IPO Valuation: Complete Anatomy of the Football Field and Five Methodologies
IPO pricing is negotiation, not science. DCF, EV/EBITDA, EV/Revenue, precedent transactions, and sum-of-parts — five methodologies create different ranges, and the IPO price is set where demand and supply meet at their intersection. Three cases — LG Energy Solution, Krafton, and Rivian — dissect valuation in practice.
Ch.1
Football Field Chart — Where Five Methodologies Intersect
The Football Field displays the ranges produced by five valuation methodologies as a single horizontal bar chart. Each bar's left end represents conservative assumptions (floor); the right end represents optimistic assumptions (ceiling). The IPO price is set within the central zone where the bars overlap most — the price range the market can reasonably agree on.
Football Field — Hypothetical Tech IPO Valuation Ranges ($B)
Dashed: $50B midpoint reference | Red bar: Final IPO target range
💡 How to Read the Football Field
If the IPO price line passes through all bars, it represents a 'market consensus price.' A position near the top of the bars indicates optimistic pricing; near the bottom indicates conservative pricing. LG Energy Solution set its IPO price at ₩70.2T — near the median of all five methodologies.
Ch.2
Five Valuation Methodologies — Complete Anatomy
Each methodology asks a different question about the same company. DCF asks: 'What is future cash worth today?' EV/EBITDA asks: 'What does the market pay for comparable companies?' EV/Revenue asks: 'How much can we pay for growth potential?' Different questions produce different valuations.
Key Inputs
- ▸WACC = Risk-free rate (Rf) + β × Equity Risk Premium (ERP)
- ▸Terminal Value = FCF × (1+g) / (WACC - g)
- ▸Terminal Value accounts for 60–80% of total DCF
Pros
Theoretically robust, captures intrinsic value
Cons
Highly sensitive to assumptions — widest output variance
💼 A 1pp change in WACC can shift valuation by 15–20%. A DCF without a sensitivity table is an incomplete analysis.
Key Inputs
- ▸EV = Market Cap + Net Debt (Total Debt − Cash)
- ▸EBITDA = Operating Income + D&A (Depreciation & Amortization)
- ▸Peer multiples → Apply to target → EV → Subtract net debt → Equity Value
Pros
Fast market reflection, intuitively understandable
Cons
Peer selection determines outcome — easily gamed
💼 Issuers want to cherry-pick favorable peers. Investors push for conservative selections. This negotiation is where valuation is really decided.
Key Inputs
- ▸EV/Revenue = Enterprise Value ÷ Annual Revenue
- ▸Applied to: high-growth companies with negative EBITDA (SaaS, EV, biotech)
- ▸Multiples vary sharply based on growth rate assumptions
Pros
Can value companies with negative EBITDA
Cons
Maximum risk of overvaluation for unprofitable companies
💼 Rivian received a $78bn valuation with near-zero revenue. EV/Revenue is only valid when the path to revenue is crystal clear.
Key Inputs
- ▸Use M&A deal database for comparable sector transactions (last 3–5 years)
- ▸Includes control premium: typically 20–30%
- ▸IPOs don't transfer control → apply discount to premium
Pros
Based on actual market transaction prices
Cons
Inapplicable if no comparable deals exist; doesn't reflect market environment shifts
💼 An IPO is not an M&A transaction. Applying the full control premium inflates valuation.
Key Inputs
- ▸Apply independent DCF or multiples to each business division
- ▸Holdco discount of 10–30% typically applied
- ▸Illiquid assets (real estate, etc.) added separately
Pros
Uncovers hidden value in conglomerates
Cons
Ignores inter-divisional synergies; may undercount separation costs
💼 LG Energy Solution was a spin-off IPO from LG Chem's battery division. Sum-of-Parts required separate valuation of LG Chem's residual value.
Ch.3
Case Studies — Valuation Anatomy of Success, Overpricing & Collapse
The same methodologies produce wildly different valuations depending on assumption choices. LG Energy Solution succeeded with correct peer selection and conservative assumptions; Krafton was forced into a 30% downgrade from over-optimistic peers; Rivian collapsed 90% post-listing from extreme EV/Revenue application.
