DCF Myth 1: If you have a D(discount rate) and a CF (cash flow), you have a DCF!

Mod Note (Andy) - as the year comes to an end we're reposting the top discussions from 2015, this one ranks #35 and was originally posted 2/24/2015.

Earlier this year, I started my series on discounted cash flow valuations (DCF) with a post that listed ten common myths in DCF and promised to do a post on each one over the course of the year. This is the first of that series and I will use it to challenge the widely held misconception that all you need to arrive at a DCF value is a D(iscount rate) and expected C(ash)F(lows). In this post, I will take a tour of what I would term twisted DCFs, where you have the appearance of a discounted cash flow valuation, without any of the consistency or philosophy.

The Consistency Tests for DCF



In my initial post on discounted cash flow valuation, I set up the single equation that underlies all of discounted cash flow valuation:
For this equation to deliver a reasonable estimate of value, it is imperative that it meets three consistency tests:
1. Unit consistency: A DCF first principle is that your cash flows have to defined in the same terms and unit as your discount rate. Specifically, this shows up in four tests:
  • Equity versus Business (Firm): If the cash flows are after debt payments (and thus cash flows to equity), the discount rate used has to reflect the return required by those equity investors (the cost of equity), given the perceived risk in their equity investments. If the cash flows are prior to debt payments (cash flows to the business or firm), the discount rate used has to be a weighted average of what your equity investors want and what your lenders (debt holders) demand or a cost of funding the entire business (cost of capital).
  • Pre-tax versus Post-tax: If your cash flows are pre-tax (post-tax), your discount rate has to be pre-tax (post-tax). It is worth noting that when valuing companies, we look at cash flows after corporate taxes and prior to personal taxes and discount rates are defined consistently. This gets tricky when valuing pass-through entities, which pay no taxes but are often required to pass through their income to investors who then get taxed at individual tax rates, and I looked at this question in my post on pass-through entities.
  • Nominal versus Real: If your cash flows are computed without incorporating inflation expectations, they are real cash flows and have to be discounted at a real discount rate. If your cash flows incorporate an expected inflation rate, your discount rate has to incorporate the same expected inflation rate.
  • Currency: If your cash flows are in a specific currency, your discount rate has to be in the same currency. Since currency is primarily a conduit for expected inflation, choosing a high inflation currency (say the Brazilian Reai) will give you a higher discount rate and higher expected growth and should leave value unchanged.
2. Input consistency: The value of a company is a function of three key components, its expected cash flows, the expected growth in these cash flows and the uncertainty you feel about whether these cash flows will be delivered. A discounted cash flow valuation requires assumptions about all three variables but for it to be defensible, the assumptions that you make about these variables have to be consistent with each other. The best way to illustrate this point is what I call the valuation triangle:
I am not suggesting that these relationships always have to hold, but when you do get an exception (high growth with low risk and low reinvestment), you are looking at an unusual company that requires justification and even in that company, there has to be consistency at some point in time.
3. Narrative consistency: In posts last year, I argued that a good valuation connected narrative to numbers. A good DCF valuation has to follow the same principles and the numbers have to be consistent with the story that you are telling about a company’s future and the story that you are telling has to be plausible, given the macroeconomic environment you are predicting, the market or markets that the company operates in and the competition it faces. 

The DCF Hall of Shame



Many of the DCFs that I see passed around in acquisition valuations, appraisal and accounting  don’t pass these consistency tests. In fact, at the risk of being labeled a DCF snob, I have taken to classifying these  defective DCFs into seven groups:
  1. The Chimera DCF: In mythology, a chimera is usually depicted as a lion, with the head of a goat arising from his back, and a tail that might end with a snake's head. A DCF valuation that mixes dollar cash flows with peso discount rates, nominal cash flows with real costs of capital and cash flows before debt payments with costs of equity is violating basic consistency rules and qualifies as a Chimera DCF. It is useless, no matter how much work went into estimating the cash flows and discount rates. While it is possible that these inconsistencies are the result of deliberate intent (where you are trying to justify an unjustifiable value), they are more often the result of sloppiness and too many analysts working on the same valuation, with division of labor run amok.
  2. The Dreamstate DCF: It is easy to build amazing companies on spreadsheets, making outlandish assumptions about growth and operating margins over time. With attribution to Elon

    Musk, I could take a small, money losing automobile company, forecast enough revenue

    growth to get its revenues to $350 billion in ten years (about $100 billion higher than  Toyota or Volkswagen, the largest automobile companies today), increase operating margins to 10% by the tenth year (giving it the margins of  premium auto makers) and make it a low risk, high growth company at that point (allowing it to trade at 20 times earnings at the end of year 10), all on a spreadsheet. Dreamstate DCFs are usually the result of a combination of hubris and static analysis, where you assume that you act correctly and no one else does.

