Forecasting Revenue Growth
Learn systematic approaches to project future revenue, from historical analysis to market sizing, with techniques for building realistic growth assumptions.
Learning Objectives
- Analyze historical revenue trends to identify growth patterns
- Apply top-down and bottom-up forecasting approaches
- Use TAM/SAM/SOM framework for market-based projections
- Build realistic growth assumptions that fade over time
Forecasting Revenue Growth#
The most important input in a DCF model is revenue—not because it directly appears in Free Cash Flow, but because almost everything else flows from it. Margins, working capital, and capital expenditures are often projected as percentages of revenue. Get revenue wrong, and the entire valuation falls apart.
The Forecaster's Dilemma: Every forecast will be wrong. The goal isn't perfect accuracy—it's building reasonable assumptions you can defend and stress-test.
Starting Point: Historical Analysis#
Before projecting forward, look backward. A company's past growth reveals patterns, constraints, and possibilities.
Calculating Historical Growth Rates#
Let's analyze a fictional company, TechCorp:
| Year | Revenue | YoY Growth |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 | $800M | — |
| 2020 | $920M | 15.0% |
| 2021 | $1,104M | 20.0% |
| 2022 | $1,270M | 15.0% |
| 2023 | $1,397M | 10.0% |
| 2024 | $1,467M | 5.0% |
Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR):
CAGR = (Ending Value / Beginning Value)^(1/n) - 1
CAGR = ($1,467M / $800M)^(1/5) - 1 = 12.9%
But the simple average of yearly growth is 13.0%. Which should we use?
CAGR vs. Simple Average
CAGR reflects the smoothed annual rate that would get you from start to end. Simple average can be skewed by outlier years. For forecasting, look at both—but pay more attention to recent trends and why growth changed.
Reading the Story Behind the Numbers#
TechCorp's growth tells a story:
- 2020-2021: Strong growth (20%) during expansion phase
- 2022-2023: Growth deceleration (15% → 10%) as the company matures
- 2024: Significant slowdown (5%) suggesting market saturation
This pattern—rapid early growth that fades—is nearly universal. Companies don't grow at 20% forever.
Two Approaches to Forecasting#
1. Top-Down: Start with the Market#
Top-down forecasting begins with the total market and works down to the company.
The TAM/SAM/SOM Framework:
| Term | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| TAM (Total Addressable Market) | Everyone who could possibly buy your product | $50B global CRM software market |
| SAM (Serviceable Addressable Market) | The portion you can realistically reach | $15B North American mid-market CRM |
| SOM (Serviceable Obtainable Market) | What you can actually capture | $1.5B (10% of SAM) |
Example: CRM Software Company
TAM: $50B (all CRM software globally)
SAM: $15B (mid-market, North America + Europe)
SOM: $1.5B (realistic capture in 5 years)
Current Revenue: $500M
SOM Implies: 3× growth over 5 years
Annual Growth Rate Needed: ~25% per year
Is 25% annual growth reasonable? That depends on:
- Market growth rate (is CRM itself growing?)
- Competitive dynamics (is the company gaining or losing share?)
- Product strength (reviews, customer retention, new features)
2. Bottom-Up: Build from Company Data#
Bottom-up forecasting aggregates detailed company metrics into revenue.
For a SaaS Company:
Revenue = Customers × ARPU (Average Revenue Per User)
Year 1:
- Starting customers: 10,000
- New customers: 3,000
- Churned customers: (1,500)
- Ending customers: 11,500
- ARPU: $5,000
- Revenue: $57.5M
For a Retailer:
Revenue = Stores × Revenue per Store
Year 1:
- Existing stores: 500
- Same-store sales growth: 3%
- New stores: 25
- Average revenue per new store: $2M (ramping)
- Average revenue per existing store: $3.1M
- Revenue: $1.6B
Which Approach is Better?
Use both. Top-down tells you if your projections are realistic within the market. Bottom-up forces you to specify how growth will happen. They should reconcile—if bottom-up implies capturing 50% of TAM, something's wrong.
