Why Subtract Cash When We Calculate Enterprise Value

Why do we subtract cash when calculating enterprise value?
Shouldn't we be paying for the cash on hand too? If I am selling my company, why would I pay someone to take my excess cash?

Before we answer this question lets make sure understand what enterprise value is.

What is enterprise value (EV)?

Enterprise Value is a metric that attempts to reflect the current value of a firm similar to other metrics i.e. market capitalization. However, unlike market capitalization, enterprise value is calculated with debt, cash and cash equivalents. This makes enterprise value a "truer metric" than market capitalization. Additionally, enterprise value is also used in used in standard valuation multiples such as Enterprise Value-to-EBITDA.

Enterprise Value Formula

Enterprise value = market capitalization + debt - cash (cash equivalents)

Remember that market capitalization is shares outstanding x current stock price

Explaining enterprise value

You are an investor and you want to buy a publicly traded company. After calculating the market capitalization you realize you can have a more complete picture of the company value. Before buying the company you take into account the potential expense of taking on said companies debt. Obviously, this debt is must be re payed to the lender eventually. However, this company also has some cash reserves. Those cash reserves can be used to pay down the debt mentioned earlier. The difference between cash and debt is then added to market capitalization to produce the enterprise value.

enterprise value calculation example

So now that you understand the enterprise value let's take a look at a simple example of calculating EV.

Company A has a market cap of $10 and it has $5 in cash and $2 in debt. You, the astute investor that you are, want to acquire Company A. Let's pretend you can buy all the shares at the current market cap of $10.

So you bought the company for $10. So far you've spent $10. Still following?

Now you decide to pay down all of the debt, so you use $2 in cash to pay down $2 in debt. Since that cash money already resided in the corporation that you purchased, you didn't have to spend any more money out of your own pocket to pay down the debt. You've still spent just $10.

Now you decide to pay yourself a dividend with the remaining $3 in cash on the company's books. So you pay yourself a $3 dividend. Let me add that you did all of this -- paying down the debt and paying the dividend -- on the same day that you bought the company. So now that you receive $3 in cash, you can subtract that from your purchase price. $10 - $3 = $7 (you can check this math on a calculator). So, your effective purchase price is Market Cap + Debt - Cash, or $7.



Come up with your own simple way to apply this formula. You can throw around as many numbers as you'd like. To really anchor this idea down you have to have an intuitive understanding of the formula. If your still having trouble take a look at the video below.


Preparing for Investment Banking Interviews?

The WSO investment banking interview course is designed by countless professionals with real world experience, tailored to people aspiring to break into the industry. This guide will help you learn how to answer these questions and many, many more.

Investment Banking Interview Course Here

 

You're looking to calculate the VALUE of a company through EV. In broad terms, value of a company is assumed to be the present vale of its future cash flows. The excess cash on the books (not all cash is excess cash) is assumed to be a non-operating asset. It does not aid in generation of future cash flows and therefore does not contribute to value. That is why it is subtracted.

 

Let's assume we have Company A and Company B, same Market cap and debt.

Only difference is Company A has 0 cash and Company B has $500 million free cash. Company B's enterprise value would be LOWER because we have to subtract out cash??

 

It is a non-operating asset, but also accounted for in the equity value...and really we're talking about subtracting excess cash, but it is usually assumed that cash balance is the excess cash.

Think about it from an acquisition perspective, the buyer would get the target company's cash as part of the deal, effectively lowering the price to acquire the firm.

To your point, you could have a negative EV in the case of a large cash balance (a bank, por ejemplo).

 
Best Response

Think about it intuitively, what is EV? EV is the price you have to pay to pay off every stakeholder (i.e. equity and debt holders). Let's say you have company A with 1 $ in equity, 10$ in outstanding loans and 5$ in cash. So, you buy the company for 11$ (1+11) and have 5$ of cash left which you get to pocket, so you effectively only paid 6$ (11-5).

 

Its over complicated by definitions. My understanding is somebody buying out the firm buy both what the business owes to promoters( equity) and what it owes to creditors( debt). So assume i have to pay $ 100 as cash to buy out both. Now when i do so the business is going to come to me with residual cash leftover. Say $10. So i just deduct that and pay the net amount to buy out debt and equity.($90)

 

The cash you pocket would be used to pay off the debt. So the acquisition price (The EV) would be lower since you get a bunch of cash to use to help you pay off all the debt.

If I sell you a pencil and $10 for $15, what are you actually paying for the pencil? (hint- $5)

That help?

