Section B: Finance Theory II - Valuing a Company

Valuing companies ƒ Familiar valuation methods ¾ Discounted Cash Flow Analysis ¾ Comparables ¾ Real Options ƒ Some new issues ¾ Do we value assets or equity? ¾ Terminal values (liquidation, going concern) ¾ Minority interests, controlling interests 2 DCF Analysis ƒ WACC method: ¾ Forecast expected FCF ¾ Estimate WACC ¾ Compute PV ƒ APV method: ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Forecast expected FCF Estimate kA Compute PV Add PV(Tax Shield) 3 Value Assets or Equity? ƒ DCF methods give you the value of the whole firm (D + E) or Enterprise Value. ¾ E.g., you are founding a new firm: you will receive D from creditors and E from shareholders. ƒ Often, you need to value the Equity Value in an existing firm ¾ E.g., M&A, IPOs ¾ You need to subtract the value of its existing debt D ƒ Also, need to add the value of control when valuing a controlling equity position (more on this later). 4 Terminal Values ƒ In valuing long-lived projects or ongoing businesses, we don’t typically forecast every year of cash flow forever. ƒ Forecast FCF until it is reasonable (or best guess) to think that the project or company is in “steady state.” ƒ Typically, assume: ¾ either the company is liquidated; ¾ or FCF is a growing, flat, or declining, perpetuity; ƒ Note: The forecast horizon will depend on firm and industry. 5 Terminal Value in Liquidation 1) Salvage value (SV): ƒ CF that the firm receives from liquidating its assets SV = Liquidation price - Liquidation costs ƒ The firm is taxed on (SV – PPE) so that overall it gets SV*(1- t) + t*PPE 2) Net Working Capital ƒ Recouped NWC at project end (i.e., last ∆NWC = last WC) 6 Remarks ƒ In principle, you would like NWC’s actual value, not book value. ƒ These might differ for instance: ¾ cannot recoup full A/R, ¾ Inventory sells over or below book value ¾ etc. ƒ Liquidation value tends to underestimate TV unless liquidation is likely. Useful as a lower bound. 7 Terminal Value as Perpetuity ƒ No-growth perpetuity TV = FCFT+1 / k ƒ For a no-growth firm, we can assume (for simplicity) FCF = EBIT(1-t) + Depreciation – CAPX – ∆NWC 0 0 TV = EBIT(1-t)T+1 / k 8 Terminal Value as Growing Perpetuity ƒ PV in year t of a perpetuity growing at a rate g TV = FCFT+1 / (k – g) ƒ For a growing perpetuity, we can assume (for simplicity) FCF = EBIT(1-t) + Depreciation – CAPX – ∆NWC -∆NA = -g*NA prior year TV = [EBIT(1- t)T+1 – g*NAT] / (k - g) (1+g)EBIT(1-t)T 9 Terminal Value as Perpetuity (Summary) T T+1 TV FCF … FCFT+1 / k EBIT(t-1) No growth FCFT+1 / (k – g) EBIT(t-1) - ∆NA Growth @ g g*NAT 10 Remarks ƒ Growing perpetuity - assumptions ¾ Net assets grow at the same rate as profits ¾ ∆NA is a good measure of replacement costs ƒ Don’t forget to discount TV further to get PVTV ƒ In WACC method, k=WACC ƒ IN APV method, k=kA for FCF and appropriate rate for TS 11 Example ƒ You are considering the acquisition of XYZ Enterprises. XYZ’s balance sheet looks like this as of today (year 0). Assets Current assets Plant Total ƒ Liabilities 50 Current liabilities 50 Debt Net worth 100 Total 20 30 50 100 Projections: Sales EBIT NWC Depreciation CAPX Year 1 200 20 33 5 10 Year 2 217 22 37 5 10 Year 3 239 25 41 6 15 Year 4 270 26 44 7 6 Year 5 293 30 48 8 20 12 Example (cont.) What is the value of XYZ’s stock under the following assumptions: 1) XYZ is liquidated after year 5 (assuming zero salvage value). 2) Sales growth and EBIT/Sales ratios are (past year 5): Sales growth 5% 0% 5% 0% EBIT/Sales 10% 10% 5% 5% Tax rate = 34%, and WACC = 13%. 