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
How do I map a CFA Ethics vignette to the right standard?
When does a duty to clients override pressure from an employer?
Do conflicts have to be disclosed before making a recommendation?
Why do CFA Ethics answers focus so much on the action taken?
What does a high-water mark actually do in a hedge fund fee calculation?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.