Problems with Enterprise Value and better valuation techniques
This is a tough question SFun28.  Let's try and debug the metric. First, let's expand upon the notion share price is determined in an efficient market where prospective buyers and sellers have access to info on an enterprises' cash balance and they may weigh that into their decision making.  Therefore, a desirable/undesirable cash balance may raise or lower the share price, to what extent, we do not know.   We must ask How significant is cash/debt balance in determining the market price of a stock?   As you noted, we have limited info, which may decrease the weight of these account balances in our decision process. Using a materiality level of 5% of net income of operations, cash/debt may be immaterial or not considered by an investor. investors oftentimes interpret the same information differently (e.g. Microsoft's large cash balance may show they no longer have innovative ideas worth investing in, or they are well positioned to acquire innovative companies, or weather a contraction in the sector) My guess is a math mind would ignore the affect of account balances on the equity portion of the enterprise value calculation because it may not be a factor, or because the affect is subjective. How you use the metric is super important.   Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'.  It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash.   So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0.  If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless. "From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when   comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings   ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies   that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between   equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then   superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity   investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not   have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not   sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the   market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception   of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued.   Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and   costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare   returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation   (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for   the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the   capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the   outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy   to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making   a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective   estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the   market value of these components. For example, in many professional   valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the   numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should,   therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used   to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and   including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting   period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions   (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or   significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the   reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be   calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital   employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic   multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the   weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is   determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and   debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under ""Technical Considerations"" there and you will see that the ""access to data on cash and debts"" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum." "This is an example from another field, real estate. Suppose you buy a $100,000 house with a 20 percent down payment, or $20,000, and borrow the other $80,000. In this example, your ""equity"" or ""market cap"" is $20,000. But the total value, or ""enterprise value"" of the house, is actually $100,000, counting the $80,000 mortgage.  ""Enterprise value"" is what a buyer would have to pay to own the company or the house ""free and clear,"" counting the debt."
"A Bloomberg terminal connected to Excel provides the value correcting splits, dividends, etc. Problem is it cost around $25,000. Another one which is free and I think that takes care of corporate action is ""quandl.com"". See an example here." It's been awhile since my last finance course, so school me here:  What is the market cap of a company actually supposed to represent? I get that it's the stock price X the # of shares, but what is that actually representing? Revenues? PV of all future revenues? PV of future cash flows?  In any case, good write up. Valuation of tech stocks is quite the gambit, and you've done a good job of dissecting it for a layman. Enterprise Value is supposed to be the price you would be willing to pay to acquire the company. Typically, companies are delivered debt-free and cash-free, so the cash on the balance sheet at the time of the transaction is distributed to the original owners. So, for instance, a company like Apple would have a lower EV than Market Value because the cash on the balance sheet is not going to be included in an acquisition.  And you are right, there are plenty of instances where you see Enterprise Value lower than Market Value (Cap).   If you are solely looking at equity valuation (equity investing), then use market cap. If you are looking at firm valuation for M&amp;A, then EV is more important. Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe. The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more  complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing Well, it also discusses other traditional valuation techniques such as the economic profit model and it has a chapter on real option valuation. But I would not label those exotic valuation methods. However, I would say that the CFA challenge is much about standard valuation methods due to the limited page limit and considering that there should properly also be an analysis of the external and internal environment to determine the future prospects of the given company. "A DCF includes changes in working capital which is a source or use of cash.  I also don't like your characterization of enterprise value as ""cashless"" because it's also ""debtless"".  It's capital structure independent -- just like a DCF is.  **That's the common theme.**" Eh. The valuations are extrapolations based on the value of equity with liquidation rights. Which is fine: if I'm a buyer of that class, I don't really care what the value of common is; I care what the value of that class of equity is.   Bloomberg tries to paint that as some conspiracy, which is ridiculous. The problem is very fundamental. Equity is traded on limit order books while fixed income is not. Meaning counterparty to counterparty, if you buy a bond off say barclays, chances are if you hit them for a price to sell it will be somewhat higher than the market as they do not want you to just take their money.  Putting fixed income on a limit order book could help however there may be fundamental liquidity problems on some smaller issues. Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe. "What you are seeking is termed ""Alpha"", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book ""The Intelligent Investor"" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ ""When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks..."" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth" Thanks for your thorough reply.   Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it.   So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model.   That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares.   I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS? 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. Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment. It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter.  Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends).  One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described.  But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities.  That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that.  We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios.  That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices.  It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.