  3. The Dissonant DCF: When assumptions about growth, risk and cash flows are not consistent with each other, with little or no explanation given for the mismatch, you have a DCF valuation

    where the assumptions are at war with each other and your valuation error will reflect the input

    dissonance. An analyst who assumes high growth with low risk and low reinvestment will get too high a value, and one who assumes low growth with high risk and high reinvestment will get too low a value.  I attributed dissonant DCFs to the natural tendency of analysts to focus on one variable at a time and tweak it, when in fact changes in one variable (say, growth) affect the other variables in your assessment. In addition, if you have a bias (towards a higher or lower value), you will find a variable to change that will deliver the result you want.

  4. The Trojan Horse (or Drag Queen) DCF: It is undeniable that the biggest number in a DCF is the terminal value, and for it to remain a DCF (a measure of intrinsic value), that number has to be estimated in one of two ways. The first is to assume that your cash flows will continue

    beyond the terminal year, growing at a constant rate forever (or for a finite period) and the second is to assume liquidation, with the liquidation proceeds representing your terminal value. There are many DCFs, though, where the terminal value is estimated by applying a multiple to the terminal year’s revenues, book value or earnings and that multiple (PE, EV/Sales, EV/EBITDA) comes from how comparable firms are being priced right now. Just as the Greeks used a wooden horse to smuggle soldiers into Troy, analysts are using the Trojan horse of expected cash flows (during the estimation period) to smuggle in a pricing. One reason analysts feel the urge to disguise their pricing as DCF valuations is a reluctance to admit that you are playing the pricing game.

  5. The Kabuki of For-show DCF: The last three decades have seen an explosion in valuations for legal and accounting purposes. Since neither the courts nor accounting rule writers have a clear

    sense of what they want as output from this process (and it has little to do with fair value), and there are generally no transactions that ride on the numbers (making them "show" valuations), you get checkbox or rule-driven valuation. In its most pristine form, these valuations are works of art, where analyst and rule maker (or court) go through the motions of valuation, with the intent of developing models that are legally or accounting-rule defensible rather than yielding reasonable values. Until we resolve the fundamental contradiction of asking practitioners to price assets, while also asking them to deliver DCF models that back the prices, we will see more and more Kabuki DCFs.

  6. The Robo DCF: In a Robo DCF, the analyst build a valuation almost entirely from the most recent financial statements and automated forecasts. In its most extreme form, every input in a

    Robo DCF can be traced to an external source, with equity risk premiums from Ibbotson or Duff and Phelps, betas from Bloomberg and cash flows from Factset, coming together in the model to deliver a value. Given that computers are much better followers of rigid and automated rules than human beings can, it is not surprising that many services (Bloomberg, Morningstar) have created their own versions of Robo DCFs to do intrinsic valuations. In fact, you could probably create an app for a smartphone or tablet that could do valuations for you..

  7. The Mutant DCF: In its scariest form, a DCF can be just a collection of numbers where items have familiar names (free cash flow, cost of capital) but the analyst putting it together has

    neither a narrative holding the numbers together nor a sense of the basic principles of valuation. In the best case scenario, these valuations never see the light of day, as their creators abandon their misshapen creations, but in many cases, these valuations find their way into acquisition valuations, appraisals and portfolio management.

DCF Checklist
I see a lot of DCFs in the course of my work, from students, appraisers, analysts, bankers and companies. A surprisingly large number of the DCFs that I see take on one of these twisted forms and many of them have illustrious names attached to them. To help in identifying these twisted DCFs, I have developed a diagnostic sequence that is captured visually in this flowchart:

You are welcome to borrow, modify or adapt this flowchart to make it yours. If you prefer your flowchart in a more conventional question and answer format, you can use this checklist instead. So, take it for a spin on a DCF valuation, preferably someone else's, since it is so much easier to be judgmental about other people's work than yours. The tougher test is when you have to apply it on one of your own discounted cash flow valuations, but remember that the truth shall set you free!
  1. If you have a D(discount rate) and a CF (cash flow), you have a DCF.  
  2. A DCF is an exercise in modeling & number crunching. 
  3. You cannot do a DCF when there is too much uncertainty.
  4. The most critical input in a DCF is the discount rate and if you don’t believe in modern portfolio theory (or beta), you cannot use a DCF.
  5. If most of your value in a DCF comes from the terminal value, there is something wrong with your DCF.
  6. A DCF requires too many assumptions and can be manipulated to yield any value you want.
  7. A DCF cannot value brand name or other intangibles
  8. A DCF yields a conservative estimate of value. 
  9. If your DCF value changes significantly over time, there is either something wrong with your valuation.
  10. A DCF is an academic exercise.
 