LG에너지솔루션
Initial Target
Price range: ₩257,000–300,000 per share
Final Price
IPO price: ₩300,000 (top of range) → Market cap ₩70.2T
Outcome
Opening price ₩597,000 (+99%), closing price ₩444,000 (+48%)
Valuation Lessons
- ▸5 methodologies ranged ₩55–118T — IPO price set at median ₩70T
- ▸Demand 2,023x supply — all-time record subscription ratio
- ▸Strategic anchors (ex-Samsung SDI) pre-eliminated demand uncertainty
크래프톤 (Krafton)
Initial Target
Initial target valuation: ₩53T (EV/Revenue overapplied)
Final Price
Weak institutional demand → Final market cap ₩24T (55% cut)
Outcome
IPO price ₩498,000 → Listing day close ₩466,000 (-6.4%)
Valuation Lessons
- ▸Single-IP PUBG dependency not reflected in peer selection → durability discount missing
- ▸Overapplied global gaming EV/Revenue premium — Activision used as peer
- ▸Selected highest-valuation bank in bake-off → valuation diverged from market consensus
Rivian Automotive
Initial Target
IPO market cap: $78bn — exceeded GM & Ford (near-zero revenue)
Final Price
12 months post-IPO: market cap collapsed to $8bn (90% decline)
Outcome
Production targets missed, cost inflation, Amazon contract dependency
Valuation Lessons
- ▸Tesla EV/Revenue multiple is a premium for 'proven growth path' — not transferable
- ▸EV/Revenue for a zero-revenue company is essentially a 'hope multiple'
- ▸2021 IPO boom caused investors to ignore risk premium entirely
Ch.4
Issuer vs. Investor — The Structure of Valuation Negotiation
🏢 Issuer (CFO) Perspective
- ▸ Maximize valuation to minimize existing shareholder dilution
- ▸ Maximize PE fund IRR (maximize secondary proceeds)
- ▸ Demand premium for company's growth narrative
- ▸ Goal: minimize 'leaving money on the table'
💼 Institutional Investor Perspective
- ▸ Secure IPO pop (first-day return) — minimum 10–15%
- ▸ Discount = compensation for information asymmetry
- ▸ Secure appropriate entry price for long-term holding
- ▸ Avoid overpriced IPOs — risk of post-listing decline
🏦 Banker's Role — The Mediator
The Global Coordinator banker balances the issuer's desire for maximum valuation against investors' demand for discount. The optimal IPO price = 'the highest price the issuer can accept where sufficient demand still exists.' This negotiation takes place on Pricing Night.
Share this deal
Frequently Asked Questions
Key Terms
A horizontal bar chart that displays the outputs of multiple valuation methodologies — EV/EBITDA, P/E, EV/Revenue, DCF, and precedent transactions — side by side. Each methodology produces a different price range, and bankers use the full picture to propose an appropriate IPO price range. Wider ranges signal greater uncertainty and more negotiating room. It is the centerpiece slide in IB pitchbooks and valuation reports.
A ratio of enterprise value to EBITDA that strips out differences in debt, taxes, and depreciation to enable pure operating profitability comparisons. Appropriate multiples vary by sector: technology typically trades at 15–25×, retail at 6–10×. In IPO valuation, the average EV/EBITDA of comparable listed companies is used as a benchmark, with an IPO discount applied to derive the offering price range.
A method of estimating an IPO company's value by referencing the trading multiples of comparable listed companies. The selection of which companies to include or exclude is both a core technical skill and a negotiating tool for the banker. Issuers push to include high-multiple comparables, while investors prefer lower-multiple peers. The rationale for comp selection drives the credibility of the entire valuation.
A valuation method that discounts projected future free cash flows back to present value using the weighted average cost of capital (WACC). The model is highly sensitive to assumptions around growth rate, margin, and WACC — small changes produce large valuation swings, a classic 'garbage in, garbage out' problem. For startups with unpredictable cash flows, revenue-based multiples like EV/Revenue are often preferred.
The value forfeited by an issuer when IPO pricing is set too low and the stock surges on the first day of trading. A 15–20% first-day pop is considered reasonable, but a pop exceeding 30% is seen as a failure to maximize proceeds. From the underwriter's perspective, a big pop means satisfied investors; from the issuer CFO's perspective, it is evidence of excessive underpricing. This tension is central to IPO price negotiations.
Related Concepts
Was this helpful?
Share it with someone