I'm trying to compute a future value for my SaaS company for my financial projections. Can anyone help me find what to use as an earnings multiple?

"Based on the success we are able to achieve" suggests, to me, you are looking at a price that will be tagged to an earn out provision. In other words, the price of the deal will be contingent on you achieving specific revenue targets in the future. If I'm reading this wrong, please correct me because it's an important piece of information. Early stage startup typically suggests a focus on revenue growth with minimal focus on earnings. The most valuable acquisitions will be those that have growth in the top quartile of the industry along with an EBITDA that is also in the top quartile. Companies with these will have the highest multiples. Revenue multiples are also a function of the industry and the general character of the market. Currently, the IPO markets are doing pretty well and the overall M&A market appears to be pretty solid making multiples equally solid. In terms of industry, the media publishing industry has moderate to slow growth depending on the segment. I'm assuming there is a social or online component to your startup which would suggest that it would be part of the new growth side of the market. Generally speaking, market growth averages are at about 8% for larger companies suggesting that new entrants should be able to sustain low to mid double digit growth over a longer horizon. "Growth rates", i.e. percentages, can be meaningless for very small companies. For instance, a company that grows from $25,000 to $250,000 in a year has a massive growth rate..... but the value may be very low due to lack of track record and overall profitability. As such, it can be very hard to estimate multiples. That said, if I were putting forth a hypothetical, it would be something like the following: Assuming: The company has over $1M in revenue and is growing at an average of 12 - 15% per year. Assuming: The company is profitable, but barely, say something in the 10% EBITDA range. Assuming: The company is a service company with few assets but is not subject to significant brain drain (key people leaving would result in devaluing the company). If any of the above are wrong, it can change things significantly. Revenue multiples might be in the 0.7 - 1.15x revenue on forward looking and .9 - 1.25 on a trailing level. EBITDA Multiples could be in the 8 - 10 times on a forward looking and 10 - 12 times on a trailing level. Take it with a grain of salt because there are a lot of factors you don't mention and more information is important to make a meaningful diagnosis.

After shepherding 300 equity crowdfunding raises through our platform I'd say all of them have a higher valuation. Reason is it is the entrepreneur that is calling the shots. It is the entrepreneurs offer on their terms on an equity crowdfunding platform. Once you get outside investors involved shaping the deal the valuation will most certainly go down. Agreed it may then be more realistic as everyone believes their company is more valuable than it is. My advice? Treat early investors fairly. Money is the lubricant to get your idea into reality. Give them a fair share of the business and they will reinvest when need be.

There is no valuation until you sell something. An idea or a company is only worth what its sales are. Once you have your initials sales, sales strategy and forecasting length (ie 9 months from first customer lead to close) then you have a formula for valuation. Valuation for start-ups is generally 3.5 x last years sales model should be the growth factor. When you are looking for investors, you will want to have atleast 9-18 months of SALES, not just pipeline and they will be looking at 5x revenue for a 3-5 year payback.

There are three questions here: - the strike price of the options - the market value of the company - how much those options are actually worth to the recipient 1. The strike price is the price people pay to exchange their options for shares. You can set any strike price you like: it's just a negotiable contract term. However, if the strike price is less than the market value of the shares, the options are taxable (which people tend to avoid), so you typically set the strike price at or above the market value. 2. The market value of the company is how much the company is worth. The celebrity of the founder is clearly a big part of it. If the company were sold, the acquirer would want the founder to lock in as part of the acquisition. So figure out the value a couple of ways: (1) off standard profitability metrics: X times yearly profit and/or revenue vs. comparable companies (2) off the acquisition price: with and without the founder and add the percentage chance the founder would go with it (3) off recent transactions in the stock (what people pay for the stock is a great indicator of value) These will give three different answers: pick some sort of average number, so you can justify your strike price. 3. What the options are worth to the recipient: remember they are only worth something if the recipient can exercise them for stock, and then sell the stock (or receive dividends) for more than the option's strike price. So figure out the probability of the company being sold above the strike price in the next X years, and what an weighted average expected sale price is for the company in the next few years (noting the founder's importance), and that's what the options are worth. I hope that helps.

In short, someone was willing to pay $16bn, therefore it's worth $16bn. Trying to tie intrinsic value to private companies is tough, and doesn't follow a logical path. If you look at Facebook's angle, it becomes pretty clear: When you have 1 billion users, but still want to grow, you have to pay for it. FB looked at the WhatsApp acquisition purely from a user acquisition perspective, they paid $45 per user, which is a justifiable fee on their end. What makes it crazy is there were a lot of users involved. Because Facebook has become a mobile app company, and WhatsApp adds to the company portfolio, it makes long-term sense. Additionally, much of WhatsApps user base was international, which is a huge untapped chunk of the world for Facebook. Acquiring WhatsApp allowed FB to make a big international splash in no time.