There is a principle in valuation that should be so obvious it barely needs saying.

If the value depends on the assets, prove the assets.

And yet, the moment a deal becomes difficult, that basic principle is often treated like an inconvenience.

The cash flow does not support the purchase price. The normalized earnings do not support the purchase price. So attention shifts to equipment, inventory, or other tangible assets as the rationale for why the price still “works.”

Very well. Then prove them.

If machinery and equipment are carrying the weight of the conclusion, obtain a qualified appraisal. If inventory is material, verify it. If the balance sheet is unreliable, stop pretending it provides a stable foundation simply because it is the only number within reach.

Too many people want the benefit of asset value without the burden of establishing it. They want the larger number, but not the diligence required to defend it. They want the support, but not the cost of obtaining support.

That is not how credible work is done. A serious conclusion requires serious proof.

And if the parties refuse to obtain that proof, they should not act surprised when the independent value conclusion fails to close the gap between what the deal demands and what the record can actually defend.

If assets are the argument, then assets must become the evidence. Anything less is merely assertion with better posture.