13 Example (cont.) Start by estimating FCF over 5 years: ƒ NWC(year 0) = Current assets - current liabs = 50-20=30 FCF = EBIT(1 - t) + Dep - CAPX - ∆NWC Year 0 EBIT EBIT(1-t) NWC ∆ NWC Depreciation CAPX FCF PV @ 13% 30 Year 1 20 13.2 33 3 5 10 5.2 Year 2 22 14.52 37 4 5 10 5.52 Year 3 25 16.5 41 4 6 15 3.5 Year 4 26 17.16 44 3 7 6 15.16 Year 5 30 19.8 48 4 8 20 3.8 22.7 14 Example – Liquidation Value (LV) 1) Liquidation value (LV) t*PPE(year 5) + NWC(year 5) PPE(year 5) = PPE(year 0) + all CAPX - all Dep from year 0 to 5 PPE = 80 PPE * t = 80 * 34% = 27.2 LV = 27.2 + 48 = 75.2 ==> PVLV = 75.2/(1.13)5 = 40.8 Firm value = 22.7 + 40.8 = 63.5 Equity value = Firm value - MV of Debt = 63.5 - 30 = 33.5 15 Example (cont.) For 2) to 5), we need EBIT (year 6) and NA (year 5) to apply TV = [EBIT(year 6)(1 - t) - g*NA(year 5)]/[k - g] EBIT(year 6) = fraction α of Sales(year 6) = α*(1 + g)*Sales(year 5)= α*(1 + g) *293 NA(year 5) = NA(year 0) +all CAPX -all Dep +all ∆NWC from 0 to 5 = 128 PVTV = TV/(1.13)5 16 Example (cont.) 2) 3) 4) 5) α 10% 10% 5% 5% g 5% 0% 5% 0% TV 173.8 148.8 46.9 74.4 PVTV 94.3 80.7 25.5 40.4 Firm 117.0 103.4 48.2 63.1 Equity 87.0 73.4 18.2 33.1 17 When is Growth Valuable? TV (with growth) > TV (w/o growth) (1 + g) ⋅ EBIT(1 − t) − g ⋅ NA EBIT(1 − t) > k −g k (1 + g) ⋅ EBIT(1 − t) − g ⋅ NA EBIT(1 − t) > k −g k EBIT*(1 - t) - k*NA > 0 [(1 + g) ⋅ EBIT(1 − t) − g ⋅ NA]× k > EBIT(1 − t) × (k − g ) EBIT(1 − t) k > ≈k NA 1+ k 18 Economic Value Added (EVA) EVA = EBIT*(1 - t) - k*NA Intuition: Growth is good when the cost of increasing NA is more than compensated by the capitalized increase in EBIT*(1 - t). 19 Remarks ƒ EVA is a particular incarnation of NPV (+ some assumptions) ƒ Appeal of EVA coherent measure for Capital budgeting, Performance evaluation and Managerial compensation. ƒ Assumes linear relationship between NA and EBIT*(1 - t) ƒ EVA has nothing to do with sustainable growth: ¾ Sustainable growth rate answers “How fast can I grow without increasing my leverage ratio or issuing equity?” ¾ It has nothing to say about whether growing is good or not. 20 EVA: Bottom Line Use EVA as... ƒ a simple measure to determine whether the business is generating value and whether growth is enhancing value ƒ as a way of setting goals to enhance value Beware of EVA for... ƒ young companies ƒ companies in rapidly changing business environments ƒ companies where book values are not accurate measures of replacement costs 21 DCF Analysis: Pros and Cons Strengths ƒ CF comes from specific forecasts and assumptions ƒ Can see impact of changes in strategies ƒ Valuation tied to underlying fundamentals Weaknesses ƒ CF only as good as your forecasts/assumptions ƒ Might “forget something” ƒ Need to forecast managerial behavior (unless you’re in control) ƒ Need to estimate the discount rate using a theory (e.g., CAPM) that may be incorrect or imprecise in this particular case 22 Multiples ƒ Assess the firm’s value based on that of publicly traded comps. ƒ Cash-flow-based Value multiples: ¾ MV of firm/Earnings, MV of firm /EBITDA, MV of firm /FCF ƒ Cash-flow-based Price multiples: ¾ Price/Earnings (P/E), Price/EBITDA, Price/FCF ƒ Asset-based multiples: ¾ MV of firm/BV of assets, MV of equity/BV of equity 23 Procedure ƒ Hope: Firms in the same business should have similar multiples (e.g., P/E). ƒ STEP 1: Identify firms in same business as the firm you want to value. ƒ STEP 2: Calculate P/E ratio for comps and come up with an estimate of P/E for the firm you want to value (e.g. take the average of comps’ P/E). ƒ STEP 3: Multiply the estimated P/E by the actual Net Income of the firm you want to value. 