12 questions to ask about valuation fees before you engage anyone.

Before commissioning a business valuation, ask for the total fixed price in writing (e.g. from $1,495 + GST), the exact triggers for any change (added entity +$750, retrospective date +$495, rush +30%), what's excluded, and the revision policy — and confirm the fee is never contingent on the valuation outcome or a sale. A properly run engagement answers all twelve in writing before you sign.

The 12 questions, with the answer a good firm should give

Ask a business valuer these twelve questions about fees before you sign an engagement letter — covering total price, price-change triggers, exclusions, contingency, revisions, and accountability. A properly run firm answers all twelve in writing, before you engage.

• ·1. What is the total price, in writing, before I engage you? A good answer names a fixed dollar figure (e.g. 'from $1,495 + GST for the Essential tier') tied to a defined scope — not a range that depends on a conversation.
• ·2. What specifically triggers the price to change after I engage? A good answer lists the exact triggers: an additional entity ($750 each), a retrospective valuation date ($495 per historical date), or a rush turnaround (a fixed loading, e.g. 30%) — nothing open-ended.
• ·3. What is excluded from this fee? A good answer states plainly what isn't covered: expert witness attendance, cross-examination, court appearances, or contested-matter advocacy are typically separate engagements, quoted separately, once scope is known.
• ·4. Is the fee tied to the valuation outcome, or to a sale, in any way? The only acceptable answer is no. If any part of the fee moves with the number the valuer reaches, or with whether a sale later completes, the valuer is not independent — see the red flag section below.
• ·5. What is your revision policy if I disagree with a draft? A good answer distinguishes between correcting a factual error (free) and requesting a different conclusion (not offered, because the position is evidence-led, not negotiated).
• ·6. Is there a rush fee, and how is it calculated? A good answer states a fixed percentage loading (e.g. 30%) applied transparently to a compressed timeline — not a discretionary 'urgent job' surcharge decided after the fact.
• ·7. What disbursements or third-party costs might be added? A good answer says none, or names them specifically (e.g. a paid industry database subscription for a niche sector) — not a vague 'reasonable expenses' clause.
• ·8. Who actually performs the analysis, and who signs the report? A good answer names the reviewer and confirms the same senior person who reviews the file signs the report — not a junior preparer with a partner's signature stamped on afterward.
• ·9. What are that person's qualifications? A good answer gives a real name and real credentials (degree, professional accreditation, licence number where applicable) — not just a firm name or a generic 'our valuers are qualified'.
• ·10. Will you stand behind the report if the ATO reviews it or requests correspondence? A good answer confirms the firm retains the full working file (Prismi retains files for ten years) and will respond to reviewer questions with reference to that file — while being clear that no valuer can guarantee an outcome, because none can.
• ·11. What is the refund or abandonment policy if I withdraw partway through? A good answer states what is payable for work already completed to the point of withdrawal, in writing, before you engage — not decided case by case afterward.
• ·12. When is payment due — upfront, on delivery, or split? A good answer states the schedule plainly. Be cautious of any structure where a large final instalment is contingent on you being satisfied with the number, which reintroduces the same conflict as an outcome-contingent fee.

The contingent-fee red flag: why any fee tied to outcome breaks independence

A valuation fee that changes based on the value concluded — or that is paid only if a subsequent sale completes — creates a direct financial incentive for the person doing the valuing to reach a particular number. This is why professional valuation standards treat independence as foundational: APES 225 (the professional standard governing valuation engagements in Australia) requires the valuer to be free of financial interest in the outcome, and International Valuation Standards (IVS) build objectivity into the definition of market value itself. A valuation is only useful as evidence if a reader can trust that the number wasn't shaped by what the valuer stood to gain from it. The clearest real-world example is a business broker's free or low-cost 'appraisal' offered as part of a sale mandate — the broker earns a commission only if the business sells, so the appraisal has a structural incentive to be optimistic enough to win the listing. That is a legitimate sales tool for finding a buyer. It is not independent evidence, and it will not hold up if a value needs to be substantiated to the ATO, to another shareholder, or to a court. Fixed fees, agreed and payable regardless of the number reached, are the only structure that removes this incentive entirely.

