F24 — Valuation Engine
Four Methods, One Range
This page answersWhat is the U.S. opportunity worth, and by which method?
Assumptions are shared across every financial page — change one, all outputs recalculate.
196–200 — Methods
Each method, calculated independently
Valuation inputs
ASSUMPTIONMethod outputs
Five-year EBITDA build, 15% discount rate, 3% terminal growth
5.0× modelled total revenue
8.0× recurring revenue only
Cost to rebuild the venue dataset, platform and merchant base
201 — Reconciliation
Indicative range
Low — most conservative method
Midpoint of the four methods
High — most aggressive method
| Method | Value | What it assumes | Weight an acquirer should give it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discounted cash flow | US$114.0M | That the modelled EBITDA build is achievable | Low pre-revenue, high once contribution is proven |
| Revenue multiple | US$271.7M | That total revenue is comparable to peer platforms | Moderate — mix quality varies widely |
| ARR multiple | US$165.4M | That merchant and subscription revenue is durable | High — the most defensible line |
| Replacement cost | US$34.0M | That the dataset and platform must otherwise be rebuilt | High — it is the practical floor |
Every valuation output on this page is a MODEL OUTPUT built on assumptions the reader controls. Nothing here is an offer, a price expectation, a fairness opinion or investment advice.
Investor implication
The methods disagree, and that disagreement is the finding. Replacement cost sets a floor that does not depend on any growth assumption; the ARR multiple sets the fairest current value; DCF is only meaningful once retention is evidenced.
Strategic transaction enquiries
Discuss the U.S. Opportunity