Royalty Relief vs Loss of Licence
RFR values an owned intangible by royalty avoided through ownership; Loss of Licence values an existing licence by cash flows lost if the licence ends.
Introduction
The Relief from Royalty (RFR) method and the Loss of Licence method are two royalty-based valuation approaches that share a structural similarity — both build value from royalty rate evidence — but answer different questions. RFR estimates the present value of royalty payments the owner avoids by owning the asset rather than licensing it from a third party. The Loss of Licence method estimates the value an owner loses if its existing licence is terminated and the asset must be re-licensed at a higher rate, abandoned, or substituted with an inferior alternative.
This page compares the two methods under IFRS 3 (UK and global), ASC 805 (US), and the broader fair-value framework. It sets out the mechanics, when each is the right tool, the data inputs each requires, and the audit-defensibility profiles. The reader is assumed to be a valuer or M&A practitioner working on licence-related intangibles where the choice between RFR and Loss of Licence is material.
TL;DR: RFR values an owned intangible by quantifying the royalty payments the owner avoids — used for brand, technology, patents, and software in PPA work. Loss of Licence values an existing licence by quantifying what the licensee loses if the licence is terminated — used in licence-specific valuations, contract negotiations, and damages quantification where the licence itself is the asset. The two methods share royalty-rate evidence as their foundation but answer different questions: RFR is "what is ownership worth?"; Loss of Licence is "what is this specific licence worth?".
Relief from Royalty (RFR)
The Relief from Royalty method values an owned intangible asset by estimating the after-tax royalty payments the owner avoids by owning the asset rather than licensing it from a third party. The logic is that an owner is "relieved" of paying a royalty, and the present value of that relief is the asset's fair value. Under IFRS 13 (UK and global) and ASC 820 (US), the method is widely accepted because it anchors to observable licensing transactions and produces a market-corroborated value.
How RFR works
- Project the revenue stream attributable to the asset over its remaining useful life
- Apply a royalty rate derived from comparable arm's-length licensing transactions
- Apply tax to convert pre-tax royalty savings to after-tax cash flows
- Add a Tax Amortisation Benefit (TAB) adjustment where the jurisdiction permits amortisation
- Discount the after-tax cash flows to present value using a risk-adjusted rate
When RFR is the right method
RFR is the right tool when:
- The asset would routinely be licensed in arm's-length transactions if not owned
- Comparable licensing transactions exist to anchor the royalty rate
- The asset's revenue contribution can be isolated from other revenue drivers
- The valuation context is fair-value determination of the owned asset (PPA, impairment, IP-backed lending)
Standard applications include brand and trade names, developed technology, patents, software, and copyrighted material — all of which have active arm's-length licensing markets in most industries.
What you need to apply RFR
- Revenue forecast attributable to the asset
- At least 3-5 comparable arm's-length licensing transactions for the royalty-rate benchmark
- Useful life supported by technology-lifecycle, churn, or contract-pattern evidence
- Tax rate and TAB factor where applicable
- Discount rate at WACC plus any asset-specific premium
Defensibility profile
RFR is highly defensible when the comparable licensing transactions are genuinely comparable to the subject asset (same asset class, same industry, similar exclusivity terms, similar geography). Audit attention concentrates on royalty-rate justification — are the comparables credible? — and useful-life assumption. The most common challenge is stretching comparables across asset class or industry boundaries to support a desired rate.
A pharmaceutical patent with 8 years remaining of protection is acquired in PPA. RFR is applied with a 7% royalty rate (derived from 5 comparable patent licensing transactions in the same therapeutic class, with similar exclusivity terms). Revenue attributable to the compound is £42m in year 1, projected with 3% annual growth over the protection horizon. After-tax royalty saving is discounted at WACC + 200bps; TAB is applied at the UK tax rate. The resulting fair value is the acquired patent's recognition value.
Loss of Licence Method
The Loss of Licence method values an existing licence — held by the licensee — by quantifying the loss the licensee would suffer if the licence were terminated and the asset had to be re-licensed at a higher rate, replaced with an inferior substitute, or abandoned. The method is used in licence-specific valuations where the licence itself is the operative asset, in contract negotiations where the licensee's reliance on the licence is the basis of value, and in damages quantification where breach of licence is the underlying claim.
How Loss of Licence works
- Identify the licensee's current royalty rate, exclusivity terms, and licence duration
- Project the revenue stream attributable to the licensed asset over the remaining licence term
- Construct the "no-licence" scenario — what alternative the licensee would have access to if the existing licence were terminated:
- Re-licensing the same asset at a higher rate (where the original rate is favourable to the licensee)
- Substituting an inferior asset (where re-licensing the original is not available)
- Abandoning the use case and suffering the lost revenue (where no substitute is available)
- Quantify the cash-flow difference between the "with licence" and "no licence" scenarios
- Discount the cash-flow difference to present value
- Apply any probability weighting where the licence termination is contingent
When Loss of Licence is the right method
Loss of Licence is the right tool when:
- The licence — not the underlying asset — is the operative valuation subject
- The licensee's reliance on the licence has economic value distinct from the asset's intrinsic value
- The valuation context is licence-specific (contract negotiation, damages, intra-group transfer pricing on the licensee side, partial impairment of a licence asset)
- Adequate evidence exists for the "no licence" alternative scenario
Standard applications include damages quantification in IP infringement / breach-of-licence disputes, the valuation of long-term technology licences held by SaaS or industrial-IP licensees, and the valuation of certain franchise rights and exclusive distribution agreements.
