Which method should I use for customer relationships?

In most cases, MPEEM — customer relationships are typically the primary income-generating intangible and have no observable royalty market, which is the natural fit for MPEEM. The exception is where retention is materially sensitive to a specific protective factor (a non-compete, a key-person agreement, a contractual covenant); there, W&W can either replace MPEEM or be used in combination to value the retention-sensitive portion separately.

Can I use RFR for customer relationships?

Rarely, and only with strong justification. The Relief from Royalty method assumes the asset would be licensed in an arm's-length transaction, and customer relationships are not licensed in any practical sense. Auditors and regulators will challenge RFR applied to customer relationships unless the practitioner can demonstrate a credible licensing analogue, which is unusual. MPEEM is the default; W&W is the secondary option.

What is the AICPA Practice Aid and does it apply outside the US?

The AICPA Practice Aid (*Valuation of Privately-Held-Company Equity Securities Issued as Compensation*, and the companion *Assets Acquired in a Business Combination*) is a US-authored guidance document widely cited as best practice for income-approach valuation. While it sits within the ASC 805 (US) framework, its methodological recommendations — particularly the preference for MPEEM on primary intangibles and the contributory asset charge framework — are routinely applied by UK and international valuers as a methodological reference under IFRS 3 (UK and global). The Practice Aid is not binding outside the US, but its conventions have become the de facto industry standard.

How do contributory asset charges (CACs) work in MPEEM?

Every contributing asset in the business — fixed assets, working capital, assembled workforce, brand, other intangibles — is assigned a fair return rate, applied to that asset's fair value, and deducted from the projected cash flows of the business. The residual is the excess earnings attributable to the primary intangible. The CAC rate for each asset class reflects what an arm's-length owner would charge to rent that asset to the business. Working capital tends to short rates (3-5%); fixed assets sit higher (6-10%); workforce sits higher again (10-15%); brand and technology can attach charges derived from their own RFR rates. The completeness and rate-setting of the CAC inventory is the most frequent audit challenge in MPEEM work.

When does With and Without become more defensible than MPEEM?

When the asset's value derives primarily from its *protective* effect on a defined revenue stream rather than from a direct income contribution. Non-compete agreements are the clearest case — there is no positive income stream attributable to a non-compete in isolation; the value lies in preventing competition that would otherwise erode revenue. Retention-sensitive customer relationships are the secondary case — where the customer base would churn materially in the absence of a specific contractual or operational factor, W&W can capture the protective value more cleanly than MPEEM's CAC framework allows.

How long does it take to complete an asset-level valuation under each method?

For an experienced practitioner, a single RFR valuation typically takes 1-2 weeks including comparable research. A single MPEEM valuation typically takes 3-5 weeks because of the contributory asset inventory and CAC rate-setting work. A single W&W valuation typically takes 1-3 weeks depending on the complexity of the "without" scenario. In a multi-asset PPA combining all three methods, end-to-end engagements typically run 6-10 weeks from kickoff to draft report.

Can I apply MPEEM to two intangible assets in the same business?

No. The AICPA Practice Aid is explicit that only one primary income-generating asset per reporting unit should carry MPEEM. Applying MPEEM to two assets creates circular dependencies: each method needs the other asset to be valued first as a contributory asset, which is logically impossible if both are using MPEEM. The standard practice is to identify the single primary intangible (usually customer relationships), apply MPEEM to it, and value all other intangibles using RFR, W&W, or cost-based methods as appropriate.

Valuation Method

RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without — Asset Valuation Methods Compared

A practitioner's three-way comparison of Relief from Royalty, Multi-Period Excess Earnings, and With and Without methods — when to use each, what data you need, and how to defend the choice in audit.

Three asset-level valuation methods — Relief from Royalty (RFR), Multi-Period Excess Earnings (MPEEM), and With and Without (W&W) — do most of the work in purchase price allocation, impairment testing, and corporate IP reviews. Each has a narrow window where it is the right tool. The choice is driven by asset type, data availability, and the asset's role in the wider business.

