Krishna G BAB 7

CHAPTER
7 Prospective Analysis: Valuation

Theory and Concepts
T he previous chapter introduced forecasting, the first stage of prospective analysis. In this and the following
chapter we describe valuation, the second and final stage of prospective analysis. This chapter focuses on val-
uation theory and concepts, and the following chapter discusses implementation issues.
Valuation is the process of converting a forecast into an estimate of the value of the firm’s assets or equity. At
some level, nearly every business decision involves valuation, at least implicitly. Within the firm, capital budget-
ing involves consideration of how a particular project will affect firm value. Strategic planning focuses on how
value is influenced by larger sets of actions. Outside the firm, security analysts conduct valuation to support their
buy/sell decisions, and potential acquirers (often with the assistance of investment bankers) estimate the value of
target firms and the synergies they might offer. Even credit analysts, who typically do not explicitly estimate firm
value, must at least implicitly consider the value of the firm’s equity ‘‘cushion’’ if they are to maintain a complete
view of the risk associated with lending activity.
In practice, a wide variety of valuation approaches are employed. For example, in evaluating the fairness of a
takeover bid, investment bankers commonly use five to ten different methods of valuation. Among the available
methods are the following:
n Discounted dividends. This approach expresses the value of the firm’s equity as the present value of forecasted
future dividends.
n Discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. This approach involves the production of detailed, multiple-year fore-
casts of cash flows. The forecasts are then discounted at the firm’s estimated cost of capital to arrive at an esti-
mated present value.
n Discounted abnormal earnings. Under this approach the value of the firm’s equity is expressed as the sum of its
book value and the present value of forecasted abnormal earnings.
n Discounted abnormal earnings growth. This approach defines the value of the firm’s equity as the sum of its
capitalized next-period earnings forecast and the present value of forecasted abnormal earnings growth
beyond the next period.
n Valuation based on price multiples. Under this approach a current measure of performance or single forecast of
performance is converted into a value by applying an appropriate price multiple derived from the value of com-
parable firms. For example, firm value can be estimated by applying a price-to-earnings ratio to a forecast of
the firm’s earnings for the coming year. Other commonly used multiples include price-to-book ratios and price-
to-sales ratios.
These methods are developed throughout the chapter, and their pros and cons discussed. All of the above
approaches can be structured in two ways. The first is to directly value the equity of the firm, since this is usually
the variable the analyst is directly interested in estimating. The second is to value the operating and investment
assets of the firm, that is, the claims of equity and debt, and then to deduct the value of debt to arrive at the final
equity estimate. Theoretically, both approaches should generate the same values. However, as we will see in the
278
Copyright 201 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
CHAPTER 7 PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS: VALUATION THEORY AND CONCEPTS 279
next chapter, there are implementation issues in reconciling the approaches. In this chapter we illustrate valuation
using an all-equity firm to simplify the discussion. A brief discussion of the theoretical issues in valuing a firm’s
assets is included in Appendix A.
DEFINING VALUE FOR SHAREHOLDERS
How should shareholders think about the value of their equity claims on a firm? Finance theory holds that the
value of any financial claim is simply the present value of the cash payoffs that its claimholders receive. Since
shareholders receive cash payoffs from a company in the form of dividends, the value of their equity is the present
value of future dividends (including any liquidating dividend).1
Equity value ¼ PV of expected future dividends
If we denote re as the cost of equity capital (the relevant discount rate), the equity value is as follows:
Dividend1 Dividend2 Dividend3
Equity value0 ¼ þ þ þ ...
ð1 þ r e Þ2 ð 1 þ r e Þ2 ð1 þ r e Þ3
Notice that the valuation formula views a firm as having an indefinite life. But in reality firms can go bankrupt or
get taken over. In these situations shareholders effectively receive a terminating dividend on their shares.
If a firm had a constant dividend growth rate (gdiv) indefinitely, its value would simplify to the following
formula:
Dividend1
Equity value0 ¼
re gdiv
To better understand how the discounted dividend approach works, consider the following example. At the begin-
ning of year 1, Down Under Company raises E60 million of equity and uses the proceeds to buy a fixed asset.
Operating profits before depreciation (all received in cash) and dividends for the company are expected to be E40
million in year 1, E50 million in year 2, and E60 million in year 3, at which point the company terminates. The firm
pays no taxes. If the cost of equity capital for this firm is 10 percent, the value of the firm’s equity is computed as
follows:
Year Dividend PV factor PV of dividend
(a) (b) (a) (b)

1 E40m 0.9091 E 36.4m
2 50 0.8264 41.3
3 60 0.7513 45.1
Equity value E122.8m
The above valuation formula is called the dividend discount model. It forms the basis for most of the popular
theoretical approaches for equity valuation. Despite its theoretical importance, the dividend discount model is not
a very useful valuation model in practice. This is because equity value is created primarily through the investment
and operating activities of a firm. Dividend payments tend to be a by-product of such activities and their timing
and amount depends strongly on the firm’s investment opportunities. Within a period of five to ten years, which
tends to be the focus of most prospective analyses, dividends may therefore reveal very little about the firm’s eq-
uity value. For example, high-growth start-up firms tend not to pay out dividends until later into their life cycle but
they nonetheless have value when they start their operations. Predicting long-run dividends for these firms is a te-
dious, virtually impossible task. As the first stage of the prospective analysis, as discussed in Chapter 6, typically
produces comprehensive, detailed forecasts for the near term but unavoidably makes simplifying assumptions for
the longer term, useful valuation models value near-term profitability and growth directly rather than indirectly
through long run dividends. The remainder of this chapter discusses how the dividend discount model can be
recast to generate such useful models. The models that we discuss are the discounted cash flow, discounted abnor-
mal earnings, discounted abnormal earnings growth, and price multiple models of value.
280 PART 2 BUSINESS ANALYSIS AND VALUATION TOOLS
THE DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW MODEL
As we described in the previous section, the value of an asset or investment is the present value of the net cash
payoffs that the asset generates. The discounted cash flow valuation model clearly reflects this basic principle of
finance. The model defines the value of a firm’s business assets as the present value of cash flows generated by
these assets (OCF) minus the investments made in new assets (Investment), or, alternatively stated, as the sum of
the free cash flows to debt and equity holders discounted at the weighted average cost of debt and equity
(WACC).
Asset value0 ¼ PV of free cash flows to debt and equity claim holders
OCF1 Investment1 OCF2 Investment2
¼ þ þ ...
ð1 þ WACCÞ ð1 þ WACCÞ2
Note that in this equation OCF excludes interest payments (unlike the operating cash flows reported in IFRS-based
cash flow statements), as these are distributions to debt holders.
The cash flows that are available to equity holders are the cash flows generated by the firm’s business assets
minus investment outlays, adjusted for cash flows from and to debt holders, such as interest payments, debt repay-
ments, and debts issues. As discussed in Chapter 5, operating cash flows to equity holders are simply net profit
plus depreciation and amortization less changes in working capital. Investment outlays are expenditures for non-
current operating and investment assets less asset sales. Finally, net cash flows from debt owners are issues of new
debt less retirements. By rearranging these terms, the free cash flows to equity can be written as follows:
Free cash flows to equity ¼ Net profit DBVA þ DBVD
where DBVA is the change in book value of business assets (changes in working capital plus investment expendi-
tures less depreciation and amortization expense), and DBVD is the change in book value of (interest-bearing)
debt. Using the discounted cash flow model, equity value is thus estimated as follows:
Equity value0 ¼ PV of free cash flow to equity holders
Net profit1 DBVA1 þ DBVD1
¼
ð1 þ r e Þ
Net profit2 DBVA2 þ DBVD2
þ þ ...
ð1 þ r e Þ2
Valuation under this method therefore involves the following three steps:
Step 1: Forecast free cash flows available to equity holders over a finite forecast horizon (usually five to ten
years).
Step 2: Forecast free cash flows beyond the terminal year based on some simplifying assumption.
Step 3: Discount free cash flows to equity holders at the cost of equity. The discounted amount represents the
estimated value of free cash flows available to equity.
Returning to the Down Under Company example, there is no debt, so that the free cash flows to owners are
simply the operating profits before depreciation. Since the company’s cost of equity is assumed to be 10 percent,
the present value of the free cash flows is as follows:
Change in Change in Free cash

book value book value flows to PV of free
Year Net profit of net assets of net debt equity PV factor cash flows
(a) (b) (c) (d) ¼ (a) (b) þ (c) (e) (d) (e)
1 E20m E20m E0m E40m 0.9091 E 36.4m
2 30 20 0 50 0.8264 41.3
3 40 20 0 60 0.7513 45.1
Equity value E122.8m
Earlier we indicated that the discounted cash flow model can be obtained by recasting the dividend discount
model. To see how this works, recall our formulation of the free cash flows to equity holders in terms of net profit,
the change in the book value of business assets (DBVA) and the change in the book value of debt (DBVD). In the
recast financial statements, which we described in Chapter 5 and use throughout this book, the change in the book
value of business assets minus the change in the book value of debt is equal to the change in the book value of eq-
uity (DBVE). The free cash flows to equity can therefore be written as:
Free cash flow to equity ¼ Net profit DBVA þ DBVD
¼ Net profit DBVE
¼ Dividends
which illustrates the relationship between free cash flows to equity and dividends.2
As discussed in Chapter 6, the key ingredient to an accurate prediction of future free cash flows is a full set of pre-
dicted future (condensed) income statements and balance sheets. Given the prominence of earnings forecasts in most
prospective analyses, models have been developed that express equity value directly in terms of expected earnings,
book values of equity, and cost of equity, thus further sharpening the focus of the valuation exercise. The following
sections describe two of these accounting-based valuation models: the discounted abnormal earnings model and
the discounted abnormal earnings growth model. In a later section, we also show that these accounting-based val-
uation models can help in better understanding the rationale underlying valuation based on price multiples.
THE DISCOUNTED ABNORMAL EARNINGS MODEL
As discussed in Chapter 3, there is a link between dividends, earnings, and equity. At the end of each accounting
period net profit for the period is added to retained earnings, a component of equity. Dividends are taken out of
retained earnings. Stated differently, if all equity effects (other than capital transactions) flow through the income
statement,3 the expected book value of equity for existing shareholders at the end of year 1 (BVE1) is simply the
book value at the beginning of the year (BVE0) plus expected net profit (Net profit1) less expected dividends (Div-
idend1).4 This relation can be written as follows:
Dividend1 ¼ Net profit1 þ BVE0 BVE1
By substituting this identity for dividends into the dividend discount formula and rearranging the terms, equity
value can be rewritten as follows:5
Equity value ¼ Book value of equity þ PV of expected future abnormal earnings
Abnormal earnings are net profit adjusted for a capital charge, which is computed as the discount rate multiplied
by the beginning book value of equity. Abnormal earnings incorporate an adjustment to reflect the fact that
accountants do not recognize any opportunity cost for equity funds used. Thus, the discounted abnormal earnings
valuation formula is:
Net profit1 re BVE0 Net profit2 re BVE1
Equity value0 ¼ BVE0 þ þ þ ...
ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ2
The earnings-based formulation has intuitive appeal. If a firm can earn only a normal rate of return on its book
value, then investors should be willing to pay no more than book value for its shares. Investors should pay more or
less than book value if earnings are above or below this normal level. Thus, the deviation of a firm’s market value
from book value depends on its ability to generate ‘‘abnormal earnings.’’ The formulation also implies that a firm’s
equity value reflects the cost of its existing net assets (that is, its book equity) plus the net present value of future
growth options (represented by cumulative abnormal earnings).
To illustrate the earnings-based valuation approach, let’s return to the Down Under Company example. Assum-
ing the company depreciates its fixed assets using the straight-line method, its accounting-based earnings will be
E20 million lower than dividends in each of the three years. Further, the book value of equity at the beginning of
years 2 and 3 equals prior year’s beginning book value plus prior year’s earnings minus prior year’s dividends.
The firm’s beginning book equity, earnings, abnormal earnings, and valuation will be as follows:
PV of
Beginning Capital Abnormal abnormal
Year book value Earnings charge earnings PV factor earnings
(a) (b) (c) (d) ¼ (b) (c) (e) (d) (e)