What you need to apply Loss of Licence
- Current licence terms (royalty rate, exclusivity, duration, scope)
- Revenue attributable to the licensed asset's use by the licensee
- Evidence for the "no licence" alternative — re-licensing rates, substitute pricing, abandonment cost
- Probability weighting where the alternative depends on multiple possible outcomes
- Discount rate consistent with the cash-flow scenarios
Defensibility profile
Loss of Licence is defensible when (a) the "no licence" alternative is grounded in observable market evidence (recent comparable re-licensing rates, demonstrable substitute pricing), (b) the cash-flow scenarios are internally consistent in their assumptions, and (c) any probability weighting is supported. The most common audit challenge is the "no licence" alternative — practitioners sometimes construct unrealistically punitive scenarios that overstate the loss; auditors and dispute experts test the alternative against observable market behaviour.
A SaaS company holds a long-term technology licence at a 6% royalty rate. The licence has 4 years remaining. Current market re-licensing rates for the same technology have risen to 11% reflecting scarcity and competitive demand. The Loss of Licence value is calculated as the present value of the 5-percentage-point royalty rate differential, applied to the licensee's revenue over the 4-year remaining term, after tax. Adjustments include the probability that the licensor would actually renew at market rate vs offering some accommodation; the resulting value is the licence's economic worth to the licensee distinct from the underlying technology's intrinsic value to the licensor.
Loss of Licence is conceptually related to the With and Without method — both build value by comparing two cash-flow scenarios. The distinction is that Loss of Licence specifically uses the licence termination as the alternative scenario, with royalty-rate dynamics as the comparison mechanism; W&W is the more general framework for any with-asset vs without-asset comparison.
Side-by-Side Comparison
The table below sets out the practitioner's quick-reference view. Each row is a dimension of distinction.
| Criterion | Relief from Royalty (RFR) | Loss of Licence Method |
|---|---|---|
| Valuation subject | The owned intangible asset | The licence held by the licensee |
| Question answered | What is ownership worth (vs licensing from a third party)? | What is this specific licence worth (vs losing it)? |
| Valuation logic | Present value of royalty payments avoided by owning | Present value of cash flows lost if the licence is terminated |
| Royalty rate source | Comparable arm's-length licensing transactions | Current market re-licensing rates, substitute pricing |
| Cash flow basis | Revenue × royalty rate (single stream) | Difference between "with licence" and "no licence" scenarios |
| Useful life | Asset's economic life, capped by legal life | Remaining term of the existing licence |
| Typical applications | Brand, technology, patents, software in PPA | Damages quantification, licensee-side licence valuation, contract negotiation |
| TAB applicability | Yes — applied to RFR result in TAB jurisdictions | Yes — applied to Loss of Licence result in TAB jurisdictions |
| Audit treatment under IFRS 13 / ASC 820 | Widely accepted; dominant for licensable intangibles | Accepted where the licence is the operative asset; less common |
| Defensibility profile | High when comparables are credible; weak when stretched | High when "no licence" alternative is evidenced |
| Common pitfall | Stretching comparables across asset class or industry | Constructing punitive "no licence" scenarios without evidence |
| Related to W&W? | Distinct — RFR uses royalty rates not paired scenarios | Closely related — Loss of Licence is W&W with licence-specific framing |
| Owner-side vs licensee-side | Owner-side valuation | Licensee-side valuation |
| Typical use cases beyond PPA | Impairment testing of recognised intangibles | IP infringement damages; licence dispute resolution; transfer pricing |
| Where the methods diverge | Values ownership of an asset using market royalty | Values a specific licence using termination-scenario analysis |
How the two methods relate
The two methods share royalty-rate evidence as their foundation, but they answer different questions:
- RFR views the asset from the owner's perspective — what is ownership worth, expressed as the royalty payments the owner avoids?
- Loss of Licence views the asset from the licensee's perspective — what is this specific licence worth to the licensee, expressed as the cash flows the licensee would lose without it?
A single licensing arrangement therefore has two distinct values: the licensor's RFR value (the underlying asset they own) and the licensee's Loss of Licence value (the favourable terms they enjoy on that asset). In most cases the two are not equal — the licensor's RFR value reflects market-clearing terms; the licensee's Loss of Licence value reflects the difference between their actual terms and the market-clearing alternative.
Use RFR to value an owned asset (PPA, impairment, IP-backed lending). Use Loss of Licence to value a licence held by the licensee (damages, contract negotiation, licensee-side fair value). The two methods share royalty-rate evidence but answer different questions about different sides of the same licensing relationship.
FAQ
When should I use RFR vs Loss of Licence?