Criteria	Relief from Royalty (RFR)	MPEEM and With and Without
Typical asset types	Brands, trade names, developed technology, patents, software	MPEEM: customer relationships, subscriber bases, core deposits. W&W: non-compete agreements, retention-sensitive customer relationships, restrictive covenants
Valuation logic	Hypothetical royalty savings if the asset were licensed from a third party	MPEEM: residual earnings after contributory asset charges. W&W: difference between with-asset and without-asset cash-flow scenarios
Data inputs needed	Royalty-rate benchmarks (3-5 comparables), asset-attributable revenue, tax rate, TAB factor	MPEEM: multi-period cash flows, full contributory-asset inventory, CAC rates, attrition curve. W&W: paired with/without cash flows, behavioural evidence, probability weighting
IFRS 3 alignment (UK and global)	Accepted — dominant method for brand and technology	Accepted — MPEEM dominant for customer relationships; W&W standard for non-competes
ASC 805 alignment (US)	Accepted — same dominance pattern as IFRS 3	Accepted — AICPA Practice Aid endorses MPEEM for primary intangibles; W&W standard for non-competes
IAS 38 alignment (post-acquisition impairment)	Used for subsequent impairment of recognised brands and technology	Used for impairment of customer-relationship CGUs (MPEEM) and protected revenue streams (W&W)
Defensibility in audit	High when 3+ credible comparables exist; weak when comparables are stretched	MPEEM: high when contributory-asset inventory is complete; vulnerable to CAC challenge. W&W: high when without-scenario assumptions are evidenced
Common pitfalls	Stretching comparables across asset class, industry, or geography; ignoring exclusivity terms	MPEEM: incomplete contributory inventory; over-aggressive attrition. W&W: without-scenario built without behavioural evidence; cherry-picked worst case
Time to complete (single asset, experienced practitioner)	1-2 weeks including comparable research	MPEEM: 3-5 weeks including contributory-asset valuation. W&W: 1-3 weeks including scenario validation
Can value multiple assets in one engagement?	Yes — each asset independent of the others	MPEEM: no (one primary intangible per reporting unit). W&W: yes, typically for one or two specific assets
When to combine methods	Combine with MPEEM where brand uses RFR and customer relationships use MPEEM in the same PPA	Combine all three: RFR for brand/technology, MPEEM for primary customer asset, W&W for non-compete or retention-sensitive uplift

When to Use Each Approach

Relief from Royalty (RFR)

Asset is routinely licensed in arm's-length transactions
3+ credible royalty-rate comparables exist for the asset class
Asset is brand, trade name, developed technology, patent, or software
You need market-corroborated defensibility

MPEEM and With and Without

Asset is the primary income generator of the acquired business (use MPEEM)
Asset has no observable licensing analogue and no protective-effect framing (use MPEEM)
Asset's value lies in its protective effect on a defined revenue stream (use W&W)
Retention is materially sensitive to a specific contractual or operational factor (use W&W)

Our Verdict

RFR for licensable assets (brand, technology, patents) where royalty benchmarks exist. MPEEM for the primary income-generating intangible (typically customer relationships) — only one per reporting unit. W&W for assets whose value is best demonstrated by modelling their absence (non-competes, retention-sensitive customer relationships). In a typical PPA, all three appear in the same engagement applied to different assets.

Related Glossary Terms

Learn More

View lesson →

Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?

Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.

Try the Valuator Browse All Comparisons

RFR vs MPEEM vs With and Without — Asset Valuation Methods Compared

When to Use Each Approach

Relief from Royalty (RFR)

MPEEM and With and Without

Our Verdict

Related Glossary Terms

Learn More

Related Comparisons

Relief from Royalty vs MPEEM: Which Method to Use

Relief from Royalty vs Cost Approach

DCF vs Market Approach for Intangibles

Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?