Comparable transactions & PTA — the market-based approach in full.

A transaction that appears comparable may involve a distressed seller, a synergy premium, or a PE platform play that doesn't apply to a standard market sale. The mechanics of comparable selection and adjustment determine whether the market-based approach produces a reliable valuation or a misleading one. This Tactical covers the four-step methodology, the institutional PTA standard, and the canonical multiple spectrum sellers can use to evaluate any specific comparable claim.

§ 01 · Foundational principlesSubstitution, metric selection, and the revenue myth.

The Principle of Substitution.

Market-based valuation is grounded in the Principle of Substitution: a buyer will not pay more for an agency than they would for a comparable one with similar risk and return. Unlike the income approach (which projects future cash flow) or the asset-based approach (which sums assets), the market approach is backward-looking — it relies on actual transaction data, the multiples and terms at which insurance agencies have recently changed hands.

Metric selection — SDE vs EBITDA.

Small agencies (under ~$1M revenue): buyers are often individuals buying a job. The relevant metric is SDE (Seller's Discretionary Earnings). Typical range: 2.0–3.0× SDE. Mid-to-large agencies (over ~$1M–$2M revenue): buyers are investors or corporations; they need to know profit after paying someone to manage the business. The relevant metric is Normalized EBITDA. Typical range: 6–10×+ EBITDA. Using the wrong metric is the fastest path to mispricing. For any agency above $1.5M in revenue, buyers will insist on EBITDA.

The revenue multiple myth.

"I heard agencies sell for 2.5 times revenue" is the most pervasive myth in insurance M&A. Two agencies with $1M revenue, one at 35% EBITDA margin ($350K) and one at 10% ($100K). At 2.5× revenue both are "worth" $2.5M — but Agency A generates 3.5× the cash flow. Sophisticated buyers don't use revenue multiples for agency-level transactions. Revenue multiples are valid for book-of-business sales and Slices (covered in [Revenue Multiples vs EBITDA]).

§ 02 · Step-by-step comparable transaction analysisThe four-step method.

Step 1 — Identify truly comparable agencies.

Comparables should match on key dimensions: revenue size (within 25–50% of your revenue — a $10M agency is not comparable to a $1.5M agency), geographic region (market conditions and buyer pools vary), lines of business (similar mix), carrier concentration (similar diversity level), and growth profile (similar trajectory). The closer the match, the more reliable the multiple.

Step 2 — Extract the multiple.

For each comparable: Multiple = Purchase Price / Normalized EBITDA. Sources for comparable data include investment banking deal databases, broker networks (for larger agencies), direct market intelligence from intermediaries and other owners, and public company filings when the buyer was PE-backed or publicly traded.

Step 3 — Adjust for differences.

Real-world comparables never match perfectly. Systematic adjustments: retention +0.5× (92%+ vs 85%) or −0.5× (<80%). Growth +0.5–1.0× (8%+ vs 3%) or −1.0× (declining vs growing). Carrier concentration −1.0× (single carrier >40%). Key-person dependency −0.5× (entirely owner-dependent). AMS/operations −0.5× (poor or outdated). Client demographics ±0.25× (younger vs older average age). Example: Agency A sold at 9× EBITDA with 95% retention, your agency has 85% — adjusted multiple ≈ 8.5×. Agency B sold at 9× with declining revenue, your agency grew 4% — adjusted multiple ≈ 9.5×.

Step 4 — Calculate the median and apply.

Average the adjusted comparables and apply the median multiple to your Normalized EBITDA. If adjusted comparables show 8.0×, 8.5×, 9.0×, 9.5×, 9.0× — median is 9.0×. At $350K Normalized EBITDA: $3.15M valuation — clearing the 8–10× market band and pushing into the 10–12× competitive band per the canonical valuation framework.

§ 03 · Precedent Transaction Analysis (PTA)The institutional standard.

PTA is the formal, institutional-grade application of market-based analysis. It uses a larger transaction dataset (10–20+ deals) to produce a valuation range with statistical backing, rather than a point estimate. PTA differs from informal comps in three ways: larger dataset (10–20+ comparable transactions, not 3–5), systematic adjustments (consistent methodology applied uniformly across all comparables), and valuation ranges (low/median/high outputs, not a single number).

Sample output at $350K Normalized EBITDA: Low 8.0× = $2.80M. Median 9.0× = $3.15M. High 10.5× = $3.68M. This range output is standard in competitive sales processes. Buyers anchor their offers within this range, with the specific multiple determined by where your agency falls relative to the comparables. Investment bankers preparing a Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM) for a formal sale process will include a PTA analysis as part of the valuation section.

§ 04 · The full multiple spectrumMapped to the canonical bands.

4–6× floor/distressed. Internal sales, forced exits, underprepared sellers. Family/employee succession, no competitive tension, normalized financials absent. This is the canonical 4–6× distressed-or-internal band.

8–10× standard market. External sales, well-prepared, reasonable metrics. Clean financials, 85–90% retention, 3–6% growth, some competitive interest. The 8–10× market band.

10–12× premium/competitive. Multiple qualified buyers, above-market metrics. 90%+ retention, 6%+ growth, documented operations, investment banker involvement. The 10–12× competitive band.

12–19× Kill Zone. PE competition for bolt-on targets, $3M–$10M revenue tier. Competitive bidding, exceptional metrics, optimal market timing. The 12–19× kill-zone PE band.

§ 05 · Comparables that shouldn't drive your valuationThe exclusion list.

Not all transactions are equally informative. Exclude or heavily discount: old transactions (deals from 3+ years ago may not reflect current conditions), different size categories (a $10M agency selling at 12× is not a comp for a $1.2M agency), distressed or atypical situations (forced exits, health-related retirements, compliance-driven sales are outliers), seller-financed deals (if a large portion of the price was seller-financed, the stated multiple may be inflated relative to the buyer's actual cash outlay), and strategic / synergy premiums (a buyer who paid a premium for geographic overlap or carrier access justifies it with synergy value, not market norms).

Each 1% of additional annual retention above 85% supports approximately +0.5× multiple premium. Documented retention is the single most reliable lever inside the market-based approach. Anything that can be proven from AMS data carries weight; anything that can't is a buyer's discount.

◆