1 E60m E20m E6m E14m 0.9091 E 12.7m
2 40 30 4 26 0.8264 21.5
3 20 40 2 38 0.7513 28.6
Cumulative PV of abnormal earnings 62.38
þ Beginning book value 60.0
¼ Equity value E122.8m
Notice that the value of Down Under’s equity is exactly the same as that estimated using the discounted cash
flow method. This should not be surprising. Both methods are derived from the dividend discount model. And in
estimating value under the two approaches, we have used the same underlying assumptions to forecast earnings
and cash flows.
Key Analysis Questions
Valuation of equity under the discounted abnormal earnings method requires the analyst to answer the fol-
lowing questions:
n What are expected future net profit and book values of equity (and therefore abnormal earnings) over a fi-
nite forecast horizon (usually five to ten years) given the firm’s industry competitiveness and the firm’s
positioning?
n What is expected future abnormal net profit beyond the final year of the forecast horizon (called the ‘‘ter-
minal year’’) based on some simplifying assumption? If abnormal returns are expected to persist, what
are the barriers to entry that deter competition?
n What is the firm’s cost of equity used to compute the present value of abnormal earnings?
Accounting methods and discounted abnormal earnings

One question that arises when valuation is based directly on earnings and book values is how the estimate is
affected by managers’ choice of accounting methods and accrual estimates. Would estimates of value differ for
two otherwise identical firms if one used more conservative accounting methods than the other? We will see that,
provided analysts recognize the impact of differences in accounting methods on future earnings (and hence their
earnings forecasts), the accounting effects per se should have no influence on their value estimates. There are two
reasons for this. First, accounting choices that affect a firm’s current earnings also affect its book value, and there-
fore they affect the capital charges used to estimate future abnormal earnings. For example, conservative account-
ing not only lowers a firm’s current earnings and book equity but also reduces future capital charges and inflates
its future abnormal earnings. Second, double-entry bookkeeping is by nature self-correcting. Inflated earnings for
one period have to be ultimately reversed in subsequent periods.
To understand how these two effects undo the effect of differences in accounting methods or accrual estimates,
let’s return to Down Under Company and see what happens if its managers choose to be conservative and expense
some unusual costs that could have been capitalized as inventory in year 1. This accounting decision causes earn-
ings and ending book value to be lower by E10 million. The inventory is then sold in year 2. For the time being,
let’s say the accounting choice has no influence on the analyst’s view of the firm’s real performance.
Managers’ choice reduces abnormal earnings in year 1 and book value at the beginning of year 2 by E10 mil-
lion. However, future earnings will be higher, for two reasons. First, future earnings will be higher (by E10 mil-
lion) when the inventory is sold in year 2 at a lower cost of sales. Second, the benchmark for normal earnings
(based on book value of equity) will be lower by E10 million. The E10 million decline in abnormal earnings in year
1 is perfectly offset (on a present value basis) by the E11 million higher abnormal earnings in year 2. As a result,
the value of Down Under Company under conservative reporting is identical to the value under the earlier account-
ing method (E122.8 million).
PV of
Beginning Capital Abnormal abnormal
Year book value Earnings charge earnings PV factor earnings
(a) (b) (c) ¼ re (a) (d) ¼ (b) (c) (e) (d) (e)
1 E60m E10m E6m E 4m 0.9091 E 3.6m
2 30 40 3 37 0.8264 30.6
3 20 40 2 38 0.7513 28.6
Cumulative PV of abnormal earnings 62.8
þ Beginning book value 60.0
¼ Equity value E122.8m
Provided the analyst is aware of biases in accounting data that arise from managers’ using aggressive or conserva-
tive accounting choices, abnormal earnings-based valuations are unaffected by the variation in accounting decisions.
This shows that strategic and accounting analyses are critical precursors to abnormal earnings valuation. The strategic
and accounting analysis tools help the analyst to identify whether abnormal earnings arise from sustainable competi-
tive advantage or from unsustainable accounting manipulations. For example, consider the implications of failing to
understand the reasons for a decline in earnings from a change in inventory policy for Down Under Company. If the
analyst mistakenly interpreted the decline as indicating that the firm was having difficulty moving its inventory,
rather than that it had used conservative accounting, she might reduce expectations of future earnings. The estimated
value of the firm would then be lower than that reported in our example. To avoid such mistakes, the analyst would
be wise to go through all steps of the accounting analysis, including step 6 (undo accounting distortions), and then
perform the financial and prospective analyses using the restated financial statements.
THE DISCOUNTED ABNORMAL EARNINGS GROWTH MODEL
As discussed above, abnormal earnings are the amount of earnings that a firm generates in excess of the opportu-
nity cost for equity funds used. The annual change in abnormal earnings is generally referred to as abnormal earn-
ings growth and can be rewritten as follows:
Abnormal earnings growth ¼ change in abnormal earnings
¼ ðNet profit2 re BVE1 Þ ðNet profit1 re BVE0 Þ
¼ ðNet profit2 re ½BVE0 þ Net profit1 Dividends1 Þ ðNet profit1 re BVE0 Þ
¼ Net profit2 þ re Dividends1 ð1 þ re Þ Net profit1
¼ DNet profit2 re ðNet profit1 Dividends1 Þ
ð¼ abnormal change in earningsÞ
This formula shows that abnormal earnings growth is actual earnings growth benchmarked against normal
earnings growth. Normal earnings growth is calculated as the portion of prior period earnings that is retained in
the firm times a normal rate of return. When abnormal earnings growth is zero, the firm functions like a savings
account. In this particular case, the firm earns an abnormal return on its existing investment but is only able to
earn a normal rate of return on the additional investments that it finances from its retained earnings. Conse-
quently, an investor would be indifferent between reinvesting earnings in the firm and receiving all earnings in
dividends.
The discounted dividend model can also be recast to generate a valuation model that defines equity value as the
capitalized sum of (1) next-period earnings and (2) the discounted value of abnormal earnings growth beyond the
next period. The discounted abnormal earnings growth valuation formula is:6

Net profit1 1 DNet profit2 re ðNet profit1 Dividend1 Þ
Equity value0 ¼ þ
re re ð1 þ r e Þ
#
DNet profit3 re ðNet profit2 Dividend2 Þ
þ þ ...
ð 1 þ r e Þ2
This approach, under which valuation starts with capitalizing next-period earnings, has practical appeal because
investment analysts spend much time and effort on estimating near-term earnings as the starting point of their analy-
sis. The valuation formula shows that differences between equity value and capitalized next-period earnings are
explained by abnormal changes in earnings – or changes in abnormal earnings – beyond the next period. Notice that
this formula also views the firm as having an indefinite life. However, the formula can be easily used for the valua-
tion of a finite-life investment by extending the investment’s life by one year and setting earnings and dividends
equal to zero in the last year. For example, consider the earnings and dividends of the Down Under Company during
its three years of existence. Capitalized year 1 earnings are equal to E200.0 million (20.0/0.1). Abnormal earnings
growth equals E12.0 million in year 2 (30.0 þ 40.0 0.1 – 20.0 1.1) and E12.0 million in year 3 (40.0 þ 50.0
0.1 – 30.0 1.1). In year 4, when earnings and dividends are zero, abnormal earnings growth is –E38.0 million (0.0
þ 60.0 0.1 – 40.0 1.1). The total value of the firm’s equity is computed as follows:
Retained Normal earnings Abnormal earnings PV of abnormal
Year Earnings earnings growth growth PV factor earnings growth
(a) (b) ¼ (a) Dividends (c) ¼ re (b)t 1 (d) ¼ D(a) (c) (e) (d) (e)
1 E20m E20 m
2 30 20 E2m E12 0.9091 E 10.91m
3 40 20 2 12 0.8264 9.92
4 0 0 2 38 0.7513 28.55
Cumulative PV of abnormal earnings growth 7.72
þ Earnings in year 1 20.00
¼ E 12.28m
1/re 10.00
¼ Equity value E 122.8m
Note that the Down Under Company gradually reduces its investment because the annual dividend payments
exceed annual earnings. Consequently, normal earnings growth is negative and the firm’s abnormal earnings
growth is greater than its actual earnings growth in every year.
Like the abnormal earnings method, the value estimate from the abnormal earnings growth model is not
affected by the firm’s accounting choices. For example, recall the situation where the Down Under Company
reports conservatively and expenses unusual costs that could have been capitalized in year 1, thereby reducing
earnings by E10.0 million. Under conservative accounting, the value of capitalized year 1 earnings decreases from
E200.0 million to E100.0 million. This reduction, however, is exactly offset by an increase in the discounted value
of abnormal earnings growth, as shown in the following table:
Normal earnings Abnormal earnings PV PV of abnormal

Year Earnings Retained earnings growth growth factor earnings growth
(a) (b) ¼ (a) Dividends (c) ¼ re (b)t 1 (d) ¼ D(a) (c) (e) (d) (e)
1 E10m E30 m
2 40 10 E3m E33 0.9091 E 30.00m
3 40 20 1 1 0.8264 0.83
4 0 0 2 38 0.7513 28.55
Cumulative PV of abnormal earnings growth 2.28
þ Earnings in year 1 10.00
¼ E 12.28m
1/re 10.00
¼ Equity value E 122.8m
This value is again identical to the value estimated under the discounted dividends and abnormal earnings
approaches.
Demonstration Case: Hennes & Mauritz AB
During the first week following the publication of the financial statements for the fiscal year ending on No-
vember 30, 2011, several analysts updated their forecasts of H&M’s 2012 and 2013 sales and net profit.
Analysts’ average expectations were as follows:
2011 realized 2012 expected 2013 expected
Sales SEK110.0b SEK121.7b SEK135.4b

