The book value of the company’s equity is equal to the total amount that the company has raised from its shareholders or retained and reinvested on their behalf. If the company has been successful in adding value, the market value of the equity will be higher than the book value. So investors are likely to look favorably on the managers of firms that have a high ratio of market to book value and to frown upon firms whose market value is less than book value. Of course, the market to book ratio does not tell you just how much richer the shareholders have become. Take the General Electric Company, for example. At the end of 1997 the book value of GE’s equity was $59 billion, but investors valued its shares at $255 billion. So every dollar that GE invested on behalf of
its shareholders had increased 4.3 times in value (255/59 = 4.3). The difference between the market value of GE’s shares and its book value is often called the market value added. GE had added $255 – $59 = $196 billion to the equity capital that it had invested.
Each year Fortune Magazine publishes a ranking of 1,000 firms in terms of their
market value added. Table A.15 shows the companies at the top and bottom of Fortune’s list and, for comparison, Pepsi. You can see that General Electric heads the list in terms of market value added. General Motors trails the field: the market value of GM’s shares was $14 billion less than the amount of shareholders’ money that GM had invested.
Measures of company performance that are based on market values have two disadvantages. First, the market value of the company’s shares reflects investor expectations.
Investors placed a high value on General Electric’s shares partly because they believed that its management would continue to find profitable investments in the future. Second, market values cannot be used to judge the performance of companies that are privately owned or the performance of divisions or plants that are part of larger companies. Therefore, financial managers also calculate accounting measures of performance.
Think again of how a firm creates value for its investors. It can either invest in new plant and equipment or it can return the cash to investors, who can then invest the money for themselves by buying stocks and bonds in the capital market. The return that investors could expect to earn if they invested in the capital market is called the cost of capital. A firm that earns more than the cost of capital makes its investors better off: it is earning them a higher return than they could obtain for themselves. A firm that earns less than the cost of capital makes investors worse off: they could earn a higher return simply by investing their cash in the capital market. Naturally, therefore, financial managers are concerned whether the firm’s return on its assets exceeds or falls short of the
cost of capital. Look, for example, at the third column of Table A.15, which shows the return on assets for our sample of companies. Microsoft had the highest return on assets at nearly 53 percent. Since the cost of capital for Microsoft was probably around 14 percent, each dollar invested by Microsoft was earning almost four times the return that investors could have expected by investing in the capital market.
Let us work out how much this amounted to. Microsoft’s total capital in 1997 was $7.2 billion. With a return of 53 percent, it earned profits on this figure of 53 × 7.2 = $3.8 billion. The total cost of the capital employed by Microsoft was about .14 × 7.2 =$1.0 billion. So after deducting the cost of capital, Microsoft earned 3.8 – 1.0 = $2.8 billion. This is called Microsoft’s residual income. It is also known as economic value added, or EVA, a term coined by the consultancy firm Stern Stewart, which has done much to develop and promote the concept.
The final column of Table A.15 shows the economic value added for our sample of large companies. You can see, for example, that while GE has a far lower return on assets than Microsoft, the two companies are close in terms of EVA. This is partly because GE was less risky and investors did not require such a high return, but also because GE had far more dollars invested than Microsoft. General Motors is the laggard in the EVA stakes. Its positive return on assets indicates that the company earned a profit after deducting out-of-pocket costs. But this profit is calculated before deducting the cost of capital. GM’s residual income (or EVA) was negative at –$4.1 billion. Residual income or EVA is a better measure of a company’s performance than accounting profits. Profits are calculated after deducting all costs except the cost of capital. EVA recognizes that companies need to cover their cost of capital before they add value. If a plant or division is not earning a positive EVA, its management is likely
to face some pointed questions about whether the assets could be better employed elsewhere or by fresh management. Therefore, a growing number of firms now calculate EVA and tie managers’ compensation to it.
The Role of Financial Ratios In this material we have encountered a number of measures of a firm’s financial position. Many of these were in the form of ratios; some, such as market value added and economic value added, were measured in dollars.
Before we leave the topic it might be helpful to emphasize the role of such accounting measures. Whenever two managers get together to discuss the state of the business, there is a good bet that they will refer to financial ratios. Let’s drop in on two conversations.