"It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed." Theodore Roosevelt
 

I agree with collegekid89 . suppose I just start a company that has only $5 cash. now the market cap will be $5 and cash also $5.

if we go by EV concept, it will have EV = 0. and we will pay 0 to get that company and get $5 for free.

isn;t this wrong ?

 
ankit.agrawal:
I agree with collegekid89 . suppose I just start a company that has only $5 cash. now the market cap will be $5 and cash also $5.

if we go by EV concept, it will have EV = 0. and we will pay 0 to get that company and get $5 for free.

isn;t this wrong ?

I have a lemonade stand except I don't have any lemonade or other assets. All I have is a $5 bill. You come along and buy my "lemonade stand" for $5. What is your net purchase price?

(It's $0).

All I care about in life is accumulating bananas
 
notamonkey:
ankit.agrawal:
I agree with collegekid89 . suppose I just start a company that has only $5 cash. now the market cap will be $5 and cash also $5.

if we go by EV concept, it will have EV = 0. and we will pay 0 to get that company and get $5 for free.

isn;t this wrong ?

I have a lemonade stand except I don't have any lemonade or other assets. All I have is a $5 bill. You come along and buy my "lemonade stand" for $5. What is your net purchase price?

(It's $0).

I got the point, but then while actual selling of the organization there should be some mechanism to freeze the cash or investment after the deal has been closed at a given price.

 

Yes you've found the flaw in the equation and can now profit hugely for it, go and buy apple for $85bn less than its currently valued at, take the money out and sell it for $85bn more, instantly worlds richest person.

cash is usually stripped out of a business when it is sold. it has no value beyond its face reserves, and is included elsewhere in the valuation.

 

I thought I'd give this a go despite the prior valid explanations falling flat for our young apprentice:

Company A has a market cap of $10 and it has $5 in cash and $2 in debt. You, the astute investor that you are, want to acquire Company A. Let's pretend you can buy all the shares at the current market cap of $10.

So you bought the company for $10. So far you've spent $10. Still following?

Now you decide to pay down all of the debt, so you use $2 in cash to pay down $2 in debt. Since that cash money already resided in the corporation that you purchased, you didn't have to spend any more money out of your own pocket to pay down the debt. You've still spent just $10.

Now you decide to pay yourself a dividend with the remaining $3 in cash on the company's books. So you pay yourself a $3 dividend. Let me add that you did all of this -- paying down the debt and paying the dividend -- on the same day that you bought the company. So now that you receive $3 in cash, you can subtract that from your purchase price. $10 - $3 = $7 (you can check this math on a calculator). So, your effective purchase price is Market Cap + Debt - Cash, or $7.

All I care about in life is accumulating bananas
 
notamonkey:
I thought I'd give this a go despite the prior valid explanations falling flat for our young apprentice:

Company A has a market cap of $10 and it has $5 in cash and $2 in debt. You, the astute investor that you are, want to acquire Company A. Let's pretend you can buy all the shares at the current market cap of $10.

So you bought the company for $10. So far you've spent $10. Still following?

Now you decide to pay down all of the debt, so you use $2 in cash to pay down $2 in debt. Since that cash money already resided in the corporation that you purchased, you didn't have to spend any more money out of your own pocket to pay down the debt. You've still spent just $10.

Now you decide to pay yourself a dividend with the remaining $3 in cash on the company's books. So you pay yourself a $3 dividend. Let me add that you did all of this -- paying down the debt and paying the dividend -- on the same day that you bought the company. So now that you receive $3 in cash, you can subtract that from your purchase price. $10 - $3 = $7 (you can check this math on a calculator). So, your effective purchase price is Market Cap + Debt - Cash, or $7.

just to clarify, paying down debt is rarely optional, it's a legal requirement baked into the debt contracts
"After you work on Wall Street it’s a choice, would you rather work at McDonalds or on the sell-side? I would choose McDonalds over the sell-side.” - David Tepper
 

What we are subtracting here is actually Excess Cash; however, we typically make the assumption that a company’s cash balance equals excess cash. Excess cash has been reflected in equity value, and it belongs to Equity Holders. Based on the definition, excess cash is what remains after making payments to all other claimholders. The company will benefit from the excess cash because if they don’t have excess cash, they may have a liquidity crisis in bad times, or may have to raise extra funds at higher costs. Investors will reward those companies that use Excess Cash well, thereby increasing its Market Value.

Envision, create and believe in your own universe, and the universe will form around you. -- Tony Hsieh
 

Think of it as "Net Debt".