Net profit 15.8 18.0 20.5
Required:
1 These forecasts are not sufficient to estimate the value of H&M’s equity. Forecast H&M’s ending net
working capital, net non-current assets, debt and group equity under the simplifying assumption that the
future growth in these items follows sales growth.
2 Assume that H&M’s cost of equity is 10 percent. Calculate:
a Dividends in 2012 and 2013.
b Abnormal earnings in 2012 and 2013.
c Abnormal earnings growth in 2013.
d Free cash flows to equity in 2012 and 2013.
3 To estimate H&M’s equity value, we need to make an assumption about what will happen to H&M’s profits,
dividends, equity, debt, and assets after 2013. In the next chapter we will discuss several assumptions that the an-
alyst can make. For now, we assume that in 2014 H&M liquidates all its assets at their book values, uses the pro-
ceeds to pay off debt and pays out the remainder to its equity holders. What does this assumption imply about:
a The book value of H&M’s assets and liabilities at the end of 2014?
b H&M’s net profit in 2014?
c H&M’s final dividend payment in 2014?
d H&M’s free cash flow to equity holders in 2014?
e H&M’s abnormal earnings growth in 2014 and 2015 (!)?
4 Estimate H&M’s equity value at the end of 2011 using:
a The discounted dividends model and the discounted cash flow model.
b The discounted abnormal earnings model.
c The discounted abnormal earning growth model.
Answers:
1 Expected sales growth in 2012 and 2013 is 10.6 percent (11.7/110.0) and 11.3 percent (13.7/121.7),
respectively. The values of the four balance sheet items at the end of 2011 are known. Based on the
expected sales growth rates, the expected values at the end of 2012 and 2013 are:
Ending . . . 2011 realized 2012 expected 2013 expected
Net working capital SEK 15.7b SEK 17.4b SEK 19.3b

Net non-current assets 78.7 87.1 96.9
Debt 50.3 55.7 61.9
Group equity 44.1 48.8 54.3
Assets / capital 94.4 104.5 116.2
2 Calculations:
a Dividends2012 ¼ Equity2011 þ Profit2012 Equity2012 ¼ 44.1 þ 18.0 – 48.8 ¼ 13.3
Dividends2013 ¼ Equity2012 þ Profit2013 Equity2013 ¼ 48.8 þ 20.5 – 54.3 ¼ 15.0.
b Abnormal Earnings2012 ¼ Profit2012 re Equity2011 ¼ 18.0 10% 44.1 ¼ 13.6.
Abnormal Earnings2013 ¼ Profit2013 re Equity2012 ¼ 20.5 10% 48.8 ¼ 15.6.
c Abnormal Earnings growth2013 ¼ DProfit2013 re (Profit2012 Dividends2012) ¼ 2.5 – 10%
(18.0 13.3) ¼ 2.0.
(Check that Abnormal earnings growth ¼ DAbnormal earnings (see b).)
d FCF to Equity2012 ¼ Profit2012 DAssets2012 þ DDebt2012 ¼ 18.0 10.1 þ 5.4 ¼ 13.3.
FCF to Equity2013 ¼ Profit2013 DAssets2013 þ DDebt2013 ¼ 20.5 11.7 þ 6.2 ¼ 15.0.
(Note that the free cash flows to equity holders is equal to the dividends paid out to equity holders.)
3 Calculations:
a H&M’s assets and liabilities will have book values of zero at the end of 2014.
b H&M’s net profit will be zero in 2014 because all assets have been sold at their book values (i.e.,
profit on the sale ¼ 0).
c The final dividend payment in 2014 will be equal to the ending book value in 2013: Dividends2014 ¼
Equity2013 þ Profit2014 – Equity2014 ¼ 54.3 þ 0 0 ¼ 54.3.
d FCF to Equity2014 ¼ Profit2014 DAssets2014 þ DDebt2014 ¼ 0 (116.2) þ (61.9) ¼ 54.3.
(Note that the final free cash flow to equity holders is equal to the final dividend.).
e Abnormal Earnings2014 ¼ Profit2014 re Equity2013 ¼ 0 10% 54.3 ¼ 5.4.
f Abnormal Earnings growth2014 ¼ DProfit2014 re (Profit2013 Dividends2013) ¼ 20.5 10%
(20.5 – 15.0) ¼ 21.0.
Abnormal Earnings growth2015 ¼ DProfit2015 re (Profit2014 Dividends2014) ¼ 0 10%
(0 – 54.3) ¼ 5.4.
(Check that Abnormal earnings growth ¼ DAbnormal earnings (see e and 2b).)
4 Calculations:
a Note that H&M’s expected dividends are exactly equal to its free cash flows to equity holders. Using the dis-
counted dividends (DIV) model (or discounted cash flow model), H&M’s equity value is calculated as follows:
DIV2012 DIV2013 DIV2014
Equity valueend 2011 ¼ þ 2
þ
ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ3
13:3 15:0 54:3
¼ þ 2
þ ¼ 65:3
ð1:1Þ ð1:1Þ ð1:1Þ3
b Using the discounted abnormal earnings (AE) model, H&M’s equity value is calculated as follows:
AE2012 AE2013 AE2014
Equity valueend 2011 ¼ BVEend 2011 þ þ þ
ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ2 ð1 þ r e Þ3
13:6 15:6 5:4
¼ 44:1 þ þ þ ¼ 65:3
ð1:1Þ ð1:1Þ2 ð1:1Þ3
c Using the discounted abnormal earnings growth (AE) model, H&M’s equity value is calculated as follows:
Profit2012 1 AEG2013 AEG2014 AEG2015
Equity valueend 2011 ¼ þ ½ þ þ
re r e ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ2 ð1 þ r e Þ3
" #
18:0 1 2:0 2:0 5:4
¼ þ þ þ ¼ 65:3
ð0:1Þ ð0:1Þ ð1:1Þ ð1:1Þ2 ð1:1Þ3
At the end of 2011, H&M had 1,655,072 thousand shares outstanding. The equity value estimate of
SEK65.3 billion thus corresponds with an estimate of SEK39.45 per share. On January 27, 2012, one day af-
ter H&M’s preliminary annual earnings announcement, the company’s closing share price was SEK221.40.
Our estimate of equity value per share is substantially lower than the actual share price because we made
very conservative assumptions about H&M’s performance after 2013. In the next chapter we will discuss
methods to arrive at more realistic (less conservative) equity value estimates.
VALUATION USING PRICE MULTIPLES
Valuations based on price multiples are widely used by analysts. The primary reason for the popularity of this
method is its simplicity. Unlike the discounted dividend, discounted abnormal earnings (growth), and discounted
cash flow methods, multiple-based valuations do not require detailed multiyear forecasts of a number of parame-
ters such as growth, profitability, and cost of capital.
Valuation using multiples involves the following three steps:
Step 1: Select a measure of performance or value (e.g., earnings, sales, cash flows, book equity, book assets) as
the basis for multiple calculations. The two most commonly used metrics are based on earnings and book eq-
uity.
Step 2: Calculate price multiples for comparable firms, i.e., the ratio of the market value to the selected measure
of performance or value.
Step 3: Apply the comparable firm multiple to the performance or value measure of the firm being analyzed.
Under this approach, the analyst relies on the market to undertake the difficult task of considering the short-
and long-term prospects for growth and profitability and their implications for the values of the comparable firms.
Then the analyst assumes that the pricing of those other firms is applicable to the firm at hand.
Main issues with multiple-based valuation

On the surface, using multiples seems straightforward. Unfortunately, in practice it is not as simple as it would
appear. Identification of ‘‘comparable’’ firms is often quite difficult. There are also some choices to be made concern-
ing how multiples will be calculated. Finally, understanding why multiples vary across firms, and how applicable
another firm’s multiple is to the one at hand, requires a sound knowledge of the determinants of each multiple.
Selecting comparable firms

Ideally, price multiples used in a comparable firm analysis are those for firms with similar operating and financial
characteristics. Firms within the same industry are the most obvious candidates. But even within narrowly defined
industries, it is often difficult to identify comparable firms. Many firms are in multiple industries, making it diffi-
cult to identify representative benchmarks. In addition, firms within the same industry frequently have different
strategies, growth opportunities, and profitability, creating selection problems.
One way of dealing with these issues is to average across all firms in the industry. The analyst implicitly hopes that
the various sources of noncomparability cancel each other out, so that the firm being valued is comparable to a ‘‘typi-
cal’’ industry member. Another approach is to focus on only those firms within the industry that are most similar.
For example, consider using multiples to value Hennes & Mauritz (H&M). Business and financial databases
classify the company in the Apparel Retail industry. Its competitors include Benetton, Burberry, Charles Voegele,
Etam, French Connection, Inditex, and Next. The average price-earnings ratio for a profitable subset of these direct
competitors was 13.6 and the average price-to-book ratio was 4.9. However, it is unclear whether these multiples
are useful benchmarks for valuing H&M. Not all of these competitors follow a fast fashion strategy like H&M and
some of them operate on a significantly smaller scale, both in terms of revenue and geographic reach. In addition,
not all competitors exhibit similar growth rates as H&M.
A potential problem of choosing comparable firms from different countries is that a variety of factors that
influence multiples may differ across countries. For example, the cost of equity, which is inversely related to the
price-earnings multiple, is affected by the risk-free interest rate. Further, the expected earnings growth rate, which
positively affects the price-earnings multiple, partly depends on a country’s future economic growth. Consequently,
international differences in risk-free interest rates and growth expectations lead to international differences in price-
earnings multiples. In addition, international differences in accounting practices may lead to systematic international
differences in net profits, which is the denominator in price-earnings multiples. The most obvious way to get around
this problem is to choose comparable firms from one country. This is, however, often not feasible in smaller equity
markets. The alternative solution is to explicitly take into account the country factors that affect multiples. For exam-
ple, when using the multiples of the above group of competitors, it is important to realize that at the time that the mul-
tiples were calculated, risk-free interest rates in Spain and Italy (domicile of Inditex and Benetton) were higher than
the risk-free interest rate in France, Switzerland, and the UK (domicile of the other industry peers). This may have
caused the average price-earnings multiple of H&M’s Southern European competitors to be relatively low.
Multiples for firms with poor performance

