Compares and contrasts two different valuation methods used for working out compensation claims for lost future profits of businesses ended by a compulsory purchase order. The LT frequently uses the method laid down in "Reynolds v Manchester City Council" (LT [1980] 257 EG 939) which adjusts the historical profits of the business, for example taking an average of the last three years' trading figures and capitalises them by applying a multiplier or years' purchase which is intended to produce an end figure which represents the value to the claimant of the loss of his ability to derive a future profit. The accountant's method applies a years' purchase figure or a price earnings multiplier to a future stream of earnings to arrive at a capitalised value for the business's future profits. The authors argue that both methods should produce similar values but warns that in many cases multipliers are not consistent which may lead to unfair levels of compensation for claimants for their losses. Provides a stock market comparison of the FTSE ratio used in "Reynolds" and that of the present day to illustrate the problem of applying multipliers.