Fehlbewertung von Investitionsentscheidungen durch fehlerhafte Finanzmodelle

Definition

Advisory firms and corporates frequently rely on bespoke spreadsheets for investment appraisal, transaction pricing and strategic planning. KPMG, Grant Thornton and other Australian practitioners explicitly highlight that spreadsheet models must be robust, accurate and reliable, and that they are commonly reviewed for errors and structural weaknesses.[2][5] International reviews of large financial spreadsheets have found material error rates in the majority of models used for decision making, often affecting key outputs by several percentage points (research such as Panko’s studies, extrapolated to Australian practice). In a strategic management context, even a 3–5 % mis‑estimation of equity value or project NPV on mid‑market deals of $20–200m translates into $0.6–10m of value transfer or destruction per transaction. Because these models inform pricing, earn‑out structures and financing terms, hidden logic errors and inconsistent assumptions create systematic decision errors, not one‑off noise. Given that Australian advisory teams routinely work on projects up to and above $100m–$2b in value, as stated by Grant Thornton’s modelling team, a conservative logic‑based estimate is that poor modelling quality can cause mispricing equivalent to 1–3 % of enterprise value on routine mandates and up to 5–10 % on more complex or distressed situations.[2] This directly reduces shareholder value, leads to overpayment, or causes viable deals to be rejected.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Strategic management firms in Australia 🇦🇺 regularly misprice acquisitions, capital projects and restructures by 3–10 % of deal value due to ad‑hoc Excel models. Automation and standardisation of financial modelling and valuation can protect $3–10m on a $100m transaction.

Affected Stakeholders

Corporate strategy directors, CFOs, M&A and corporate finance advisers, Board members, Private equity investment committees

Related Business Risks