Price multiples can be affected when the denominator variable is performing poorly. This is especially common
when the denominator is a flow measure, such as earnings or cash flows. For example, one of H&M’s competitors,
Charles Voegele, reported losses in 2011, making the price-earnings ratios negative. Because negative price-earn-
ings ratios have no sensible meaning, these were ignored in the calculation of the average price-earnings ratio.
What are analysts’ options for handling the problems for multiples created by transitory shocks to the denominator?
One option is to simply exclude firms with large transitory effects from the set of comparable firms, as we did above. If
poor performance is due to a one-time write down or special item, analysts can simply exclude that effect from their
computation of the comparable multiple. For example, in 2009 Burberry recorded a small profit of £0.03 per share,
including close to £0.32 per share (after tax) in impairment and restructuring charges. If these charges were excluded,
Burberry’s net profit would be £0.35 per share and its price-earnings ratio would change from an unrealistically high
value of 90.7 to a more informative value of 7.8. This change shows the sensitivity of price-earnings multiples to transi-
tory shocks. Finally, analysts can reduce the effect on multiples of temporary problems in past performance by using a
denominator that is a forecast of future performance rather than the past measure itself. Multiples based on forecasts are
termed leading multiples, whereas those based on historical data are called trailing multiples. Leading multiples are less
likely to include one-time gains and losses in the denominator, simply because such items are difficult to anticipate.
Adjusting multiples for leverage

Price multiples should be calculated in a way that preserves consistency between the numerator and denominator.
Consistency is an issue for those ratios where the denominator reflects performance before servicing debt. Examples
include the price-to-sales multiple and any multiple of operating earnings or operating cash flows. When calculating
these multiples, the numerator should include not just the market value of equity but the value of debt as well.
Determinants of value-to-book and value-earnings multiples

Even across relatively closely related firms, price multiples can vary considerably. The abnormal earnings valua-
tion method provides insight into factors that lead to differences in value-to-book multiples across firms. Similarly,
the abnormal earnings growth valuation method helps to explain why value-to-earnings multiples vary across
firms.
If the abnormal earnings formula is scaled by book value, the left-hand side becomes the equity value-to-book
ratio as opposed to the equity value itself. The right-hand side variables now reflect three multiple drivers: (1) earn-
ings deflated by book value, or our old friend return on equity (ROE), discussed in Chapter 5, (2) the growth in eq-
uity book value over time, and (3) the firm’s cost of equity. The actual valuation formula is as follows:

ROE1 re ðROE2 re Þ 1 þ g1 equity
Equity value-to-book ratio0 ¼ 1 þ þ
ð1 þ r e Þ ð 1 þ r e Þ2

ðROE3 re Þ 1 þ g1 equity 1 þ g2 equity
þ þ ...
ð1 þ r e Þ 3
where gequity
t ¼ growth in book value of equity (BVE) from year t1 to year t or:
BVEt BVEt1
BVEt1
A firm’s value-to-book ratio is largely driven by the magnitude of its future abnormal ROEs, defined as ROE less the
cost of equity capital (ROE – re). Firms with positive abnormal ROE are able to invest their net assets to create value
for shareholders and will have price-to-book ratios greater than one. In contrast, firms with negative abnormal ROEs
are unable to invest shareholder funds at a rate greater than their cost of capital and have ratios below one.
The magnitude of a firm’s value-to-book multiple also depends on the amount of growth in book value. Firms
can grow their equity base by issuing new equity or by reinvesting profits. If this new equity is invested in positive
valued projects for shareholders – that is, projects with ROEs that exceed the cost of capital – the firm will boost
its equity value-to-book multiple. Conversely, for firms with ROEs that are less than the cost of capital, equity
growth further lowers the multiple.
The valuation task can now be framed in terms of two key questions about the firm’s ‘‘value drivers’’:
n Will the firm be able to generate ROEs that exceed its cost of equity capital? If so, for how long?
n How quickly will the firm’s investment base (book value) grow?
If desired, the equation can be rewritten so that future ROEs are expressed as the product of their components:
profit margins, sales turnover, and leverage. Thus the approach permits us to build directly on projections of the
same accounting numbers utilized in financial analysis (see Chapter 5) without the need to convert projections of
those numbers into cash flows. Yet in the end, the estimate of value should be the same as that from the dividend
discount model.7
Returning to the Down Under Company example, the implied equity value-to-book multiple can be estimated
as follows:
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Beginning book value E60m E40m E20m

Earnings E20m E30m E40m
ROE 0.33 0.75 2.00
Cost of capital 0.10 0.10 0.10
¼ Abnormal ROE 0.23 0.65 1.90
(1 þ cumulative book value growth) 1.00 0.67 0.33
¼ Abnormal ROE scaled by book value growth 0.23 0.43 0.63

PV factor 0.909 0.826 0.751
¼ PV of abnormal ROE scaled by book value growth 0.212 0.358 0.476
Cumulative PV of abnormal ROE scaled by book 1.046

value growth
þ 1.00 1.000
¼ Equity value-to-book multiple 2.046
The equity value-to-book multiple for Down Under is therefore 2.046, and the implied equity value is E122.8
(E60 times 2.046), once again identical to the dividend discount model value.
The equity value-to-book formulation can also be used to construct the equity value-earnings multiple as
follows:
Book value of equity
Equity value-to-earnings multiple ¼ Equity value-to-book multiple 3
Earnings
Equity value-to-book multiple
¼
ROE
In other words, the same factors that drive a firm’s equity value-to-book multiple also explain its equity value-
earnings multiple. The key difference between the two multiples is that the value-earnings multiple is affected
by the firm’s current level of ROE performance, whereas the value-to-book multiple is not. Firms with low cur-
rent ROEs therefore have very high value-earnings multiples and vice versa. If a firm has a zero or negative
ROE, its PE multiple is not defined. Value-earnings multiples are therefore more volatile than value-to-book
multiples.
The following data for a subset of firms in the Apparel Retail industry illustrate the relation between ROE, the
price-to-book ratio, and the price-earnings ratio:
Company ROE Price-to-book ratio Price-earnings ratio
Benetton 4.9% 0.36 7.36

Burberry 31.4% 7.03 22.61
French Connection 6.1% 0.64 10.55
Both the price-to-book and price-earnings ratios are high for Burberry. Investors therefore expect that in the future
Burberry will generate higher ROEs than its current level (31.4 percent). In contrast, French Connection has a
price-to-book ratio smaller than one (0.64) and a moderate price-earnings ratio (10.55). This indicates that invest-
ors expect that French Connection will continue to generate negative abnormal ROEs but that the current level of
ROE (6.1 percent) is sustainable. Finally, Benetton has a relatively low price-to-book ratio, 0.36, and a low price-
earnings multiple. Investors apparently do not expect Benetton to sustain its already low performance and earn
abnormal ROEs in the future.
The effect of future growth in net profit on the price-earnings multiple can also be seen from the model that
arises when we scale the abnormal earnings growth valuation formula by next-period net profit. The valuation for-
mula then becomes:
Leading equity value-to-earnings ratio ¼
2 h i 3
profit profit
profit
1 1 4g2 þ ðd1 1Þre 1 þ g2 g 3 þ ð d2 1Þr e
þ þ : : :5
re re ð1 þ r e Þ ð 1 þ r e Þ2
where dt ¼ dividend payout ratio in year t
gt profit ¼ growth in net profit (NP) from year t 2 1 to year t or
NPt NPt1
NPt1
In this formula, future earnings growth rates and dividend payouts are the basis for estimating price-earnings multi-
ples.8 Consider the earnings growth rates and dividend payout ratios of the Down Under Company. The earnings
growth rates (gprofit
t ) are 50, 33, and 100 percent in years 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Dividend payouts are 200 per-
cent, 167 percent, and 150 percent in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Substituting these percentages in the leading
price-earnings formula yields:
Leading equity value-to-earnings ratio ¼
2 h i
profit profit
1 1 4gprofit þ ð d1 1 Þr e
1 þ g 2 g 3 þ ð d 2 1Þr e
2
þ þ
re re ð1 þ r e Þ ð 1 þ r e Þ2
h i3
1 þ gprofit
2 1 þ gprofit
3 gprofit
4 þ ðd3 1Þre
þ 5
ð1 þ r e Þ 3

1 1 :5 þ :1 1:5 3 ½:33 þ 0:067 1:5 3 1:33 3 ½1 þ :05
¼ þ þ þ ¼ 6:14
:1 :1 1:1 1:12 1:13
The price-earnings multiple of 6.14 is consistent with a value of equity of E122.8 (6.14 E20).
To value a firm using multiples, an analyst must assess the quality of the variable used as the multiple basis
and determine the appropriate peer firms to include in the benchmark multiple. Analysts are therefore likely
to be interested in answering the following questions:
n How well does the denominator used in the multiple reflect the firm’s performance? For example, if earn-
ings or book equity are used as the denominator, has the firm made conservative or aggressive account-
ing choices that are likely to unwind in the coming years? Is the firm likely to show strong growth in
earnings or book equity? If earnings are the denominator, does the firm have temporarily poor or strong
performance?
n What is the sustainability of the firm’s growth and ROE based on the competitive dynamics of the firm’s
industry and product market and its own competitive position?
n Which are the most suitable peer companies to include in the benchmark multiple computation? Have
these firms had growth (earnings or book values), profitability, and quality of earnings comparable to the
firm being analyzed? Do they have the same risk characteristics?
SHORTCUT FORMS OF EARNINGS-BASED VALUATION
The discounted abnormal earnings valuation formula can be simplified by making assumptions about the relation
between a firm’s current and future abnormal earnings. Similarly, the equity value-to-book formula can be simpli-
fied by making assumptions about long-term ROEs and growth.
Abnormal earnings (growth) simplification

