Equity valuation: Do HFs always use multiples?
A quick question for those who work(ed) at equity-focused hedge funds. When you're trying to determine what a stock is worth, do you generally use multiples (whether EBITDA based or EPS based) or do you actually use DCF in any meaningful way? And do technique like sum of the parts come into play in unique situations like potential sale or breakup? I ask because there are so many methods that are taught in schools/textbooks and could be used in theory, but from the few presentations that I've seen the "smart" money put out, the multiple method dominates.
Thanks for any help!
Depends on the context. Sometimes, using a DCF may not be useful as the company is still burning through cash (i.e., biotechs). So at that point, the sum-of-the-parts analysis definitely takes precedence. Comps and ratio multiple valuation (i.e., P/S, EV/REVENUE, EV/EBITDA) may also be important, but again, depends on the industry and company in question.
Can anyone help out on my equity valuation? (Originally Posted: 09/04/2014)
I'm currently working on an equity research report for a tech company (think auction site) for a possible job interview, and I've hit a roadblock in the valuation. I have the three major financial statements in Excel, and plan on using DCF as my primary method supported by a multiples approach. I'm stuck with growth assumptions - how do I forecast sales growth, should I forecast COGS as well, and how do I flow the growth assumptions down to FCF?
I have an Excel file to share for anyone who can help - I'd really appreciate it since this is for a role that I've really been working the past few years for. Thanks in advance.
you should come up with some assumptions on which you base forecasts for both sales and COGS and be able to defend your reasoning.
i don't understand the second question. the FCFs for each year will reflect your growth assumptions
I derived the FCFF starting with CFO, but the CFO itself has to go through so many adjustments starting with net income. However net income in past years is distorted due to non-recurring items, so how do you account for that? The link between sales and net income can be muddied up, if that makes any sense. Therefore, whatever sales growth projection I have would have to account for non-recurring items?
I've made some progress so far...can anyone take a look and provide some feedback?
for the non recurring items, remove them, so the Opt Cashflow and ultimately the free cashflow will flow through the net income WITHOUT the non-recurring items (call it adjusted net-income if you want).... and DO NOT use the non-recurring items in the projections so that should take care of that issue....as for the links between the sales and net-income issue, personally I would use the McKinsey approach so the re-organized statements EBITA, NOPLAT, Invested Capital, FCFF, will ignore the non-recurring items and concentrate on the operations of the business
Labore qui in sed fugit praesentium sapiente quasi voluptatem. Est tenetur eius et culpa sequi. Sint sapiente unde nesciunt. Laboriosam est voluptate saepe. Et quia aut voluptas repellendus.
Animi animi placeat facilis iste. Pariatur quis non sit. Provident tempora provident reprehenderit sed. Quidem placeat similique ut veritatis amet repellendus voluptatem autem.
Quam quisquam consequuntur accusamus. Et sed suscipit ea sit voluptatem ea magnam. Nihil voluptatibus in ipsam consequatur quisquam. Sint esse veritatis sint soluta perferendis dolorum aut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...