Conversation 1. The CEO was musing out loud: “How are we going to finance this expansion? Would the banks be happy to lend us the $30 million that we need?”
“I’ve been looking into that,” the financial manager replies. “Our current debt ratio is. If we borrow the full cost of the project, the ratio would be about .45. When we took out our last loan from the bank, we agreed that we would not allow our debt ratio to get above 5. So if we borrow to finance this project, we wouldn’t have much leeway to respond to possible emergencies. Also, the rating agencies currently give our bonds an investment-grade rating. They too look at a company’s leverage when they rate its bonds. I have a table here (Table A.16) which shows that, when firms are highly leveraged, their bonds receive a lower rating. I don’t know whether the rating agencies would downgrade our bonds if our debt ratio increased to .45, but they might. That wouldn’t please our existing bondholders, and it could raise the cost of any new borrowing.
“We also need to think about our interest cover, which is beginning to look a bit thin. Debt interest is currently covered three times and, if we borrowed the entire $30 million, interest cover would fall to about two times. Sure, we expect to earn additional profits on the new investment but it could be several years before they come through. If we run into a recession in the meantime, we could find ourselves short of cash.”
“Sounds to me as if we should be thinking about a possible equity issue,” concluded the CEO.
Conversation 2. The CEO was not in the best of moods after his humiliating defeat at the company golf tournament by the manager of the packaging division: “I see our stock was down again yesterday,” he growled. “It’s now selling below book value and the stock price is only six times earnings. I work my socks off for this company; you would think that our stockholders would show a little more gratitude.”
“I think I can understand a little of our shareholders’ worries,” the financial manager replies. “Just look at our return on assets. It’s only 6 percent, well below the cost of capital. Sure we are making a profit, but that profit does not cover the cost of the funds that investors provide. Our economic value added is actually negative. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the assets could be used better elsewhere, but we should certainly be looking carefully at whether any of our divisions should be sold off or the assets redeployed.
“In some ways we’re in good shape. We have very little short-term debt and our current assets are three times our current liabilities. But that’s not altogether good news because it also suggests that we may have more working capital than we need. I’ve been looking at our main competitors. They turn over their inventory 12 times a year compared with our figure of just 8 times. Also, their customers take an average of 45 days to pay their bills. Ours take 67. If we could just match their performance on these two measures, we would release $300 million that could be paid out to shareholders.”
“Perhaps we could talk more about this tomorrow,” said the CEO. “In the meantime I intend to have a word with the production manager about our inventory levels and with the credit manager about our collections policy. You’ve also got me thinking about whether we should sell off our packaging division. I’ve always worried about the divisional manager there. Spends too much time practicing his backswing and not enough worrying about his return on assets.”
its shareholders had increased 4.3 times in value (255/59 = 4.3). The difference between the market value of GE’s shares and its book value is often called the market value added. GE had added $255 – $59 = $196 billion to the equity capital that it had invested.
Each year Fortune Magazine publishes a ranking of 1,000 firms in terms of their
market value added. Table A.15 shows the companies at the top and bottom of Fortune’s list and, for comparison, Pepsi. You can see that General Electric heads the list in terms of market value added. General Motors trails the field: the market value of GM’s shares was $14 billion less than the amount of shareholders’ money that GM had invested.
Measures of company performance that are based on market values have two disadvantages. First, the market value of the company’s shares reflects investor expectations.
Investors placed a high value on General Electric’s shares partly because they believed that its management would continue to find profitable investments in the future. Second, market values cannot be used to judge the performance of companies that are privately owned or the performance of divisions or plants that are part of larger companies. Therefore, financial managers also calculate accounting measures of performance.
Think again of how a firm creates value for its investors. It can either invest in new plant and equipment or it can return the cash to investors, who can then invest the money for themselves by buying stocks and bonds in the capital market. The return that investors could expect to earn if they invested in the capital market is called the cost of capital. A firm that earns more than the cost of capital makes its investors better off: it is earning them a higher return than they could obtain for themselves. A firm that earns less than the cost of capital makes investors worse off: they could earn a higher return simply by investing their cash in the capital market. Naturally, therefore, financial managers are concerned whether the firm’s return on its assets exceeds or falls short of the
cost of capital. Look, for example, at the third column of Table A.15, which shows the return on assets for our sample of companies. Microsoft had the highest return on assets at nearly 53 percent. Since the cost of capital for Microsoft was probably around 14 percent, each dollar invested by Microsoft was earning almost four times the return that investors could have expected by investing in the capital market.