Several assumptions about the relation between current and future abnormal earnings are popular for simplifying
the abnormal earnings model and the abnormal earnings growth model. First, abnormal earnings are assumed to
follow a random walk. The random walk model for abnormal earnings implies that an analyst’s best guess about
future expected abnormal earnings are current abnormal earnings. The model assumes that past shocks to abnormal
earnings persist forever, but that future shocks are random or unpredictable. The random walk model can be writ-
ten as follows:
Forecasted AE1 ¼ AE0
Forecasted AE1 is the forecast of next year’s abnormal earnings and AE0 is current period abnormal earnings.
Under the model, forecasted abnormal earnings for two years ahead are simply abnormal earnings in year 1, or
once again current abnormal earnings. In other words, the best guess of abnormal earnings in any future year is just
current abnormal earnings. It is also possible to include a drift term in the model, allowing earnings to grow by a
constant amount, or at a constant rate in each period.
How does the above assumption about future abnormal earnings simplify the discounted abnormal earnings val-
uation model? If abnormal earnings follow a random walk, all future forecasts of abnormal earnings are simply
current abnormal earnings. Consequently, the present value of future abnormal earnings can be calculated by valu-
ing the current level of abnormal earnings as a perpetuity. It is then possible to rewrite value as follows:
AE0
Equity value ¼ BVE0 þ
re
Equity value is the book value of equity at the end of the year plus current abnormal earnings divided by the cost
of capital. The perpetuity formula can be adjusted to incorporate expectations of constant growth in future abnor-
mal earnings.
A logical consequence of the above assumption is also that future abnormal earnings growth equals zero. When
abnormal earnings growth in any future year is zero, the abnormal earnings growth valuation model can be rewrit-
ten as follows:
Net profit1
Equity value ¼
re
Equity value is then set equal to the capitalized value of next-period net profit.
In reality, shocks to abnormal earnings are unlikely to persist forever. Firms that have positive shocks are likely
to attract competitors that will reduce opportunities for future abnormal performance. Firms with negative abnor-
mal earnings shocks are likely to fail or to be acquired by other firms that can manage their resources more effec-
tively. The persistence of abnormal performance will therefore depend on strategic factors such as barriers to entry
and switching costs, discussed in Chapter 2. To reflect this, analysts frequently assume that current shocks to
abnormal earnings decay over time. Under this assumption, abnormal earnings are said to follow an autoregressive
model. Forecasted abnormal earnings are then:
Forecasted AE1 ¼ bAE0
b is a parameter that captures the speed with which abnormal earnings decay over time. If there is no decay, b is
one and abnormal earnings follow a random walk. If b is zero, abnormal earnings decay completely within one
year. Estimates of b using actual company data indicate that for a typical firm, b is approximately 0.6. However, it
varies by industry, and is smaller for firms with large accruals and onetime accounting charges.9
Note that if the rate of decay in abnormal earnings, b, is constant, the perpetual growth rate in abnormal earn-
ings equals (b – 1. The autoregressive model therefore implies that equity values can again be written as a function
of current abnormal earnings and book values:10
bAE0
Equity value ¼ BVE0 þ
re ðb 1Þ
This formulation implies that equity values are simply the sum of current book value plus current abnormal earn-
ings weighted by the cost of equity capital and persistence in abnormal earnings.
Under the assumption that abnormal earnings follow an autoregressive model, abnormal earnings growth, or the change
in abnormal earnings, in year 1 can be rewritten as (b – 1)AE0 and the abnormal earnings growth model simplifies to:

Net profit1 ð1 þ re Þ ðb 1ÞAE1
Equity value ¼ þ
re re re ðb 1Þ
This formula illustrates that equity values can be expressed as the sum of capitalized next-period earnings plus
next-period abnormal earnings weighted by the cost of equity capital and persistence in abnormal earnings.
An advantage of the abnormal earnings growth model over the abnormal earnings model is that the former
model can be simplified by making assumptions about the change in abnormal earnings. This can be useful in sit-
uations where the analyst believes, for example, that a firm has a sustainable competitive advantage but expects
that the growth in abnormal earnings will gradually decay over time. Under the assumption that:
Forecasted ðAE2 AE1 Þ ¼ bðAE1 AE0 Þ
the abnormal earnings growth model simplifies to:

Net profit1 ð1 þ re Þ bðAE1 AE0 Þ
Equity value ¼ þ
re re re ðb 1Þ
ROE and growth simplifications

It is also possible to make simplifications about long-term ROEs and equity growth to reduce forecast horizons for
estimating the equity value-to-book multiple. Firms’ long-term ROEs are affected by such factors as barriers to
entry in their industries, change in production or delivery technologies, and quality of management. As discussed
in Chapter 6, these factors tend to force abnormal ROEs to decay over time. One way to model this decay is to
assume that ROEs revert to the mean. Forecasted ROE after one period then takes the following form:

Forecasted ROE1 ¼ ROE0 þ b ROE0 ROE
ROE is the steady state ROE (either the firm’s cost of capital or the long-term industry ROE) and b is a ‘‘speed of
adjustment factor’’ that reflects how quickly it takes the ROE to revert to its steady state.11
Growth rates in the book value of equity are driven by several factors. First, the size of the firm is important.
Small firms can sustain very high growth rates for an extended period, whereas large firms find it more difficult to
do so. Second, firms with high rates of growth are likely to attract competitors, which reduces their growth rates.
As a result, steady-state rates of growth in book equity are likely to be similar to rates of growth in the overall
economy, which have averaged 2–4 percent per year.
The long-term patterns in ROE and book equity growth rates imply that for most companies there is limited value
in making forecasts for valuation beyond a relatively short horizon, generally five to ten years. Powerful economic
forces tend to lead firms with superior or inferior performance early in the forecast horizon to revert to a level that is
comparable to that of other firms in the industry or the economy. For a firm in steady state, that is, expected to have
a stable ROE and book equity growth rate (gequity), the value-to-book multiple formula simplifies to the following:
ROE0 re
Equity value-to-book multiple ¼ 1 þ
re gequity
Of course, analysts can make a variety of simplifying assumptions about a firm’s ROE and growth. For example,
they can assume that they decay slowly or rapidly to the cost of capital and the growth rate for the economy. They
can assume that the rates decay to the industry or economy average ROEs and book value growth rates. The valua-
tion formula can easily be modified to accommodate these assumptions.
COMPARING VALUATION METHODS
We have discussed four methods of valuation derived from the dividend discount model: discounted dividends,
discounted abnormal earnings (or abnormal ROEs), discounted abnormal earnings growth, and discounted cash
flows. Since the methods are all derived from the same underlying model, no one version can be considered supe-
rior to the others. As long as analysts make the same assumptions about firm fundamentals, value estimates under
all four methods will be identical. However, we discuss below important differences between the models.
Focus on different issues

The methods frame the valuation task differently and can in practice focus the analyst’s attention on different
issues. The earnings-based approaches frame the issues in terms of accounting data such as earnings and book val-
ues. Analysts spend considerable time analyzing historical income statements and balance sheets, and their pri-
mary forecasts are typically for these variables.
Defining values in terms of ROEs has the added advantage that it focuses analysts’ attention on ROE, the same
key measure of performance that is decomposed in a standard financial analysis. Furthermore, because ROEs con-
trol for firm scale, it is likely to be easier for analysts to evaluate the reasonableness of their forecasts by bench-
marking them with ROEs of other firms in the industry and the economy. This type of benchmarking is more
challenging for free cash flows and abnormal earnings.
Differences in required structure

The methods differ in the amount of analysis and structure required for valuation. The discounted abnormal earn-
ings and ROE methods require analysts to construct both pro forma income statements and balance sheets to fore-
cast future earnings and book values. In contrast, the discounted abnormal earnings growth model requires
analysts to forecast future earnings and dividends. The discounted cash flow method requires analysts to forecast
income statements and changes in working capital and long-term assets to generate free cash flows. Finally, the
discounted dividend method requires analysts to forecast dividends.
The discounted abnormal earnings (growth), ROE, and free cash flow models all require more structure for
analysis than the discounted dividend approach. They therefore help analysts to avoid structural inconsistencies in
their forecasts of future dividends by specifically allowing for firms’ future performance and investment opportu-
nities. Similarly, the discounted abnormal earnings/ROE method requires more structure and work than the dis-
counted cash flow method and the discounted abnormal earnings growth method to build full pro forma balance
sheets. This permits analysts to avoid inconsistencies in the firm’s financial structure.
Differences in terminal value implications