Scope-creep tells: what vague pricing actually looks like in an engagement letter

Scope creep rarely announces itself — it hides in language that sounds reasonable until the invoice arrives. Three patterns to watch for in an engagement letter or quote: vague scope language such as 'valuation services as required' or 'analysis of the business' with no defined deliverable, methodology count, or entity count attached; 'estimate only' pricing, where the quoted figure is explicitly non-binding and the actual fee is 'confirmed once we understand the complexity' — effectively an unpriced engagement dressed as a priced one; and uncapped hourly billing, where the firm quotes an hourly rate with no not-to-exceed ceiling, so the final cost is unknown until the work is finished. None of these are automatically dishonest — plenty of legitimate advisory work is billed hourly. The problem is the absence of a cap or a defined scope boundary, which shifts all the cost risk onto the client. A fixed-fee engagement letter should instead name the tier, the methodology count, the entity count, the valuation date, the turnaround, and the exact triggers for any change to the price — all before work starts.

Accountability questions: who signs it, and will they stand behind it

The signature on a valuation report is a professional accountability commitment, not a formality. Before engaging anyone, confirm three things: who signs the report (a named individual, not just a firm letterhead); what their specific qualifications are (see our full explainer on /resources/who-can-value-a-business-in-australia for what qualifications actually matter and which claims to be wary of); and whether that person will respond to correspondence if the report is questioned at ATO review, in a dispute, or by another adviser. A firm that can only offer a generic support inbox once the report is delivered has not really committed to standing behind its own conclusion. At Prismi, every report is signed by a named senior reviewer, and the full working file is retained for ten years so the reasoning behind the conclusion can be reconstructed and defended if it is ever questioned.

Where these questions leave the market — and where Prismi sits

Ask these twelve questions across the Australian valuation market and the answers cluster in a few honest patterns. Free online calculators and broker appraisals answer question 4 badly (yes, tied to outcome or sale) but rarely charge a direct fee, so questions 1–3 don't apply in the usual sense. Traditional advisory and accounting firms typically decline to answer question 1 at all — full valuation reports in Australia typically run $5,000–$15,000+ at traditional firms, quoted only after a scoping call, with the exact figure depending on complexity assessed during that call. That is not necessarily a scope-creep red flag; it can simply be a firm that prices bespoke work bespoke. But it does mean you're committing to a conversation before you see a number. Prismi's answer to question 1 is a fixed menu published before you engage: Essential from $1,495 + GST for a single-methodology report suited to straightforward matters, Comprehensive from $3,995 + GST for dual-methodology engagements, Defensible Valuation File from $8,995 + GST for triple-methodology matters where the file needs to withstand scrutiny, and Valuation Range & Scenario Review from $12,995 + GST for engagements requiring modelled scenarios. Every triggering event for a price change (retrospective date +$495, additional entity +$750, rush +30%) is listed in advance, and the fee is fixed at signing — never contingent on the number we reach. See the full breakdown on /resources/fixed-fee-vs-hourly-valuation-engagements and /services/fixed-fee-business-valuation. This page describes valuation scope and fees only — it is not tax advice; whether a CGT event or concession applies to your situation is a matter for your registered tax agent.

The honest trade-off: a low fixed price is not the only question worth asking

A fixed, published price answers question 1 well, but price alone does not answer questions 4 through 9 — and a low headline fee that is silent on independence, revision terms or signatory qualifications can still hide the conflicts this checklist is designed to catch. Prismi's Essential tier, from $1,495 + GST, applies a single methodology and is a genuine fixed-scope product, not a stripped-down version of a bigger report sold cheap — but it is not suited to contested matters, family law proceedings, or any situation carrying real ATO-dispute risk, which need the cross-checking that Comprehensive or the Defensible Valuation File provide. The lower price is the right answer only when the scope is genuinely simple; it is the wrong answer, regardless of budget, when the facts call for more than one methodology. Asking all twelve questions, not just the price question, is what tells you which tier — or which provider — actually fits.