Just crossed across this issue. I get how the DCF is done for the unlevered metric, but I have doubts about the levered - suddenly, it seems weird to me. Do I calculate the terminal value or do I get it just by bringing the cash flows to pv?
| +433 | Is UBS really that bad? | 77 | 9h |
| +265 | Investment Banking is Divine | 40 | 2d |
| +219 | Another $115bn Mega deal for these banks. Congrats! | 46 | 16h |
| +216 | US 2027 SA IB worried about background check | 53 | 2d |
| +75 | Useless associates | 15 | 28m |
| +73 | Which Offer to Accept: UBS Analyst Role or Part Time Cashier at the Local Taco Bell | 19 | 2m |
| +61 | Roku-Fox Deal - UBS Misses Out on yet another deals after years chasing this deal | 10 | 3h |
| +52 | Differences in Restructuring Teams? | 24 | 12h |
| +44 | FIG Pigeonholes you - is it true? | 15 | 1h |
| +41 | Is Houston SA 28 recruiting already over? | 34 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Yes, if you're performing a DCF for a set of levered free cash flows, you're doing exactly the same thing except on a levered basis.
The reason why you have a terminal cash flow is to build in the assumption that the company is going to be a going concern to perpetuity since you don't know its operating life. If you're valuing a project with a limited life, this would not be a concept that you involve.
How would be the TV Calculation?
Exactly the same as you would do for FCFF for the Gordon Growth model. For terminal multiple method, you would use a metric representative of levered earnings like net income instead of EBITDA like you normally would in an unlevered situation.
how can it make sense if for the TV for the FCFF you are using the WACC? analyst at my group told me to
1) Take the value of the TV 2) Subtract debt out of it 3) Discount it to PV using cost of equity (i.e TV/(1+re)^n)
would this be okay?
Your TV wouldn't be calculated with the WACC but with the cost of equity instead, since you're looking at everything on a levered basis.
Not too sure what the mechanism is behind what your analyst told you, but it doesn't sound right.
bump
Voluptates repudiandae dicta hic possimus. Dolorem voluptatibus vitae in iste commodi. Error iste asperiores in illo. Est consequatur beatae consectetur officiis.
Sed pariatur nesciunt autem ullam sapiente est alias. Et ipsa sint occaecati. Illo enim molestiae eum asperiores officiis sit. Aut perspiciatis saepe provident repellendus. Aut quas consequatur ullam exercitationem.
Sapiente rerum quo a molestiae. Voluptatem corporis et est. Dolor unde nobis voluptas ab magnam.
Aut sint omnis esse dolores dolor. Quo a minima voluptas. Soluta asperiores nihil eaque distinctio et magni. Nemo officiis nulla eum sint recusandae eos sed neque.
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...