A third difference between the methods is in the effort required for estimating terminal values. Terminal value esti-
mates for the abnormal earnings, abnormal earnings growth, and ROE methods tend to represent a much smaller
fraction of total value than under the discounted cash flow or dividend methods. On the surface, this would appear
to mitigate concerns about the aspect of valuation that leaves the analyst most uncomfortable. Is this apparent
advantage real? As explained below, the answer turns on how well value is already reflected in the accountant’s
book value.
The abnormal earnings and abnormal earnings growth valuations do not eliminate the discounted cash flow ter-
minal value problem, but they do reframe it. Discounted cash flow terminal values include the present value of all
expected cash flows beyond the forecast horizon. Under abnormal earnings valuation, that value is broken into
two parts: the present values of normal earnings and abnormal earnings beyond the terminal year. The terminal
value in the abnormal earnings technique includes only the abnormal earnings. The present value of normal earn-
ings is already reflected in the original book value. Similarly, under the abnormal earnings growth approach the
present value of near-term abnormal earnings is already reflected in next-period earnings or the growth in earnings
over the forecast horizon. The terminal value includes only the changes in abnormal earnings that are expected to
occur in the years beyond the terminal year.
The abnormal earnings and abnormal earnings growth approaches, then, recognize that current book value and
earnings over the forecast horizon already reflect many of the cash flows expected to arrive after the forecast hori-
zon. The approaches build directly on accrual accounting. For example, under accrual accounting, book equity can
be thought of as the minimum recoverable future benefits attributable to the firm’s net assets. In addition, revenues
are typically realized when earned, not when cash is received. The discounted cash flow approach, on the other
hand, ‘‘unravels’’ all of the accruals, spreads the resulting cash flows over longer horizons, and then reconstructs
its own ‘‘accruals’’ in the form of discounted expectations of future cash flows. The essential difference between
the two approaches is that abnormal earnings (growth) valuation recognizes that the accrual process may already
have performed a portion of the valuation task, whereas the discounted cash flow approach ultimately moves back
to the primitive cash flows underlying the accruals.
The usefulness of the accounting-based perspective thus hinges on how well the accrual process reflects future
cash flows. The approach is most convenient when the accrual process is ‘‘unbiased,’’ so that earnings can be
abnormal only as the result of economic rents and not as a product of accounting itself.12 The forecast horizon then
extends to the point where the firm is expected to approach a competitive equilibrium and earn only normal earn-
ings on its projects. Subsequent abnormal earnings would be zero, and the terminal value at that point would be
zero. In this extreme case, all of the firm’s value is reflected in the book value and earnings projected over the fore-
cast horizon.
Of course accounting rarely works so well. For example, many firms expense research and development costs,
and book values fail to reflect any research and development assets. As a result, firms that spend heavily on
research and development – such as pharmaceuticals – tend on average to generate abnormally high earnings even
in the face of stiff competition. Purely as an artifact of research and development accounting, abnormal earnings
would be expected to remain positive indefinitely for such firms, and, under the abnormal earnings approach, the
terminal value could represent a substantial fraction of total value.
If desired, the analyst can alter the accounting approach used by the firm in his or her own projections. ‘‘Better’’
accounting would be viewed as that which reflects a larger fraction of the firm’s value in book values and earnings
over the forecast horizon.13 This same view underlies analysts’ attempts to ‘‘normalize’’ earnings; the adjusted
numbers are intended to provide better indications of value, even though they reflect performance only over a short
horizon.
Research has focused on the performance of abnormal earnings-based valuation relative to discounted cash
flow and discounted dividend methods. The findings indicate that over relatively short forecast horizons (ten years
or less), valuation estimates using the abnormal earnings approach generate more precise estimates of value than
either the discounted dividend or discounted cash flow models. This advantage for the abnormal earnings-based
approach persists for firms with conservative or aggressive accounting, indicating that accrual accounting does a
reasonably good job of reflecting future cash flows.14 The performance of the abnormal earnings growth valuation
model has not yet been extensively studied. However, the model’s close relationship to the abnormal earnings
model makes it subject to many of the same practical advantages.
Research also indicates that abnormal earnings estimates of value outperform traditional multiples, such as
price-earnings ratios, price-to-book ratios, and dividend yields, for predicting future share price movements.15
Firms that have high abnormal earnings model estimates of value relative to current price show positive abnormal
future stock returns, whereas firms with low estimated value-to-price ratios have negative abnormal share price
performance.
The above discussion on the trade-offs between different methods of valuing a company raises several ques-
tions for analysts about how to compare methods and to consider which is likely to be most reliable for their
analysis:
n What are the key performance parameters that the analyst forecasts? Is more attention given to forecasting
accounting variables, such as earnings and book values, or to forecasting cash flow variables?
n Has the analyst linked forecasted income statements and balance sheets? If not, is there any inconsistency
between the two statements, or in the implications of the assumptions for future performance? If so, what
is the source of this inconsistency and does it affect discounted earnings-based and discounted cash flow
methods similarly?
n How well does the firm’s accounting capture its underlying assets and obligations? Does it do a good
enough job that we can rely on book values as the basis for long-term forecasts? Alternatively, does the
firm rely heavily on off-balance sheet assets, such as R&D, which make book values a poor lower bound
on long-term performance?
n Has the analyst made very different assumptions about long-term performance in the terminal value com-
putations under the different valuation methods? If so, which set of assumptions is more plausible given
the firm’s industry and its competitive positioning?
SUMMARY
Valuation is the process by which forecasts of performance are converted into estimates of price. A variety of valu-
ation techniques are employed in practice, and there is no single method that clearly dominates others. In fact,
since each technique involves different advantages and disadvantages, there are gains to considering several
approaches simultaneously.
For shareholders, a firm’s equity value is the present value of future dividends. This chapter described four val-
uation techniques directly based on this dividend discount definition of value: discounted dividends, discounted
abnormal earnings/ROEs, discounted abnormal earnings growth, and discounted free cash flows. The discounted
dividend method attempts to forecast dividends directly. The abnormal earnings approach expresses the value of a
firm’s equity as book value plus discounted expectations of future abnormal earnings. The abnormal earnings
growth approach defines equity value as capitalized next-period earnings plus the present value of future changes
in abnormal earnings. Finally, the discounted cash flow method represents a firm’s equity value by expected future
free cash flows discounted at the cost of capital.
Although these four methods were derived from the same dividend discount model, they frame the valuation
task differently. In practice they focus the analyst’s attention on different issues and require different levels of
structure in developing forecasts of the underlying primitive, future dividends.
Price multiple valuation methods were also discussed. Under these approaches, analysts estimate ratios of cur-
rent price to historical or forecasted measures of performance for comparable firms. The benchmarks are then used
to value the performance of the firm being analyzed. Multiples have traditionally been popular, primarily because
they do not require analysts to make multiyear forecasts of performance. However, it can be difficult to identify
comparable firms to use as benchmarks. Even across highly related firms, there are differences in performance that
are likely to affect their multiples.
The chapter discussed the relation between two popular multiples, value-to-book and value-earnings ratios, and
the discounted abnormal earnings valuation. The resulting formulations indicate that value-to-book multiples are a
function of future abnormal ROEs, book value growth, and the firm’s cost of equity. The value-earnings multiple
is a function of the same factors and also the current ROE.
CORE CONCEPTS
Abnormal earnings Difference between net profit and a capital charge. The capital charge is calculated as the
cost of equity times the beginning of the period book value of equity.
Abnormal earnings growth Change in abnormal earnings. The change in abnormal earnings can be rewritten as
the abnormal change in earnings, which is calculated as the difference between the actual period change in net
profit and the expected change in net profit. The expected change in net profit is calculated as the cost of equity
times prior period’s retained net profit:
Abnormal earnings growth (AEG) ¼ DNet profit2 re ðNet profit1 Dividend1 Þ
Discounted abnormal earnings growth model Model expressing equity value as a function of next-period net
profit and the present value of abnormal earnings growth (AEG) beyond the next period:
" #
Net profit1 1 AEG2 AEG3
Equity value ¼ þ þ þ ...
re r e ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ2
Discounted abnormal earnings model Model expressing equity value as the sum of the beginning book value of
equity and the present value of future abnormal earnings (AE):
AE1 AE1
Equity value ¼ BVE0 þ þ þ ...
Discounted cash flow model Model expressing equity value as the present value of future free cash flows to eq-
uity (FCFE):
FCFE1 FCFE2
Equity value ¼ þ þ ...
Equity value Present value of expected future dividends (DIV):

DIV1 DIV2 DIV3
Equity value ¼ þ 2
þ þ ...
ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ3
This dividend-discount model can be recast to generate the discounted abnormal earnings model, the discounted
abnormal earnings growth model, and the discounted free cash flow model.
Free cash flow to debt and equity Cash flow available for distribution to creditors and shareholders. The free
cash flow to debt and equity is equal to: net profit þ after tax net interest expense – change in net working
capital – change in net non-current assets.
Free cash flow to equity Cash flow available for distribution to shareholders. The free cash flow to equity is
equal to: net profit – change in net working capital – change in net non-current assets þ change in net debt.
Multiple-based valuation Use of price multiples – ratios of market value to a measure of firm performance (e.g.,
net profit) or value (e.g., book value of equity) – of comparable firms to value equity.
SUMMARY OF NOTATIONS USED IN THIS CHAPTER
AE Abnormal earnings
AEG Abnormal earnings growth
BVA Book value of operating net assets
BVE Book value of equity
BVND Book value of net debt
DIV Dividends
EBIT Earnings before interest and taxes
div
g Dividend growth rate
gequity Growth rate in the book value of equity
gprofit Growth rate in net profit
NP Net profit
OCF Operating cash flow
PV Present value
re Cost of equity
WACC Weighted average cost of capital (debt and equity)
QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND PROBLEMS
1 Jonas Borg, an analyst at EMH Securities, states: ‘‘I don’t know why anyone would ever try to value earnings.
Obviously, the market knows that earnings can be manipulated and only values cash flows.’’ Discuss.
2 Explain why terminal values in accounting-based valuation are significantly less than those for DCF
valuation.
3 Manufactured Earnings is a ‘‘darling’’ of European analysts. Its current market price is E15 per share, and its
book value is E5 per share. Analysts forecast that the firm’s book value will grow by 10 percent per year
indefinitely, and the cost of equity is 15 percent. Given these facts, what is the market’s expectation of the
firm’s long-term average ROE?
4 Given the information in question 3, what will be Manufactured Earnings’ share price if the market revises its
expectations of long-term average ROE to 20 percent?
5 Analysts reassess Manufactured Earnings’ future performance as follows: growth in book value increases to
12 percent per year, but the ROE of the incremental book value is only 15 percent. What is the impact on the
market-to-book ratio?
6 How can a company with a high ROE have a low PE ratio?
7 What types of companies have:

a A high PE and a low market-to-book ratio?
b A high PE ratio and a high market-to-book ratio?
c A low PE and a high market-to-book ratio?
d A low PE and a low market-to-book ratio?
8 Free cash flows (FCF) used in DCF valuations discussed in the chapter are defined as follows:
FCF to debt and equity ¼ Earnings before interest and taxes 3 ð1 tax rateÞþ
Depreciation and deferred taxes Capital
expenditures = þ Increase/decrease
in working capital
FCF to equity ¼ Net profit þ Depreciation and deferred taxes
Capital expenditures = þ Increase/decrease
in working capital þ = Increase/decrease in debt
Which of the following items affect free cash flows to debt and equity holders? Which affect free cash flows
to equity alone? Explain why and how.
n An increase in trade receivables.
n A decrease in gross margins.
n An increase in property, plant, and equipment.
n An increase in inventories.
n Interest expense.
n An increase in prepaid expenses.
n An increase in notes payable to the bank.
9 Starite Company is valued at E20 per share. Analysts expect that it will generate free cash flows to equity of
E4 per share for the foreseeable future. What is the firm’s implied cost of equity capital?
10 Janet Stringer argues that ‘‘the DCF valuation method has increased managers’ focus on short-term rather than
long-term performance, since the discounting process places much heavier weight on short-term cash flows
than long-term ones.’’ Comment.
Problem 1 Estimating Hugo Boss’s equity value

Hugo Boss AG is a German designer, manufacturer and distributor of men’s and women’s clothing, operating in
the higher end of the clothing retail industry. During the period 2001–2008, the company consistently earned
returns on equity in excess of 18 percent, grew its book value of equity (before special dividends) by 5.5 percent
per year, on average, and paid out 65–70 percent of its net profit as dividends. In 2008, the company paid out a
special dividend of E345.1 million. Consequently, the company’s book value of equity decreased from E546.8 mil-
lion in 2007 to E199.0 million in 2008.
On April 1, 2009, one month before the publication of the first-quarter results, when Hugo Boss’s 70.4 million
common shares trade at about E11 per share, an analyst produces the following forecasts for Hugo Boss.
Income statement (E millions) 2009E 2010E 2011E
Sales 1548.1 1493.9 1561.2

Gross profit 897.9 875.1 923.7
EBIT 179.6 176.9 196.2
Interest expense (45) (40) (35)
EBT 134.6 136.9 161.2
Tax expense (36.3) (37) (43.5)
Net profit 98.3 99.9 117.7
Balance sheet (E millions) 2008R 2009E 2010E 2011E
Total non-current assets 459.2 480.8 499.1 512.0

Inventories 381.4 325.1 304.3 305.3
Trade receivables 201.0 175.4 160.8 156.1
Cash and cash equivalents 24.6 33.5 32.5 47.2
Other current assets 95.4 136.5 172.5 203.2
Total current assets 702.4 670.5 670.1 711.8
Shareholders’ equity 199.0 200.2 221.6 259.0
Non-current provisions 27.9 25.6 24.7 25.8
Non-current debt 588.5 576.7 565.2 553.9
Other non-current liabilities (non- 26.7 24.5 23.6 24.8
interest bearing)
Deferred tax liabilities 17.9 18.3 18.7 19.0
Total non-current liabilities 661.0 645.1 632.2 623.5
Current provisions 59.3 59.3 59.3 59.3
Current debt 40.2 40.2 40.2 40.2
Other current liabilities 202.1 206.5 215.9 241.8
Total current liabilities 301.6 306.0 315.4 341.3
TOTAL EQUITY AND LIABILITIES 1161.6 1151.3 1169.2 1223.8
Assume that Hugo Boss’s cost of equity equals 12 percent.
1 Calculate free cash flows to equity, abnormal earnings, and abnormal earnings growth for the years 2009–
2011.
2 Assume that in 2012 Hugo Boss AG liquidates all its assets at their book values, uses the proceeds to pay off
debt and pays out the remainder to its equity holders. What does this assumption imply about the company’s:
a Free cash flow to equity holders in 2012 and beyond?
b Abnormal earnings in 2012 and beyond?
c Abnormal earnings growth in 2012 and beyond?
3 Estimate the value of Hugo Boss’s equity on April 1, 2009, using the above forecasts and assumptions. Check
that the discounted cash flow model, the abnormal earnings model, and the abnormal earnings growth model
yield the same outcome.
4 The analyst estimates a target price of E20 per share. What is the expected value of Hugo Boss’s equity at the
end of 2011 that is implicit in the analysts’ forecasts and target price?
5 Under the assumption that the historical trends in the company’s ROE (i.e., approximately 18 percent), payout
ratio (70 percent) and book value growth (5.5 percent) continue in the future, what would be your estimate of
Hugo Boss’s equity value-to-book ratio before the company paid out its special dividend? How does the spe-
cial dividend payment change your estimate of the equity value-to-book ratio?
Problem 2 Estimating Adidas’s equity value

