Debt in a DCF
When finding the debt in a DCF, can you use net debt? Or does it always have to be interest bearing?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +519 | Change My Mind: Banks Shouldn’t Hire Foreigners at All | 122 | 6s |
| +317 | Article - UBS’ Investment Bank Keeps Losing Ground | 40 | 5h |
| +301 | Don’t work at UBS - UBS Sucks | 30 | 3h |
| +79 | Should My Intern Get a Return Offer? | 31 | 1h |
| +60 | When to Leave Office as Intern | 8 | 3d |
| +49 | Best IB Group Overall? | 28 | 4h |
| +39 | Would you rather be a Touse Squid or a Bouse Mogger in IB | 2 | 3d |
| +33 | What do you say to ppl who don’t know EVR/LAZ/CVP/PJT | 28 | 8h |
| +31 | STEM student lost in London IB recruiting | 17 | 1d |
| +29 | F*ck it I'm Going to Med School | 12 | 30m |
Career Resources
Not sure I understand the question. You remove the net debt which by default also includes interest bearing debt.
Leases can also be in the debt but they are mostly included already in the company’s debt stack since the accounting regulations changed in 2019 i believe.
Define "finding the debt", I'm assuming you mean that you got an EV from a DCF using unlevered FCF (i.e. FCF that considers both equity and debtholders), and now you are backing out of the rest of the capital structure, so essentially everything that is not equity, in order to get to equity.
Do not understand your "does it have to be interest bearing" do you mean does your debt have to be interest bearing? No, not at all, even debt without interest (perhaps a zero coupon bond?) would be considered in your EV, so you'd have to extract that out of the capital structure in order to reach equity.
Honestly, this is an unclear question, may you please elaborate?
Ah ok, thank you. But in my WACC calculation, the debt amount has to be only debt that incurs interest right (loans, credit card, etc)? But when going from enterprise value to equity value, I need to use total debt (including operating leases for example?
No you need to be consistent. You can’t use less than for one and more for the other. It leads to inconsistencies. Might not make a huge difference but it’s always better doing it like that.
Magnam velit et necessitatibus in doloremque provident aut. Impedit perspiciatis cumque tempore deleniti est voluptatem.
Tempora quae placeat ut. Quae consequuntur ipsum vel laboriosam totam. Fuga accusamus fugit voluptates dignissimos aut. Ipsa et velit quia illum.
Sit illum cum vero qui consequatur. Ea doloremque vero reiciendis. Neque et perferendis rerum odit.
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...