I have found EVA
(Economic Value Added) measurement to be superior in many ways compared to free
cash flow when it comes to evaluating whether a stock of a company is
attractive or not. For one thing, and it is a big issue, we just simply don’t
know whether it’s a good or a bad thing when free cash flow increases this
year. I have found that it is true, just as the theory says, improvement in EVA
is good for stocks. That is because EVA is the only measure that more is better
than less. That is because EVA has a special relationship with NPV. With its
accompanying ratios proposed by Bennett Stewart, it is just that powerful for
me as an investor looking for opportunities to invest. I am proud to say that I
do not make spreadsheets and financial models just for formality or brain
exercise. The insight gained from a spreadsheet focusing on EVA is real.
But for all its
prowess, I still have an issue that is troubling me. Namely, all of EVA
examples that I have read is done, whether implicitly or explicitly, by
assuming perpetuity. What about those cases in all of corporate finance
textbooks where the projection is finite and cash flows vary? You can’t just simply multiply the
investment by cost of capital, right? That would implicitly assume perpetuity.
So one day, I decided to sharpen my pencil. I think I have found the answer
when I get the sum of present value of EVA equals NPV.
Suppose that an
investment of USD 1.000 today is needed to bring a projected 5-year cash
flows as follows:
Year 1 USD 250
Year 2 USD 325
Year 3 USD 175
Year 4 USD 230
Year 5 USD 350
If the cost of
capital is 6%, is the investment worth it? How does EVA reconciles with NPV?
First, EVA needs
an Equivalent Uniform Calculations.
First, let’s
calculate NPV in the traditional way. Discount them at 6% and the cumulative
Present Value of 5-year benefit is USD 1.115,75
Minus The PV of
investment USD 1.000
NPV is 115,75.
The investment is worthwhile because it is positive NPV. It adds to the owner
wealth and should be taken.
Now let’s see how
PV of EVA is in fact NPV. But it is a far more superior performance metric than
cash flow.
In order to
calculate EVA in finite-lived projection, EVA needs a Uniform Equivalent adjustment.
This is easily done using financial calculator. At the heart of EVA calculation
is spreading investment cost over time, not deducting investment cost in just
one period. So the crucial concept to grasp is we have to match the life of
benefit with the life of the cost. We will need to put into practice the
calculation of uniform equivalent to do that for finite-lived projection.
Uniform equivalent in short, is spreading over the lump sum number over a
period of time with the same amount. To calculate uniform equivalent benefit
and cost, we will need cumulative present value that we just calculated. Here’s
how you do it using financial calculator.
The uniform
annual equivalent benefit is USD 264,87 (PV=1115,75; N=5; I/Y=6%)
The uniform
annual equivalent cost is USD 237,40 (PV=1000; N=5; I/Y=6%)
EVA is just the
difference (264,87 – 237,40). EVA = USD 27,47. This is the number that can be
used as a benchmark. Line teams are responsible to at least get this number for
5 years.
Back to NPV. As I
said, the present value of EVA is NPV. Let’s see how. EVA of USD 27,47 is being
generated over 5-years..so, at a cost of capital of 6%, its cumulative EVA is
115,75 (PMT=27,47; N=5; I/Y=6%). The same NPV calculated using traditional cash
flow. It all checks out.
Now, EVA of USD
27,47 could be used as performance benchmark for annual progress review and
bonus compensation. EVA encourages line teams to be rewarded when they get more
EVA (> USD 27,47) and penalized when EVA is less. Investors can be confident
that management is increasing their wealth in the company when EVA increases.
As a benchmark, it is also very useful in one other thing: If EVA this year
turns out to be negative, it is a very good indication that the operation is
destroying shareholders’ value.
Comments
Post a Comment