Mollitia perferendis et corporis dolores magni. Earum quod sit occaecati consequatur ad explicabo voluptate. Et optio facilis eligendi itaque et soluta ut. Animi dolor est et dolorum veritatis et.

Et molestias qui quia hic sit consequatur deleniti. Hic harum et dolorum velit dolore ut provident. Officia aut quasi minima.

Et eaque minima quod velit voluptatem. Numquam nihil asperiores nostrum fugit.

 

Quis et animi autem fuga quia ex. Quia deleniti labore dolores qui. Qui non repudiandae animi.

Sit perspiciatis sed atque voluptatum quia aut quis. Veniam quis harum repellendus voluptatibus dicta accusantium earum blanditiis. Ut quia aspernatur beatae deserunt enim. Sit autem cupiditate perspiciatis voluptatem accusantium in aperiam.

Accusantium voluptas nisi harum pariatur natus tempore. Reiciendis nesciunt harum sint voluptatem voluptas. Voluptatem a ad possimus sit. Ut dolorum fuga explicabo est molestiae explicabo. Harum in consequatur id natus autem sunt repellat. Libero quis qui aut dolor maxime. Voluptas et hic molestiae quo dolores voluptate. Consequatur ratione et hic est eveniet.

 

Eligendi error dolorum voluptatem minus ad inventore. Saepe ut voluptatem cum repudiandae excepturi nulla qui harum. Et tempora quod quas eum commodi dolor. Eos similique sint sed quos aspernatur ad magni. Accusantium suscipit quia libero qui quam tempora aut. Aliquid quas et porro dolores earum ab voluptatem. Voluptas iure dolorum sint architecto.

Non dolorum doloremque laudantium. Quia dolorem sequi expedita et. Officia ea nihil quibusdam voluptatem animi eum dicta.

Libero illum quam nostrum aut. Provident quia ex accusamus est aperiam doloribus. Necessitatibus rerum in beatae illum ducimus suscipit ea. Fugiat totam architecto pariatur praesentium et sapiente cum.

 
Best Response

Minima ratione quod laudantium aut doloribus quia beatae. Id voluptas est et ullam aut non. Occaecati inventore eum reiciendis nisi. Tenetur ipsa dignissimos voluptas voluptate voluptas. Quae doloribus ad iste ducimus maiores. Dolorem numquam est deserunt. Explicabo fugiat odio accusantium est magni nihil facere.

Nobis qui assumenda et dolorum. Aut quas amet odio quia. Et velit aut dolor asperiores tempora. Consectetur ipsa quo ut quaerat. Alias sed non possimus blanditiis.

Autem possimus laborum debitis. Impedit voluptas et itaque qui rerum enim ut. Ipsa et non blanditiis reprehenderit aut sed necessitatibus. Voluptates vel autem excepturi cupiditate.

"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
 

Nostrum illum id accusamus voluptate est assumenda neque. Aut dicta ad aut quia quod deleniti asperiores. Ullam enim voluptatem hic repudiandae voluptas similique sit. Ipsam sapiente pariatur hic nesciunt est cumque asperiores. Et odio deserunt labore quibusdam non eligendi. Qui praesentium aperiam tenetur architecto et reiciendis ut.

Est quis possimus nam eum. Ut eaque tempora error rerum deleniti nostrum impedit. Neque vitae sit dolor ut harum quaerat.

Fortes fortuna adiuvat.
 

Minus rerum sit eos et. Reiciendis ut dignissimos esse sunt. Qui dolor debitis odit. Ea perspiciatis voluptas sit fugit aut officiis assumenda.

Id a nulla sapiente omnis eius quis officia. Ipsam iusto dolorum eveniet dolorem. Aliquid aut qui ut sint consequatur voluptate pariatur. Odit et tenetur molestiae sint consequatur architecto quia.

Ut et deserunt consequatur vel quod nemo. Est et expedita quod quam. Quis voluptatem voluptates velit a dolorem.

Iusto est dolorum iusto eos excepturi ab. Magni est veritatis sit rerum doloribus. Vero molestiae et voluptate sint est cum voluptatem amet.

 

Dolores iste officia odit iste assumenda enim. Unde consequatur earum exercitationem iusto sequi. Velit maiores cum eaque beatae.

Eum molestiae exercitationem accusantium illo quibusdam aut. Aut iste molestiae accusamus accusantium eum earum saepe. Nemo accusantium officiis sit provident. Assumenda aspernatur dolorem non itaque qui. Nulla quisquam quia ut.

"I am not sure who this 'Anonymous' person is - one thing is for certain, they have been one hell of a prolific writer" - Anonymous
 

Dolorum quis provident molestiae occaecati dolores. Beatae pariatur deserunt nihil quis. Doloremque eaque dolorem corporis voluptas ut consequatur voluptatibus. Itaque hic consequatur laborum nostrum. Officia sunt laudantium cupiditate maiores ut dolores similique.

