Isn't the subtraction of deprecation and amortization redundant in the calculation of Owner's Earnings?
"This formula is not calculating ""Earnings"".  Instead, it is calculating ""Free Cash Flow from Operations"". As the original poster notes, the ""Earnings"" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization.  The ""Free Cash Flow from Operations"" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:"
I cannot imagine an organizer being worth enough to consider depreciating the expense over a period of time greater than one year. Also, once you write in an organizer, it's pretty much worthless to anyone else. Talk to your accountant if you'd like, but I cannot see how you would classify a fancy organizer as a fixed asset. However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged. It's one of those things where it was meant, economically, for the first purpose (opportunity cost) but has been used by big corporations for the later since you have to have international divisions to really even make it work (to some degree it does on the state level; however, the tax breaks aren't really big enough for it to make sense since the Federal is the big one).   It's also a huge reason why big corps have such low effective domestic tax rates on big profits and why the government is debating about restructuring tax law to prevent most forms of FTP'ing (you'd pay taxes on Gross Income essentially. It gets MUCH more complicated than that but France effectively does this now).  Also, it's very much an accounting thing, and accountants tend not to have a big seat at the table. Hence, the reasoning behind stuff often get lost on upper mgmt (or they fire the accountant, etc.). That's a BIG part of why it often makes things worse even when when the principal makes sense economically... You may be able to choose.  As a small business, you can expense certain depreciable assets (section 179).  But by choosing to depreciate the asset, you are also increasing the cost-basis of the property.  Are you planning to sell the property in the next couple of years?  Do you need a higher basis? Section 179 - Election to expense certain depreciable business assets As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so. Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it. "Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question ""Where is the value of the company coming from?""  This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments.  In the current moment, it can also be defined as ""Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses"" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of ""Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)"", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc.  Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts.  At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense.  However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances.  When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: ""How much is the company worth at this moment?"", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out.  In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for.  This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity.  This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out.  The account which represents X in gnucash is called ""Equity"", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years.  While the name would more accurately be called ""Starting Equity"", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named ""Equity""." Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&amp;E to fair value.  So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900. Hey, no worries at all. Like any business practice there are proper uses and abuses. First and foremost, companies should engage in allocation of capital that best serves their uses given prospects of 'returns' in a broad sense (this could very well include employee remuneration). After that, all excess funds should be distributed (through buybacks or dividends).   There is without a doubt overincentivizing going on (i.e. buybacks preceding prudent capex or other investments) to boost C-suite pay. In other cases it is actually used to hide declining performance altogether (declining earnings compensated by decreasing outstanding shares). This is simply poor management using these tools. They would have most likely used others were these not made available to them (e.g underpaying/understaffing).   It's an investors job to allocate capital that rewards good management practice. The problem is that this is an ideal made harder by obfuscation on the part of management, lack of governance and even the rise of passive management among others.   I'm in private equity myself (with a strong focus on prudence and longevity of companies), so these are considerations that go without saying. I'm sometimes quite astonished what public companies get away with, but you can't blame tools for being used poorly or being available. Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's.   Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple? "Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it.  Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life  In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet.  Here is a schedule of the depreciation:  * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m  See, can't get much easier than that!  Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows.  You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a ""cash expense"" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project.  Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations.  I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions.  Good Luck!" "A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB.   What a lot of professionals do is ""reverse"" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for:  - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant  The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm" Ok - what's your starting point?  Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value?  Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt.  If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value.  If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt.  If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes.  Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question.  Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure. Securities or quite a few negotiable instruments can change title of ownership without any issue. Many at times the owner ship in implicit if you are holding a certain instrument. So for example in Stock its a fractional ownership in a company, this ownership transfers to the buyer from the seller without requiring any permission from the company.   In case of say Loans, One cannot transfer the loan to some one else without the Banks permission. i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&amp;1 and see if it is net or still to be included.