Use RFR when the valuation subject is the owned intangible asset — typically in PPA, impairment testing, or IP-backed lending. Use Loss of Licence when the valuation subject is the specific licence held by the licensee — typically in damages quantification (where breach of licence is the underlying claim), licensee-side fair value (where the licence itself is a recognised asset), or contract negotiation. The two methods sit on opposite sides of the same licensing relationship and answer different questions.
How does Loss of Licence relate to the With and Without method?
Loss of Licence is conceptually a specific application of the With and Without framework — both build value by comparing two cash-flow scenarios. The distinction is in the comparison mechanism: Loss of Licence specifically uses licence termination as the alternative scenario, with royalty-rate dynamics as the basis of the cash-flow difference. W&W is the broader framework that can use any with-asset vs without-asset comparison (non-compete termination, customer churn acceleration, key-person departure). Loss of Licence is the right name when the licence itself is the asset and royalty rates anchor the comparison.
Can the same royalty rate evidence be used in both methods?
Yes, in part. RFR uses comparable arm's-length licensing transactions to derive the royalty rate the owner would charge / the licensee would pay in an arm's-length transaction. Loss of Licence uses current market re-licensing rates — which are often informed by the same comparable evidence but adjusted for current market conditions, scarcity dynamics, and the licensee's specific position. The same database of licensing transactions can support both methods, but the rates derived from it serve different purposes.
What is the typical "no licence" scenario in Loss of Licence?
Three common patterns: (a) re-licensing the same asset at a higher current rate, where the original licence was favourable to the licensee; (b) substituting an inferior asset where re-licensing the original is not available; (c) abandoning the use case where no adequate substitute exists. The choice depends on the specific licence circumstances. Audit and expert-witness focus concentrates on whether the chosen "no licence" alternative reflects observable market behaviour or has been constructed punitively to overstate the loss.
Does the licensor's RFR value equal the licensee's Loss of Licence value?
Not usually. The licensor's RFR value reflects the market-clearing royalty stream they would receive in an arm's-length licensing arrangement. The licensee's Loss of Licence value reflects the difference between their current royalty terms and the alternative they would face without the licence. In a market-clearing arm's-length licence with no favourable terms to the licensee, the two values would be similar. In most practical cases — where the licensee enjoys favourable terms (lower rate, broader exclusivity, longer duration than current market) — the licensee's Loss of Licence value exceeds the licensor's RFR value of the underlying asset.
Is Loss of Licence appropriate for damages quantification?
Yes, frequently. Damages claims in IP infringement and breach-of-licence disputes often centre on the licensee's loss when the licence is terminated or restricted. Loss of Licence provides a framework for quantifying that loss in present-value terms, anchored to observable royalty-rate evidence and market substitute pricing. Expert witnesses use the method routinely in commercial dispute resolution and litigation. The method's defensibility in court depends on the credibility of the "no licence" alternative scenario.
Does TAB apply to Loss of Licence?
Yes, where the licence is recognised as an intangible asset eligible for tax amortisation in the relevant jurisdiction. The TAB factor is applied to the Loss of Licence value the same way it is applied to RFR, MPEEM, or W&W results — calculated using the asset's tax amortisation period, the corporate tax rate, and the discount rate. The mechanics are identical; the difference is only in how the pre-TAB value was derived.
How does the Loss of Licence method handle uncertainty in the licence's renewal?
Through probability weighting. Where the licence has a defined renewal date and the renewal outcome is uncertain — the licensor may renew at market rate, may renew at the existing rate, may decline to renew — the Loss of Licence calculation can be probability-weighted across the possible outcomes. Each scenario contributes its expected cash-flow difference at its assessed probability. The defensibility test is whether the probabilities are grounded in observable behaviour (e.g. the licensor's track record of renewals, sector renewal patterns) or have been derived purely from management judgement.
When to Seek Expert Support
RFR vs Loss of Licence decisions are routine when the valuation context is unambiguous — PPA → RFR; damages → Loss of Licence. They become technically demanding where (a) the licence itself is being acquired in a PPA and the practitioner must distinguish the asset value from the favourable-terms value, (b) damages quantification requires careful construction of the "no licence" alternative, (c) cross-border transfer pricing involves both licensor and licensee perspectives in the same engagement, or (d) the audit team is challenging the relationship between RFR and Loss of Licence values in a complex licensing structure.
Opagio's Asset Valuator module (within Opagio Intangibles) supports both RFR (owner-side) and Loss of Licence (licensee-side) valuations, captures the royalty-rate evidence in the Value Drivers Register, and produces the audit-trail documentation that supports each valuation perspective.
For complex licensing structures or where the two methods appear in the same engagement, the right pattern is to automate the mechanical work and have a qualified specialist review the framework choices and cross-method consistency before sign-off.
Book a demo: See how Asset Valuator handles a complex licensing structure with RFR on the owner side and Loss of Licence on the licensee side. Book a demo or speak to our team.
Related Glossary Terms
Learn More
Ready to Value Your Intangible Assets?
Use Opagio's valuation tools to apply these methods to your own business.