Building a Revenue Forecast#
Let's build a 5-year revenue forecast for TechCorp:
Step 1: Establish Base Case Assumptions#
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Historical CAGR | 12.9% (but declining) |
| Recent trend | 5% growth (2024) |
| Market growth | ~8% annually |
| Competitive position | Strong but facing new entrants |
| New products | One major launch in 2026 |
Step 2: Project Each Year#
Rather than assuming constant growth, model the trajectory:
| Year | Growth Rate | Revenue | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 (Actual) | 5.0% | $1,467M | Base year |
| 2025 | 6.0% | $1,555M | Slight recovery, market stabilizes |
| 2026 | 8.0% | $1,679M | New product launch boosts growth |
| 2027 | 7.0% | $1,797M | New product matures |
| 2028 | 5.0% | $1,887M | Return to market growth rate |
| 2029 | 4.0% | $1,962M | Terminal growth approaches |
5-Year CAGR: 6.0% (realistic given the slowdown)
Step 3: Sense-Check Against Market#
At $1,962M in 2029, where is TechCorp in its market?
- If TAM grows from $15B to $20B (6% CAGR), TechCorp goes from 9.8% to 9.8% market share
- Flat market share is reasonable for a mature company
- This passes the sanity test
Growth Fading: A Critical Concept#
No company grows faster than its industry forever. Eventually, all growth rates converge toward GDP growth (2-3%) or industry growth.
The Growth Decay Pattern#
| Company Stage | Typical Growth | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Hypergrowth startup | 50-100%+ | 2-5 years |
| Rapid growth | 20-40% | 3-7 years |
| Maturing | 10-20% | 5-10 years |
| Mature | 5-10% | Ongoing |
| Terminal | 2-4% | Perpetuity |
The China Growth Fallacy
A famous valuation mistake: assuming a company in a hot market (like China tech in 2015) can grow at 30% for 20 years. At 30% growth for 20 years, $1B revenue becomes $190B—larger than most markets. Always check: does your terminal revenue make sense relative to the total market?
Modeling Growth Fade#
Here's a systematic approach:
- Years 1-2: Use management guidance or analyst estimates
- Years 3-5: Fade toward industry growth rate
- Years 6-10: Fade toward terminal rate
- Terminal: 2-4% (nominal GDP growth)
Example Fade Schedule:
| Year | Growth Rate | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15% | Management guidance |
| 2 | 12% | Analyst estimate |
| 3 | 10% | (12% + 8%) / 2 |
| 4 | 9% | Fade toward 8% industry |
| 5 | 8% | Reach industry rate |
| Terminal | 3% | Long-term GDP growth |
Common Forecasting Mistakes#
1. Hockey Stick Projections#
Management teams often show projections that dip then soar—the famous "hockey stick." Be skeptical. If growth has been declining, extrapolate the decline.
2. Ignoring Competitive Response#
If your forecast assumes massive market share gains, ask: won't competitors respond? Price cuts, new features, and acquisitions can derail even the best growth plans.
3. Confusing Revenue Types#
Different revenue types have different characteristics:
| Revenue Type | Predictability | Growth Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring (SaaS) | High | Stable, cumulative |
| Project-based | Low | Lumpy, volatile |
| Transaction | Medium | Tied to volume |
4. Forecasting Too Far Out#
The further out you forecast, the less reliable it becomes. Beyond 5-7 years, you're essentially guessing. This is why terminal value matters so much—it captures everything past your explicit forecast.
Key Takeaways
- Revenue forecasting drives the entire DCF model—get it right
- Historical analysis reveals growth patterns and constraints
- Top-down (TAM/SAM/SOM) ensures market realism
- Bottom-up (customers × ARPU) specifies the growth mechanism
- Use both approaches and reconcile them
- Growth fading is inevitable—no company grows at 20% forever
- Fade growth rates toward terminal rate (2-4%) over your forecast period
- Always sense-check: does projected revenue make sense as a market share?
- Be skeptical of hockey sticks, ignore competitive response, and don't forecast too far