Germany-based Adidas is one of the world’s largest producers of sportswear. During 2011, Adidas showed strong
operational performance and saw its equity value increase by 3 percent to close to E10.5 billion. On April 1, 2012,
one month before the publication of the first-quarter results, an analyst produces the following forecasts of Adi-
das’s 2012–2014 performance and financial position:
Income statement (E millions) 2012E 2013E 2014E
Sales 14917.0 15915.8 17029.7

Gross profit 7042.3 7532.9 8046.5
EBIT 1192.4 1380.6 1609.9
Net interest expense 74.7 55.0 39.6
Profit before tax 1117.7 1325.6 1570.3
Tax expense 313.0 371.2 439.7
Group profit 804.7 954.4 1130.6
Minority interest 1.5 1.7 1.8
Net profit 803.2 952.7 1128.8
Balance sheet (E millions) 2011R 2012E 2013E 2014E
Fixed assets 4717.0 5273.0 5626.1 6019.9

Current operating assets 4649.0 5197.0 5545.0 5933.1
Investment assets 2014.0 2251.4 2402.2 2570.3
Total assets 11380.0 12721.5 13573.3 14523.2
Shareholders’ equity 5327.0 5878.5 6520.0 7272.2
Minority interest 4.0 5.0 6.1 7.0
Debt 1589.0 1852.2 1727.6 1552.2
Current operating liabilities 3992.0 4462.6 4761.4 5094.6
Non-current operating liabilities 468.0 523.2 558.2 597.3
Total equity and liabilities 11380.0 12721.5 13573.3 14523.2
Other estimates 2011R 2012E 2013E 2014E
Dividends 251.7 311.3 376.6
Assume that Adidas’s cost of equity equals 10 percent.
1 Check whether all changes in the book value of equity that the analyst predicts can be fully explained through
earnings and dividends. Why is this an important property of the analyst’s equity estimates?
2 When using these forecasts to estimate the value of equity, the analyst can deal with minority interests in the
following ways:
a (1) Classify minority interests on the balance sheet as a non-interest-bearing liability (and hence as a nega-
tive operating asset) and (2) exclude income from minority interests from earnings (i.e., focus on net
profit).
b (1) Classify minority interests on the balance sheet as (group) equity, (2) include income from minority
interests in earnings (i.e., focus on group profit), and (3) subtract the book value of minority interests from
the estimated value of group equity to arrive at the value of shareholders’ equity.
These approaches may yield different values. Discuss potential drawbacks of both approaches.
3 Based on a market value of E12,247 million on March 30, 2012 and the analyst’s estimates, Adidas’s leading
market value-to-earnings ratio is 15.2. What does this ratio suggest about the analyst’s expectations about
future abnormal earnings growth?
4 Calculate abnormal earnings for the years 2012–2014.
5 Assume that abnormal earnings in 2015 and beyond are zero. Estimate the value of Adidas’s group equity
(group equity is the sum of shareholders’ equity and minority interests). What might explain the difference
between your equity value estimate and Adidas’s actual market value (of E12,247 million)?
NOTES
1. From a theoretical perspective, it is preferred to express equity per share as a function of dividends per share. This is because
only the discounted dividends per share model accurately accounts for the wealth transfer from new shareholders to the current
shareholders that occurs when a firm offers shares to new shareholders in future years at a price that is not equal to the prevailing
market price. To simplify the discussion of the other valuation models, however, we describe all models on a ‘‘total equity value
basis,’’ thereby implicitly assuming that future capital transactions do not affect the firm’s current equity value per share – i.e., are
value neutral.
2. In practice, firms do not have to pay out all of their free cash flows as dividends; they can retain surplus cash in the business. The
conditions under which a firm’s dividend decision affects its value are discussed by M. H. Miller and F. Modigliani in ‘‘Dividend
Policy, Growth, and the Valuation of Shares,’’ Journal of Business 34 (October 1961): 411–433.
3. The incorporation of all nonowner changes in equity into profit is called clean surplus accounting. It is analogous to ‘‘recognized
income and expense,’’ the concept defined in IAS 1.
4. Changes in book value also include new capital contributions. However the dividend discount model assumes that new capital is
issued at fair value. As a result, any incremental book value from capital issues is exactly offset by the discounted value of future
dividends to new shareholders. Capital transactions therefore do not affect firm valuation.
5. Appendix B to this chapter provides a simple proof of the earnings-based valuation formula.
6. The abnormal earnings growth model and its properties are extensively discussed in the following articles: J. A. Ohlson and B. E.
Juettner-Nauroth, ‘‘Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinants of Value,’’ Review of Accounting Studies (2005): 349–365;
J. A. Ohlson, ‘‘On Accounting-Based Valuation Formulae,’’ Review of Accounting Studies (2005): 323–347; S. H. Penman, ‘‘Dis-
cussion of ‘On Accounting-Based Valuation Formulae’ and ‘Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinants of Value’,’’ Review
of Accounting Studies (2005): 367–378.
7. It may seem surprising that one can estimate value with no explicit attention to two of the cash flow streams considered in DCF
analysis – investments in working capital and capital expenditures. The accounting-based technique recognizes that these invest-
ments cannot possibly contribute to value without impacting abnormal earnings, and that therefore only their earnings impacts
need be considered. For example, the benefit of an increase in inventory turnover surfaces in terms of its impact on ROE (and
thus, abnormal earnings), without the need to consider explicitly the cash flow impacts involved.
8. This model must not be confused with the PEG ratio. The PEG ratio, which is defined as the price-earnings ratio divided by the
short-term earnings growth rate, is a rule-of-thumb used by some analysts to determine whether a share is overpriced. The rule
suggests that shares whose PEG ratio is above one are overpriced. Valuation using the PEG ratio has, however, no clear theoreti-
cal basis.
9. See P. M. Dechow, A. P. Hutton, and R. G. Sloan, ‘‘An Empirical Assessment of the Residual Income Valuation Model,’’ Journal
of Accounting and Economics 23 (January 1999).
10. This formulation is a variant of a model proposed by James Ohlson, ‘‘Earnings, Book Values, and Dividends in Security Valu-
ation,’’ Contemporary Accounting Research 11 (Spring 1995). Ohlson includes in his forecasts of future abnormal earnings a
variable that reflects relevant information other than current abnormal earnings. This variable then also appears in the equity
valuation formula. Empirical research by Dechow, Hutton, and Sloan, ‘‘An Empirical Assessment of the Residual Income Val-
uation Model,’’ Journal of Accounting and Economics 23 (January 1999), indicates that financial analysts’ forecasts of abnor-
mal earnings do reflect considerable information other than current abnormal earnings, and that this information is useful for
valuation.
11. This specification is similar to the model for dividends developed by J. Lintner, ‘‘Distribution of Incomes of Corporations Among
Dividends, Retained Earnings, and Taxes,’’ American Economic Review 46 (May 1956): 97–113.
12. Unbiased accounting is that which, in a competitive equilibrium, produces an expected ROE equal to the cost of capital. The
actual ROE thus reveals the presence of economic rents. Market value accounting is a special case of unbiased accounting that
produces an expected ROE equal to the cost of capital, even when the firm is not in a competitive equilibrium. That is, market
value accounting reflects the present value of future economic rents in book value, driving the expected ROEs to a normal level.
For a discussion of unbiased and biased accounting, see G. Feltham and J. Ohlson, ‘‘Valuation and Clean Surplus Accounting for
Operating and Financial Activities,’’ Contemporary Accounting Research 11(2) (Spring 1995): 689–731.
13. In Bennett Stewart’s book on EVA valuation, The Quest for Value (New York: HarperBusiness, 1999), he recommends a number
of accounting adjustments, including the capitalization of research and development.
14. S. Penman and T. Sougiannis, ‘‘A Comparison of Dividend, Cash Flow, and Earnings Approaches to Equity Valuation,’’ Contem-
porary Accounting Research (Fall 1998): 343–383, compares the valuation methods using actual realizations of earnings, cash
flows, and dividends to estimate prices. J. Francis, P. Olsson, and D. Oswald, ‘‘Comparing Accuracy and Explainability of Divi-
dend, Free Cash Flow, and Abnormal Earnings Equity Valuation Models,’’ Journal of Accounting Research 38 (Spring 2000):
45–70, estimates values using Value Line forecasts.
15. See C. Lee and J. Myers, ‘‘What is the Intrinsic Value of the Dow?’’ The Journal of Finance 54 (October 1999): 1693–1741.
APPENDIX A: ASSET VALUATION METHODOLOGIES
All of the valuation approaches discussed in this chapter can also be structured to estimate the value of a firm’s net
operating assets rather than its equity. Switching from equity valuation to asset valuation is often as simple as sub-
stituting financial measures related to equity for financial measures related to the entire firm. For example, in the
earnings-based valuation model, net income (the earnings flow to equity) is replaced by NOPAT plus NIPAT (the
earnings generated through operations and investments), and book values of business assets replace the book value
of equity. Value multiples are based on ROEs for the equity formulation and on returns on operating assets for val-
uing asset multiples. And the discount rate for equity models is the cost of equity compared to the weighted aver-
age cost of capital (or WACC) for asset valuation models.
The formulas used for asset valuation under the various approaches are presented below.
Abnormal earnings valuation