Say you have $200M in Equity, $100M in Debt, and $50M in Cash. Therefore:

EV = $200M of Equity + $50M of Net Debt = $250M EV = $200M + $100M - $50M = $250M

Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis - when I was dead broke man I couldn't picture this
 

Is there a difference between cash treatment when calculating EV through FCFF Vs. the EV computed through the trading data available for a listed firm? eg. FCFF will only value operating assets so you'll need to add excess cash (i.e. non operating assets) to equate it to the EV the stock trade is valuing it at. Is this correct?

 

Hopefully this can help collegekid89 three years later...

Lets NOT subtract the cash and see what happens

A company has $5 combined (equity + debt) and then $500 million in excess cash. So you buy the company for $500,000,005. Now you have $500 million in cash lying around. Subtract that from the amount you paid for the company and in reality you only paid $5 for the company.

 

I've read through this entire thing, and it seems like the OP mistakenly considered EV as the purchase price. I thought the same thing too, but I've now learned.

The purchase price is essentially the equity value (market cap), then you won the company. But you have to pay the debt, so you include this in the price. That's it, the price of a company is essentially equity value plus debt since you can't avoid it. Now you won the company. You get its cash too (excess, if any after paying debt) - this offsets against your purchase price, reducing the amount effectively paid, giving you the EV. Think of both debt and cash a part of Equity value, which includes everything.

 

Enterprise value is not a valuation metric per say. It is the all in price to take complete control of the company. You need to buy out everyone that has any interest in the company. All of its shareholders and all of its creditors.

You buy a house for 10 and there's 2 dollars in the living room. The all in cost is 8.

You buy a house for 10 and there's a lien against it for 5. The all in cost is 15.

A company with more debt is more expensive to take over. A company with cash is cheaper to take over.

As a buyer, ceteris parabus you would rather a lower EV the same way you would rather buy the cheaper of two identical houses.

Not ceteris parabus, I would assume a higher EV company is more valuable than a lower EV company the same way I would assume a more expensive house is a better house.

 

Think of it as if you were considering the enterprise value of a wallet. If the wallet was full of USD 100 bills, you would exclude them when valuing the wallet itself, because it does not add any inforamtion (it doesn't tell you if it is cheap or not, it is just a distraction). The EV is the price of just the wallet, whether you paid for it with equity or with debt. The cash it contains is excluded because it does not add information (cash would include not only USD bills but forex bills, bouchers and other things with high "moneyness")

 

Enterprise value represents the value being assigned to the operations of the business, whereas ownership of the business takes into account the value of holding non-operating assets. Let's say we have a restaurant which produces $100 of cash flow per year (no debt) and will do so forever, at a 10% discount rate that stream of cash flows from the business is worth $1,000.

However, this restaurant has $200 in cash and some other excess assets worth $100. The value of owning the business is then $1,300. So if this company traded publicly, you'd see the price of the shares as $1,300, or 13x cash flow. But the market isn't actually valuing the business at 13x cash flow - it's valuing it at only 10x cash flow, then adding in the value of the assets you would own if you bought the business but aren't required to operate it. The market cap of a company which you observe should reflect the value of the business itself as well as any other assets that come along for the ride.

If you think about it intuitively like this I think it should make sense. You'll also realize that by cash, in theory we mean excess cash, because some level of cash is actually required to run the business day-to-day. Also, you wouldn't just subtract cash, you would subtract any assets the firm owns but aren't required to run the business.

 

dk24 - think your question should read 'why do you subtract cash from enterprise value WHEN MOVING FROM equity value TO ENTERPRISE VALUE'

Few definitions: -Enterprise value = value regardless of capital structure -equity value = value to equity holders, who own all of the cash

Thus, when moving from equity value to enterprise value, cash is subtracted, b/c enterprise value is independent of capital structure (as mentioned above). Point is to keep in mind that cash has already been added to equity value

Does this make sense?

 

Given that Enterprise Value is not exactly the price paid by an acquirer, but rather the total value of the operations of a firm, we subtract Excess Cash and all other Non-Operating Assets because:

as the definition of Enterprise Value says, we are valuing only Operating Assets; Excess Cash is not an Operating Asset and is implicitly accounted for in the Equity Value; therefore, we need to subtract it (together with all other Non-Operating Assets) when calculating Enterprise Value.

The reason therefore is not because we assume to pay off debt with it (the concept of net debt), since not all debt can be retired prior to maturity and since, if it can be retired, this will usually include prepayment fees (thus cash cannot be netted against debt). This assumption is conceptually and mathematically wrong.

