Enterprise value: Our preference for valuation multiples

Enterprise value multiples allow for better comparisons where capital structure differs and they provide a clearer focus on the core business. EV multiples also more reliably capture the cost of debt finance and other non-common stock claims; the amount reflected in net income and earnings per share can be out of date and incomplete.

Although they are generally our preferred approach, EV multiples present computational challenges that are not present in equity multiples. All valuation multiples have limitations and are less rigorous than full discounted cash flow analysis.

Continue reading “Enterprise value: Our preference for valuation multiples”

DCF valuation models: Have you updated for IFRS 16?

An accounting change, such as the introduction of IFRS 16, does not in itself alter underlying economics. It follows that equity values derived from DCF models should also be unaffected. However, the IFRS 16 lease accounting changes seem to be creating some confusion.

We explain how to correctly adjust your DCF calculations and provide an interactive pre and post lease capitalisation model to illustrate. IFRS 16 makes DCF analysis easier and less prone to error; leaving your model based on pre-IFRS 16 figures is definitely not the best approach.

Continue reading “DCF valuation models: Have you updated for IFRS 16?”

Beware the IFRS 16 inflation headwind – Tesco

The capitalised lease liability of an inflation-linked lease does not include expected inflation. This results in a lower liability and lower initial expense compared with an equivalent lease with no inflation link. The IFRS 16 figures are updated as the inflation uplift occurs, but these catch-up adjustments create a profit ‘headwind’.

We estimate that Tesco’s inflation-linked leases result in a pre-tax profit headwind of about 2.2 percentage points of growth.  If inflation were included in the measurement of the lease liability instead, we estimate it would increase from the reported £10.3bn to approximately £15.2bn.

Continue reading “Beware the IFRS 16 inflation headwind – Tesco”

Linking value drivers and enterprise value multiples

Target valuation multiples that are implied by key value drivers are a great way to better understand equity valuation and how the characteristics of a company affect value. The approach incorporates the same links with underlying value drivers on which DCF is based, but in a simplified way that is more intuitive than a full DCF model.

Our target multiple model can be used to estimate a deserved valuation multiple for a company, sector or index, to reverse engineer returns or growth implied by a current market valuation multiple and to derive a terminal value multiple in DCF analysis.

Continue reading “Linking value drivers and enterprise value multiples”

Interactive model: Target enterprise value multiples

Use this model to derive ‘target’ enterprise value multiples that are consistent with specified value drivers, including measures of growth, return on investment, margins and capital intensity. The model is based on an underlying 2-stage DCF methodology. We explain its derivation, the key assumptions and how to select appropriate value driver inputs.

Continue reading “Interactive model: Target enterprise value multiples”

When investors need to restate liabilities – EDF

In measuring its €40bn French nuclear decommissioning liability, EDF applies a 10-year historical ‘sliding average’ discount rate to a current estimate of cash flows. In our view, this leads to an out of date (and at present understated) liability that you should not use in your analysis, even though the approach is deemed to comply with IFRS.

Smoothing out the effects of discount rate changes may reduce apparent volatility, but it does not help investors. Balance sheets should include realistic and fully up to date estimates of the present value of decommissioning and other similar obligations.

Continue reading “When investors need to restate liabilities – EDF”

EV to EBITDA multiples must be consistent – Novartis

Swiss pharma company Novartis provides investors with its own calculation of an EV/EBITDA multiple. However, in our view, the EV is inconsistent with EBITDA. We review the company’s calculation and suggest amendments to ensure it better captures the value of Novartis’ core business.

To derive useful valuation multiples, you must be consistent. Our main adjustment to the Novartis calculation relates to the value of their stake in fellow Swiss pharma company Roche.

Continue reading “EV to EBITDA multiples must be consistent – Novartis”

Enterprise value – calculation and mis-calculation

Valuation methods based on enterprise value have become the benchmark in equity valuation. Most of you will have analysed equity investments using valuation multiples based on enterprise value or used absolute valuation methods to derive an enterprise value.  

In simplistic terms enterprise value is market capitalisation plus net debt; but is that good enough? In many situations we think not.  We review the key building blocks of enterprise value to assist you in deriving relevant valuation metrics.

Continue reading “Enterprise value – calculation and mis-calculation”

Not so ‘prudent’ actuarial values – BAE Systems

The valuation of pension obligations can be an important component in determining the value of an equity investment. But should you include in your analysis the pension surplus or deficit based on the accounting liability or, as some argue, the lower actuarial ‘funding’ valuation?

It is all about the discount rate. The problem is that there are very different opinions about the appropriate rate for pension obligations and what measurement approach is most relevant for investors. We examine a view expressed by many, including BAE Systems.

Continue reading “Not so ‘prudent’ actuarial values – BAE Systems”