Worked example — Diversified Industrials Co: Year 0 EV $300m (Equity $100, Debt $200), Year 5 EV $500m (Equity $350, Debt $150). Disaggregate the $250m equity build.
Starting data:
- Year 0: EV $300 = Equity $100 + Debt $200
- Year 5: EV $500 = Equity $350 + Debt $150
- EBITDA Year 0: $40 (7.5x), Year 5: $55 (9.1x implied)
Calculation (the $250m equity build broken out):
```
EBITDA growth: (55−40) × 7.5x = +$113m (45%)
De-leveraging: $200 − $150 = +$50m (20%)
Multiple expansion: (9.1−7.5) × $55m = +$88m (35%)
Total: = +$250m (100%)
```
the 35% multiple-expansion share is within the market range — not too aggressive.
Deep diveShow more details
EBITDA growth plus de-leveraging are the sponsor-controlled drivers. Multiple expansion is market optionality — it counts toward the story, but not toward your own value creation.
| Variant | EBITDA growth | De-lev | Multiple | Investment thesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | 45% | 20% | 35% | balanced |
| Pure operational | 80% | 20% | 0% | very strong |
| Multiple-heavy | 30% | 20% | 50% | risk-prone |
If the multiple-expansion share is above 50%, the sponsor has to justify why explicitly (sector trend, hot M&A market) — otherwise the story reads like gambling.
Question: "What share is your value creation?"
Answer: "EBITDA growth plus de-leveraging together are 65% — so two-thirds is in the sponsor's hands. Multiple expansion is 35% market optionality. In the IC memo I also show ranges: with a stable multiple the equity build would be $170m, with −1x compression only $70m"