Let us work out how much this amounted to. Microsoft’s total capital in 1997 was $7.2 billion. With a return of 53 percent, it earned profits on this figure of 53 × 7.2 = $3.8 billion. The total cost of the capital employed by Microsoft was about .14 × 7.2 =$1.0 billion. So after deducting the cost of capital, Microsoft earned 3.8 – 1.0 = $2.8 billion. This is called Microsoft’s residual income. It is also known as economic value added, or EVA, a term coined by the consultancy firm Stern Stewart, which has done much to develop and promote the concept.
The final column of Table A.15 shows the economic value added for our sample of large companies. You can see, for example, that while GE has a far lower return on assets than Microsoft, the two companies are close in terms of EVA. This is partly because GE was less risky and investors did not require such a high return, but also because GE had far more dollars invested than Microsoft. General Motors is the laggard in the EVA stakes. Its positive return on assets indicates that the company earned a profit after deducting out-of-pocket costs. But this profit is calculated before deducting the cost of capital. GM’s residual income (or EVA) was negative at –$4.1 billion. Residual income or EVA is a better measure of a company’s performance than accounting profits. Profits are calculated after deducting all costs except the cost of capital. EVA recognizes that companies need to cover their cost of capital before they add value. If a plant or division is not earning a positive EVA, its management is likely
to face some pointed questions about whether the assets could be better employed elsewhere or by fresh management. Therefore, a growing number of firms now calculate EVA and tie managers’ compensation to it.
The Role of Financial Ratios In this material we have encountered a number of measures of a firm’s financial position. Many of these were in the form of ratios; some, such as market value added and economic value added, were measured in dollars.
Before we leave the topic it might be helpful to emphasize the role of such accounting measures. Whenever two managers get together to discuss the state of the business, there is a good bet that they will refer to financial ratios. Let’s drop in on two conversations.
Conversation 1. The CEO was musing out loud: “How are we going to finance this expansion? Would the banks be happy to lend us the $30 million that we need?”
“We also need to think about our interest cover, which is beginning to look a bit thin. Debt interest is currently covered three times and, if we borrowed the entire $30 million, interest cover would fall to about two times. Sure, we expect to earn additional profits on the new investment but it could be several years before they come through. If we run into a recession in the meantime, we could find ourselves short of cash.”
“Sounds to me as if we should be thinking about a possible equity issue,” concluded the CEO.
Conversation 2. The CEO was not in the best of moods after his humiliating defeat at the company golf tournament by the manager of the packaging division: “I see our stock was down again yesterday,” he growled. “It’s now selling below book value and the stock price is only six times earnings. I work my socks off for this company; you would think that our stockholders would show a little more gratitude.”
“I think I can understand a little of our shareholders’ worries,” the financial manager replies. “Just look at our return on assets. It’s only 6 percent, well below the cost of capital. Sure we are making a profit, but that profit does not cover the cost of the funds that investors provide. Our economic value added is actually negative. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the assets could be used better elsewhere, but we should certainly be looking carefully at whether any of our divisions should be sold off or the assets redeployed.
“In some ways we’re in good shape. We have very little short-term debt and our current assets are three times our current liabilities. But that’s not altogether good news because it also suggests that we may have more working capital than we need. I’ve been looking at our main competitors. They turn over their inventory 12 times a year compared with our figure of just 8 times. Also, their customers take an average of 45 days to pay their bills. Ours take 67. If we could just match their performance on these two measures, we would release $300 million that could be paid out to shareholders.”
“Perhaps we could talk more about this tomorrow,” said the CEO. “In the meantime I intend to have a word with the production manager about our inventory levels and with the credit manager about our collections policy. You’ve also got me thinking about whether we should sell off our packaging division. I’ve always worried about the divisional manager there. Spends too much time practicing his backswing and not enough worrying about his return on assets.”
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий