 15% for large multinational groups with consolidated annual revenue exceeding €750 million.

For valuation practice, this means

• Impact on the discount rate and cash flow projections. Top-up tax liabilities may affect the after-tax cash flows of companies operating in low-tax jurisdictions. When the DCF technique is used for business valuation, this requires revising the tax burden model and may have a significant impact on the value conclusion.
• PPA and impairment test revision. If the asset was acquired in view of tax benefits offered by a specific jurisdiction and these benefits have decreased as a result of Pillar Two, this may be a triggering event for impairment testing under IAS 36.
• Valuation for group restructuring. Many international groups have revised their holding structure and intellectual property holding location in response to Pillar Two. Each restructuring of this nature requires valuation of the transferred assets — in particular, intangible assets and functions — on an arm’s length basis in accordance with the OECD Guidance and Article 39 of the Tax Code of Ukraine.

Developments in Ukraine: CFCs, TP and new rules

Ukraine is actively adapting its tax regulations to international standards. Among the most significant developments directly affecting the valuation practice are the following:

• Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) Rules. Since 2022, Ukraine introduced CFC rules requiring Ukrainian owners of foreign companies to declare and assess tax on the retained earnings of their CFCs. This drives a new need for valuation of CFC assets — in particular, to determine the taxable base, support the market value of transactions with a CFC and plan succession.
• Automated data exchange (CRS and DAC). Ukraine has joined CRS and already completed two rounds of financial data exchange (in 2024 and 2025). This means that intercompany transactions become more transparent for tax authorities — and each value forming the basis of transfer prices must withstand higher scrutiny.
• Increased CPT rate for financial institutions. Since 1 January 2025, the corporate profit tax rate has been increased to 25% for financial services providers (other than insurers) and to 50% for banks (in 2023-2024 and expected in 2026). For valuation engagements, this affects the cash flow modelling for financial institutions, discount rates and the cost of capital in the banking sector.
• Increased scope of TP control. As a result of the 2024 campaign, the STS received 2,797 transfer pricing reports for the total amount of UAH 3.3 trillion. The adjustments posted by the taxpayers totalled UAH 2.7 billion. Major types of controlled transactions represent commodity transactions and banking and financial services, and most controlled transactions are conducted with residents of Austria, Switzerland, France and the Netherlands. Each of these transactions potentially requires supporting the compliance with the arm’s length basis by the valuation.

BEPS and intellectual property transfers

BEPS action plan continues affecting the valuation practice through:

• Requirements to support IP transfers. For intellectual property migration between legal entities within a group, tax authorities expect independent valuation of the assets transferred, including hard-to-value intangibles (HTVI), with potential retrospective revision.
• Functional analysis and delineation of transactions. Valuations for transfer pricing purposes require not only the determination of the value, but also substantiation that the structure of the transaction is consistent with the actual allocation of functions, assets and risks among the parties.
• Exit taxation. Moving assets or functions outside Ukraine requires fair valuation to determine the taxable base.

IVS 2025 and tax context

The new version of International Valuation Standards (IVS) effective since January 2025 strengthens the requirements to document the purpose of the valuation, the basis of value and restrictions on use of the report. For valuations performed for tax purposes, this means that even greater care must be taken in defining the applicable standard of value (market value vs. fair value vs. arm’s length price) and identifying the intended users of the valuation report — whether a tax authority, external auditor or arbitration tribunal.

What this means for you

If your company is member of an international group, enters into controlled transactions, or plans restructuring or transferring assets between jurisdictions, then the changes in international tax law have an immediate impact on the valuation scope, methodology and requirements. The valuation report prepared without taking these changes into consideration give rise to a risk of additional assessments as a result of a TP audit (which may take up to 30 months in Ukraine) and potential disputes with the STS.

Our team combines deep expertise in valuation methodology and tax law, ranging from the involvement in the development of transfer pricing regulations to representing and supporting clients in tax audits, disputes and litigations. We help ensure that the valuation meets both IVS/IFRS requirements and the expectations of tax authorities and arbitration tribunals.

Reach out to our team and we will help identify the right approach considering the applicable tax context.