Two Paths to CAPM for Cross-Border Valuations ⎹ FRIDAY DIGEST

2
Min Read
In cross-border CAPM, two approaches are defensible: (1) start from mature-market inputs — e.g., Germany's risk-free rate and market risk premium — and add a country risk premium plus an inflation differential, or (2) build entirely from local inputs, which already embed country risk and inflation. Never blend frameworks, such as pairing a local risk-free rate with a mature-market premium. Note that Damodaran's country risk premium (CRP) scale sovereign default spreads for equity volatility — the raw bond spread is not the final number.
#Country Risk Premium (CRP)
#Market Risk Premium (MRP)
#Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)
#Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)
Victor Breev
on
3.7.26
Fractional Product Lead (Valuation Pro products) at smartZebra GmbH. Formerly senior manager in valuation services at PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) Luxembourg.

At a Glance

Cross-border CAPM valuations typically follow two approaches. The local-CAPM approach builds the discount rate using the target country’s own risk-free rate and market risk premium. The base-country approach starts from a mature market and adds country-specific adjustments such as country risk premiums and inflation differentials. Both approaches can be valid when applied consistently.

Introduction

The cost of capital model is typically built around a mature reference market, most often the country where the risk-free rate and market data are readily observable. Applying that same model to a target operating in a different country raises a basic construction question: Where does the target country's risk enter the model?

Let's consider a company operating in Poland as an example. Two internally consistent approaches are used in practice.

Two paths to CAPM for cross-border valuations — base country + adjustment vs. fully local construction (smartZebra)
Component Base country + adjustment Fully local construction
Risk-free rate Uses a mature reference market (e.g. Germany) Uses the target country's own risk-free rate
Market risk premium (MRP) Mature-market MRP plus explicit country risk premium Local MRP already reflects local market conditions
Country risk Added separately through a country risk premium (CRP) Embedded in local interest rates and market premium
Inflation adjustment Separate inflation differential may be required when currencies differ Already reflected in the local nominal risk-free rate
Typical use case Cross-border valuation where mature-market data is preferred Valuation in markets with reliable local capital-market data
Main risk Double counting or inconsistent country adjustments Using local inputs with insufficient market depth

Option A: Base country plus adjustment

This approach builds the cost of equity from a mature reference market, then adds Poland's incremental risk as a separate, identifiable layer:

  • Start with the base country's risk-free rate, such as the German government zero rate.
  • Add the base country's mature market-risk-premium (MRP), e.g. Germany, rather than a premium specific to Poland.
  • Include an inflation differential to reflect the gap between euro and zloty inflation expectations. Since Poland sits outside the eurozone, this term is not a minor adjustment but a substantive part of the calculation, distinct from the country risk premium itself.
  • Layer a country-risk-premium (CRP) on top, capturing the additional risk of operating in Poland specifically, over and above the base country's own risk profile.
Ke = Rf(Germany) + β × [MRP(Germany) + CRP(Poland)] + Inflation Differential

Option B: Fully local construction

Poland's own zero rate and market risk premium are used directly, each already reflecting local conditions. Since Poland's zero rate is denominated in zloty, it already embeds local inflation expectations, so no separate inflation differential applies. Country risk itself already sits within both Poland's zero rate and its market risk premium, so no separate country risk premium layer is required.

Ke = Rf(Poland) + β × MRP(Poland)

Both are defensible constructions. The risk lies in mixing them: pairing a local risk-free rate with a mature-market premium, or the reverse, without an explicit adjustment for the resulting mismatch.

A related point worth keeping in mind: Damodaran's data is a common source of CRP for practitioners applying Option A. His methodology derives the CRP by scaling a sovereign bond default spread upward, since equity markets are typically more volatile than government bond markets. The bond spread is only the starting input, an observable proxy for sovereign risk drawn from the bond market, and the scaling factor converts it into an equivalent premium for equity investors.

Neither approach is universally correct. What matters is applying one consistently and documenting which was used.

Questions & Answers

Which CAPM approach should be used for cross-border valuations?

Both the base-country adjustment approach and the fully local CAPM approach can produce defensible results. The key requirement is internal consistency: the risk-free rate, market risk premium, inflation assumptions and country-risk adjustments must fit together.

Can country risk premium be added to a local CAPM?

Generally, no. In a fully local CAPM construction, country risk is already reflected in the local risk-free rate and market risk premium. Adding a separate country risk premium would risk double counting.

Why does inflation matter in cross-border CAPM?

Inflation differences matter when the valuation currency and the reference market currency differ. Under a base-country approach, an inflation differential may be required to reconcile the expected purchasing-power difference between currencies.

Start Your Free 5-Day Trial.

Experience the power of the smartZebra engine risk-free. See how fast you can build a defensible peer group or calculate a compliant WACC.

Full platform access
No hidden fees
No credit card required