With regards to the price paid by the acquirer, this usually has as a floor the Equity Value. Debt is added to the purchase price only if it is refinanced (take out new debt and repay the old one) or paid off by the buyer (with his own cash). If, instead, the buyer decides to assume (keep) the debt, this will not add up to the effective payment. Additionally, we should include potential premiums, transaction fees, unfunded pensions, capital leases, debt repayment fees etc. Also, unlike in the EV calculation where we take out all Non-Operating Assets, we should subtract only Cash from the purchase price (since we are paying cash with cash). Obviously, we have to pay for the other Non-Operating Assets such as properties, investments etc.

 

If cash is deducted because is it equated for in equity value then why is debt still added when it to is a non operating expense and equated for in the equity value? I get the logic behind the net debt part but to say that is one of the reasons to deduct cash seems illogical when you think about the debt part of the equation in the same theory. Obviously debtors must be satisfied and the cash can help pay that debt. But the first part of why cash is deducted just doesn't seem logical.

 

This is how I think of it:

If the company is acquired on a "cash-free, debt-free basis" then the debt is paid down before the transfer of ownership (tricky because of prepayment penalties), and the cash is stripped out of the business.

Example 1:

Equity Value = $40, Total Debt = $0, Excess Cash = $35 (NOT purchased on a 'debt-free, cash-free basis). The buyer is effectively paying the EV of the company, $5 ($40 + $0 - $35). $35 of the $40 Equity Value is cash. The $5 is the remainder which can theoretically reflect thousands of things, hard assets, growth prospects, future cash-flows, etc. $40 is paid by the buyer, but he/she receives a business with $35 sitting in it.

Example 2:

Equity Value = $40, Total Debt = $20, Excess Cash = $35 (the company IS purchased on a 'debt-free, cash-free basis). Because the company IS purchased on a 'debt-free, cash-free basis', the existing owner is required to pay down the debt, and strip the company of its excess cash balance. Because of this, the buyer must compensate the seller to do this (pay down the debt). The purchase price effectively becomes the Enterprise Value at this point. $40 + $20 - $35 = $25. The owner uses $20 of the proceeds to pay down the debt (debt-free basis), and strips the company of its $35 in cash (cash-free basis). The buyer has paid $25 for a debt-free cash-free balance sheet. If we change the cash balance to $0, the price paid becomes $60 ($40 + $20), and again, the new owner has a debt-free balance sheet.

The assumption within the above is that there is no prepayment penalty on the debt.

 

Fugit ut rerum nihil sunt officia quidem maxime. Officiis et voluptas voluptates dicta aut quia sed. Ipsam quia et explicabo ab consequatur. Non explicabo maxime autem et inventore atque aut. Commodi aut veniam assumenda commodi odit quibusdam quibusdam. Autem adipisci sed sit et rerum reiciendis.

Quisquam omnis recusandae quisquam similique ratione. Perspiciatis minima quo quisquam. Nulla exercitationem itaque officiis quae vel autem. Ipsum sapiente beatae itaque velit perferendis.

Rerum molestias et cupiditate fugiat saepe consequatur. Qui eos asperiores nobis et ut non magni. Vero recusandae ut quo ea earum occaecati. Ullam molestiae ex excepturi mollitia.

 

Eos molestiae ab sapiente accusantium maiores accusamus vel. Unde omnis cupiditate ipsam voluptas eos aut est.

Sint non sint eaque non. Omnis velit voluptatem commodi dolorum iste. Voluptas nemo rerum assumenda est est dolor. Aut veniam hic sed repudiandae sunt quaerat ea.

Et et in eaque animi laboriosam. Nesciunt laborum cumque id asperiores aut molestias. Eos quis qui omnis quod rerum aliquam suscipit asperiores.

 

Vel corrupti qui exercitationem veniam. Dolor laborum exercitationem vel officia rem dolorem. Corporis quidem aliquam reprehenderit esse dolores. Nisi consequuntur qui ex iure sit voluptatum voluptas.

Assumenda molestiae commodi ut sit consectetur est. Eveniet eveniet quasi animi neque nihil. Doloremque distinctio dolorem quae reiciendis officia eius. Aliquid omnis qui facere odio iste.

Doloremque et aspernatur eaque sed perspiciatis laborum. Magni vero atque veritatis ratione sequi. Aliquid exercitationem suscipit sit temporibus quam omnis. Architecto quaerat id cupiditate vel necessitatibus deleniti.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”