24 Motivation for Multiples? ƒ Assumption 1: Comps’ actual FCF are a perpetuity MV = ƒ FCF WACC − g ⇒ MV 1 = FCF WACC − g Assumption 2: ¾ Comps have the same WACC (requires similar D/(D+E)) ¾ Comps are growing at a similar rate g 25 Motivation for Multiples? ƒ Assumption 1: ¾ E = CF to shareholders ¾ E is a perpetuity E P= kE − g ƒ ⇒ P 1 = E kE − g Assumption 2: ¾ Comps have the same kE => This requires similar leverage! ¾ Comps are growing at a similar rate g 26 Remarks ƒ For firms with no earnings or limited asset base (e.g. hi-tech), ¾ price-to-patents multiples, ¾ price-to-subscribers multiples, ¾ or even price-to-Ph.D. multiples! ƒ Since these are rough approximations (at best) ¾ One may want to check different multiples ¾ See if some multiples are quite constant across firms 27 Example: Valuing ADI ADI (Dec. 1995) EBIT 163.6 ADI ROE Liabs/Assets 5-year growth in sales P/E (D+E)/EBIT(1-t) Market-to-Book equity Market-to-Book firm 18.2% 34.5% 14.3% tax rate Net income BV equity 25% 119.3 656.0 BV liabs 345.7 # shares 114.5 Maxim Integrated Siliconix Motorola Products 25.5% 23.4% 26.8% 16.1% 16.9% 22.1% 56.6% 51.5% 32.2% 43.1% 14.0% 20.3% Linear Burr-Brown Techno. 16.3% 29.0% 9.9% 14.2 16.3 2.3 1.9 25.8 26.6 6.6 5.6 30.3 30.3 7.1 5.7 15.2 18.3 4.1 2.3 Mean w/o ADI 21.6% 35.2% 23.9% 18.9 24.2 3.0 2.0 20.9 23.1 4.6 3.5 28 Example (cont.) ƒ There is no exact science to come up with appropriate multiples. The following is only an example. Need experience and guts. ƒ ADI’s 5-year sales growth is less than average ¾ Shade down estimate of P/E and (D+E)/EBIT*(1 - t) w.r.t. mean • P/E = 20.9*(1 - 15%) = 17.8 • (D+E)/EBIT*(1 - t) = 23.1*(1 - 15%) = 19.6 ƒ ADI’s ROE is less than average ¾ Shade down estimate of M/B equity and M/B firm w.r.t. mean • M/B equity = 4.6*(1 - 15%) = 3.9 • M/B firm = 3.5*(1 - 15%) = 3.0 29 Example (cont.) Comps ratio (X / Y) 17.8 (D+E) / EBIT(1-t) 19.6 2) Actual (Y) NI 119.3 EBIT(1-t) 122.7 3) MV Firm (Ratio * Y) 4) MV Equity (Ratio * Y or MV Firm - Debt) 5) Price (MV Equity / #shares) 18.5 P/E 1) M/B Equity M/B Firm 3.9 3.0 BV Equity 656 BV Firm 1001.7 2409.2 2119.4 2980.1 2063.5 2565.0 2634.4 18.0 22.4 23.0 30 Comparables: Pros and Cons Pros: ƒ ƒ ƒ Simple + lots of information Market consensus about discount rate and growth rate. Free-ride on market’s information. Cons: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ Assumes that companies are alike in growth, costs of capital, business composition, leverage Hard to find true comps Hard to incorporate firm specific information Accounting differences If everyone uses comps, who actually does fundamental analysis? 31 Comps & the Conglomerate Discount ƒ Is the value of a conglomerate equal to the sum of its parts? ¾ Calculate Firm Value / Assets for the conglomerate ¾ For each of its business segments (in annual report), calculate median Firm Value / Assets for single segment firms in that industry ¾ Add up these comps, weighting by the share of the conglomerate’s assets in that industry ƒ Result: On average, conglomerates are worth 12% less than the sum of their parts. 32 Possible Interpretations ƒ Conglomerates are an inefficient form of organization ƒ The stock market doesn’t get it ƒ The comparables method doesn’t work 33 Distribution of Price / Sales ratios for Internet stocks (March 2000) 35% Internet Stocks 30% % of firms 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 5 25 45 65 85 105 125 145 165 185 205 225 245 265 Price / Sales 34 Distribution of Price / Sales ratios for all stocks (March 2000) 50% All Stocks % of firms 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 Price / Sales 35 Internet stocks and selected high-tech stocks (March 2000, in $billions) Equity MV Equity BV Sales Gross Profits NI M/B Equity MV Equity / Sales MV Equity / Profits Internet Cisco Intel IBM Microsoft 651.6 445.5 408 194.1 505.7 34.7 11.7 35.8 21.6 27.5 12.1 12.2 29.4 87.5 19.7 4.8 8.4 20.3 38.1 17.4 -7.2 2.1 7.3 7.7 7.8 18.8 53.9 135.8 38.1 36.5 53.0 11.4 13.9 20.1 9.0 2.2 5.1 18.4 25.7 29.1 36 What growth and margin assumptions would have justified Internet valuation in March 2000? Short-run Years of high growth rate growth Panel A: Profit margin = 5% 20% 10 20 30 30% 10 20 30 Panel B: Profit margin = 10% 20% 10 20 30 30% 10 20 30 Value ($billions) Assumptions: Discount rate = 10%, long-term growth = 6% 7.7 30.4 58.6 50.0 150.2 368.0 37.4 74.6 125.7 122.0 314.1 744.5 37