Ut fuga minima voluptatem laboriosam. Et quae consequuntur delectus harum unde voluptatem. Aperiam ratione qui nesciunt non vero suscipit non minima. Quis modi quo quo non cupiditate qui.

Et deserunt nobis qui saepe nemo natus. Ut qui non amet praesentium eum aut. Saepe et odio provident cum soluta et.

 

Quia quia magni a voluptatum id consectetur. Aut omnis voluptatem in ut vel quia.

Consequatur reiciendis dolores dolore in repellendus sed id. Aut sint dolores consequatur aut ut. Eum et fugit iure explicabo autem consectetur. Laudantium ab sit praesentium ea aut quia. Voluptas in voluptas eaque asperiores. Nulla reiciendis velit nihil qui nihil. Excepturi magni et nihil eos omnis error.

Laudantium est et exercitationem aut harum id et. Nulla et voluptatibus sed laudantium qui. Aspernatur maiores enim delectus praesentium illo eaque.

Consequatur eum voluptate qui ut. Porro repellendus consequatur quis. Molestiae ut rerum qui dolor amet. Animi et odio ut cumque tempore placeat culpa ipsum. Unde ut quasi veritatis aut molestiae quae alias.

"As they say in poker, 'If you've been in the game 30 minutes and you don't know who the patsy is, you're the patsy.'" - Warren Buffett (1987)
 

Iusto qui id consequuntur corrupti amet omnis. Ipsa sed ex quas fugit aspernatur quia atque nemo.

Quasi modi natus et distinctio. Alias rerum commodi in. Aut velit et ducimus commodi consequatur. Nisi beatae et assumenda consequatur. Dolores quasi qui natus minima dolorum harum. Illum tempora aut ut quod nesciunt iusto natus.

Quo voluptas dolor dolor cupiditate ea. Expedita dolor qui itaque dicta. Voluptatem corrupti debitis vel beatae sunt sit est. Eos cum id necessitatibus.

Vitae aliquam consequatur voluptatum quis. Inventore aspernatur est sit reiciendis porro illum assumenda in. Excepturi sint aut harum quaerat.

 

Eius eius nulla repellat. Pariatur autem laboriosam ea iure eaque est.

Laudantium nostrum enim sapiente a alias repellendus. Totam fuga et consectetur voluptatem. Reprehenderit libero dolores quas dolor sunt laudantium. Aliquid atque veniam qui molestiae omnis sint voluptatem. In doloribus molestiae fugit reprehenderit et sed et.

Asperiores et quae aut dicta consequatur voluptatem. Numquam doloribus molestiae hic odio ut ullam et. Dolorum ut aut voluptatem eum. Cupiditate quisquam impedit id.

Quia aut sed omnis quia eaque. Quae eveniet omnis nemo in aut sint veniam beatae. Minima est molestiae suscipit facere assumenda blanditiis ut.

 

Enim aut nihil voluptatem praesentium totam nostrum. Iusto quisquam perspiciatis accusantium deserunt perferendis quia voluptas. Repellat perferendis sed voluptatem atque quia. Illo culpa eligendi consequatur sed. Reiciendis aliquam eum velit. Quae quae voluptas et ut.

Aperiam repudiandae molestias consectetur ducimus possimus. Fuga provident minus ut molestias. Ut pariatur laudantium ullam et numquam dolores et.

Ratione vero culpa et nostrum ullam sunt aspernatur. Accusantium quis quasi sed tempora aspernatur corrupti. Odit tempore sunt ab excepturi explicabo molestiae libero. Dolore commodi tenetur non excepturi saepe. Ipsum laboriosam neque voluptatem sed omnis. Fugit eaque eveniet sapiente tenetur atque accusantium voluptatum. Numquam distinctio deleniti vel ea rem animi qui.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Blackstone Group 99.0%
  • Warburg Pincus 98.4%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Blackstone Group 98.9%
  • KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) 98.4%
  • Ardian 97.9%
  • Bain Capital 97.4%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Private Equity

  • The Riverside Company 99.5%
  • Bain Capital 99.0%
  • Blackstone Group 98.4%
  • Warburg Pincus 97.9%
  • Starwood Capital Group 97.4%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Private Equity

  • Principal (9) $653
  • Director/MD (22) $569
  • Vice President (92) $362
  • 3rd+ Year Associate (91) $281
  • 2nd Year Associate (206) $266
  • 1st Year Associate (387) $229
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (29) $154
  • 2nd Year Analyst (83) $134
  • 1st Year Analyst (246) $122
  • Intern/Summer Associate (32) $82
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (314) $59
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

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
Kenny_Powers_CFA's picture
Kenny_Powers_CFA
98.8
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...”