Under the earnings-based approach, the value of business assets (operating plus investment assets) is:
NOPAT1 þ NIPAT1 WACC BVA0
Business asset value0 ¼ BVA0 þ
ð1 þ WACC)
NOPAT2 þ NIPAT2 WACC BVA1
þ þ ...
ð1 þ WACC)2
BVA is the book value of the firm’s business assets, NOPAT is net operating profit (before interest) after tax,
NIPAT is net investment profit after tax, and WACC is the firm’s weighted-average cost of debt and equity. From
this asset value the analyst can deduct the (after-tax) market value of debt to generate an estimate of the value of
equity.
Similarly, the value of the operating assets is:
NOPAT1 rNOA BVNOA0 NOPAT2 rNOA BVNOA1
Operating asset value0 ¼ BVNOA0 þ þ þ ...
(1 þ rNOA ) (1 þ rNOA )2
where BVNOA is the book value of the firm’s net operating assets, NOPAT is net operating profit after tax, and
rNOA is the firm’s required return on operating assets.
Valuation using price multiples

The multiple valuation can be structured as the debt plus equity value-to-book assets ratio by scaling the above
business asset valuation formula by the book value of business assets. The valuation formula then becomes:
ROBA1 WACC ðROBA2 WACCÞð1 þ g1 assets Þ
Debt plus equity value-to-book ratio0 ¼ 1 þ þ
ðROBA3 WACCÞð1 þ g1 assets Þð1 þ g2 assets Þ
þ þ ...
ð1 þ WACCÞ3
where
ROBA ¼ return on business assets, as defined in Chapter 5.
WACC ¼ weighted average cost of debt and equity
gassets
t ¼ growth in book value of business assets (BVA) from year t1 to year t or
BVAt BVAt1
BVAt1
The value of a firm’s business assets to the book value of the assets therefore depends on its ability to generate
asset returns that exceed its WACC, and on its ability to grow its asset base. The value of equity under this
approach is then the estimated multiple times the current book value of business assets less the (after-tax) market
value of debt.
Discounted cash flow model

The free cash flow formulation can be structured by estimating the value of claims to net debt and equity and then
deducting the market value of net debt. The value of debt plus equity is computed as follows:
Debt plus equity value0 ¼ PV of free cash flows from business assets
NOPAT1 þ NIPAT1 DBVA1 NOPAT2 þ NIPAT2 DBVA2
¼ þ þ ...
The firm’s asset valuation therefore depends on the expected free cash flows from business assets during the fore-
cast horizon, the forecasted terminal value of the free cash flows, and the weighted average cost of capital.
APPENDIX B: RECONCILING THE DISCOUNTED DIVIDENDS,

DISCOUNTED ABNORMAL EARNINGS, AND DISCOUNTED
ABNORMAL EARNINGS GROWTH MODELS
To derive the abnormal earnings model from the dividend discount model, consider the following two-period valu-
ation:
Dividend1 Dividend2
Equity value0 ¼ þ
With clean surplus accounting, dividends (DIV) can be expressed as a function of net profit (NP) and the book
value of equity (BVE):
Dividendt ¼ Net profitt þ BVEt1 BVEt
Substituting this expression into the dividend discount model yields the following:
Net profit1 þ BVE0 BVE1 Net profit2 þ BVE1 BVE2
Equity value0 ¼ þ
This can be rewritten as follows:
Net profit1 re BVE0 þ ð1 þ re ÞBVE0 BVE1
Equity value0 ¼
ð1 þ r e Þ
Net profit2 re BVE1 þ ð1 þ re ÞBVE1 BVE2
þ
ð1 þ r e Þ2
Net profit1 re BVE0 Net profit2 re BVE1 BVE2
¼ BVE0 þ þ 2

ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ ð1 þ r e Þ 2
The value of equity is therefore the current book value plus the present value of future abnormal earnings. As the
forecast horizon expands, the final term (the present value of liquidating book value) becomes inconsequential
under the assumption that the long-term growth in the book value of equity is less than the cost of equity. A simple
and appealing condition under which this assumption holds is when the firm has a constant dividend payout ratio.
To derive the abnormal earnings growth model from the dividend discount model consider the same two-period
dividend model and express dividends in the second (and final) period as a function of net profit and first-period
dividends:
Dividend2 ¼ Net profit2 þ Net profit1 Dividend1
Substituting this expression into the dividend discount model yields the following:
Net profit1 þ Dividend1 Net profit1 Net profit1 þ Net profit2 Dividend1
Equity value0 ¼ þ
This can be rewritten as follows:
Net profit1 Net profit1 ðNet profit1 Dividend1 Þð1 þ re Þ
Equity value0 ¼ þ
ð1 þ r e Þ ð 1 þ r e Þ2 ð 1 þ r e Þ2
ðNet profit2 Dividend1 Þ
þ
ð1 þ r e Þ 2
Net profit1 Net profit1 Net profit2 þ re Dividend1 ð1 þ re ÞNet profit1
¼ þ þ
ð1 þ r e Þ ð 1 þ r e Þ2 ð1 þ r e Þ2
The value of equity is therefore the capitalized value of first-period earnings plus the present value of second-pe-
riod abnormal earnings growth. Note that in contrast to the abnormal earnings model, the abnormal earnings
growth model does not assume clean surplus accounting.
CASE
TomTom’s initial public offering: dud or

nugget?
A pril 2005. Klaas van der Mullen was a bit dumbfounded. He had always put a lot of
trust in the investment banks’ opinions about the technology companies in which he
was interested in investing. However, this time, the analyst’s report was anything but use-
ful. In essence, the author of the report practically acknowledged that he had no clue what
the company was really worth – not a very comforting thought. From his ninth floor office
in Amsterdam, Klaas managed a E500 million portfolio of high-technology, publicly listed
companies. The fund’s core strategy for outperforming its benchmark index was to invest
selectively in the initial public offerings (IPOs) of high-potential companies. This buy-
and-hold approach, often with investment horizons of five to seven years, had proven
quite successful over the years. But, the IPO in front of him seemed to defy all traditional
valuation approaches.
TomTom, a Dutch electronics company, had taken the European navigation market by
storm with a series of recently launched commercial satellite navigation devices, also
known as global positioning systems (GPSs). TomTom pioneered the concept of the fully
integrated, handheld GPS, ready to use out of the box. With its ease of use, TomTom sig-
nificantly enhanced the driving experience and the feeling of security in foreign cities; it
effectively brought GPS to the masses, and its approach facilitated worldwide acceptance.
The global market, which stood at some E800 million in 2004, was set to grow to E5 bil-
lion by 2010. With a 23 percent global market share, TomTom held a commanding lead in
this exciting market.
Overall, the company seemed to have exactly what Klaas was looking for in a potential
investee: It was a technology leader with strong potential in rapidly growing markets. The
pending IPO would finally offer an opportunity to capitalize on TomTom. But was the ini-
tial offering price appropriate? Klaas was puzzled by the extreme range of the valuation
provided by his favorite analyst at Fortis Bank: It valued the company from E1.8 billion to
E3.1 billion. Klaas decided he would have to go through the whole valuation exercise on
his own before deciding whether to invest in the IPO.
Klaas van der Mullen’s track record as investment manager was stellar. Over the years,
his approach to investing had generated peer-beating performances that helped him
increase Assets under Management (AuM) to close to E500 million. The portfolio focused
on high-technology, publicly-listed companies and relied on a proprietary screening
approach, a combination of fundamental and momentum analyses, with a long-term buy-
and-hold approach, to generate superior returns.
One of Klaas’s favorite plays was to invest in IPOs of select technology companies,
where he thought he had two significant advantages. First, he felt he was better able than
anyone else was to analyze the true market potential of new, potentially disruptive technol-
ogies, and second, he had developed exceptional relationships with some of the lead tech-
nology underwriters in Europe over the years. These relationships were based on mutual
respect. Klaas would freely discuss his insights on particular companies about to go public
with the underwriters. In return, they would give him and his fund access to the IPOs they
IMD for the case study ‘‘TomTom’s Initial Public Offering: Dud or Nugget?’’ by Benoit Leleux & Kudzanai
Samushonga, IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland, 12 April 2011, copyright Ó 2009 by IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Reproduced with permission.
The case borrows from and builds on the case ‘‘TomTom: Building and Marketing A New Business Concept’’
(IMD-5-0735) by Dr Dominique Turpin, President and Nestle Professor at IMD.
305

Krishna G BAB 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Krishna G BAB 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Krishna G BAB 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER

7 Prospective Analysis: Valuation

DEFINING VALUE FOR SHAREHOLDERS

Year Dividend PV factor PV of dividend

(a) (b) (a) (b)

THE DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW MODEL

Change in Change in Free cash

THE DISCOUNTED ABNORMAL EARNINGS MODEL

(a) (b) (c) (d) ¼ (b) (c) (e) (d) (e)

Key Analysis Questions

Accounting methods and discounted abnormal earnings

THE DISCOUNTED ABNORMAL EARNINGS GROWTH MODEL

Normal earnings Abnormal earnings PV PV of abnormal

Demonstration Case: Hennes & Mauritz AB

Sales SEK110.0b SEK121.7b SEK135.4b

Ending . . . 2011 realized 2012 expected 2013 expected

Net working capital SEK 15.7b SEK 17.4b SEK 19.3b

VALUATION USING PRICE MULTIPLES

Main issues with multiple-based valuation

Selecting comparable firms

Multiples for firms with poor performance

Adjusting multiples for leverage

Determinants of value-to-book and value-earnings multiples

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Beginning book value E60m E40m E20m

¼ Abnormal ROE scaled by book value growth 0.23 0.43 0.63

¼ PV of abnormal ROE scaled by book value growth 0.212 0.358 0.476

Cumulative PV of abnormal ROE scaled by book 1.046

Company ROE Price-to-book ratio Price-earnings ratio

Benetton 4.9% 0.36 7.36

Key Analysis Questions

SHORTCUT FORMS OF EARNINGS-BASED VALUATION

Abnormal earnings (growth) simplification

ROE and growth simplifications

COMPARING VALUATION METHODS

Focus on different issues

Differences in required structure

Differences in terminal value implications

Key Analysis Questions

Equity value Present value of expected future dividends (DIV):

SUMMARY OF NOTATIONS USED IN THIS CHAPTER

QUESTIONS, EXERCISES, AND PROBLEMS

6 How can a company with a high ROE have a low PE ratio?

7 What types of companies have:

Problem 1 Estimating Hugo Boss’s equity value

Income statement (E millions) 2009E 2010E 2011E

Sales 1548.1 1493.9 1561.2

Balance sheet (E millions) 2008R 2009E 2010E 2011E

Total non-current assets 459.2 480.8 499.1 512.0

Assume that Hugo Boss’s cost of equity equals 12 percent.

Problem 2 Estimating Adidas’s equity value

Income statement (E millions) 2012E 2013E 2014E

Sales 14917.0 15915.8 17029.7

Balance sheet (E millions) 2011R 2012E 2013E 2014E

Fixed assets 4717.0 5273.0 5626.1 6019.9

Other estimates 2011R 2012E 2013E 2014E

Dividends 251.7 311.3 376.6

Assume that Adidas’s cost of equity equals 10 percent.

APPENDIX A: ASSET VALUATION METHODOLOGIES

Abnormal earnings valuation