Quick question -- we can only value a company using EV/FCF if FCF is unlevered, correct? Also, can we use EV/FCF as a multiple to value the company by multiplying this multiple to the target company's FCF, or would that be wrong? Thanks!
| +235 | Who Killed Wall Street | 65 | 2d |
| +194 | Worlds Worst MDs Competition (2026 Edition) | 44 | 1h |
| +167 | As Lehman people reconvene at UBS, Barclays needs to hire (2023) | 23 | 6d |
| +130 | Only Indians cold emailing | 44 | 8h |
| +125 | Lindsay Clancy - Thoughts from A2 | 22 | 3d |
| +69 | UBS Healthcare | 34 | 19m |
| +50 | Shana tova - happy new year | 6 | 10h |
| +48 | NYC Wall Street Run Club | 13 | 7h |
| +45 | More diversity needed in the industry | 11 | 17h |
| +43 | EB (EVR/CVP/LAZ) vs MBB (Bain/BCG) | 22 | 48m |
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.
If you had to, you should use unlevered FCF. However, EV/EBITDA is preferred to EV/FCF because EBITDA is theoretically more difficult to manipulate and less volatile (disregards taxes and capex which vary from year to year). With that said, there's always debates on whether or not to include tax/capex in multiples calculations, especially if these are expected to be relatively constant on an annual basis.
yes; for the second questions, (EV/FCF)*FCF=EV mathematically, so you obviously can, but this is usually a bit of a lumpy multiple...
When you're using multiples, you have to make sure the numerator and denominator match - the earnings/CF/etc in the denominator must be those attributable to the claimholders included in calculating the numerator. EV/EBITDA is logical because the numerator includes the value of both equity and debt claims while the denominator is earnings which are attributable to both equity and debt holders. Another example - if you're looking at a business with a minority owner, and EBITDA does not already subtract out earnings attributable to that owner, then in calculating EV for the EV/EBITDA multiple you must add the value of minority interest. If you always remember that the numerator/denominator must match in this way, then it becomes obvious which multiples make sense (EV/unlev FCF makes sense, EV/EFCF does not).
EV/FCF is an important metric in one sense because free cash flow generation is ultimately what you care about as the owner of a business. You can't spend EBITDA or EBIT, you can only extract from the business the FCF it generates. As the others have mentioned, however, FCF is often too lumpy to really compare businesses based on EV/FCF multiples. EV/EBITDA and other multiples are used because they are less lumpy / behave more nicely, but you have to keep in mind that such multiples are only useful if you are comparing two businesses which, in the long run at least, can translate EBITDA to FCF at the same rate - i.e., in the long run they will have similiar capex needs, working capital needs, and tax rates. That is true for very few pairs of companies, which is why EV/EBITDA is generally a terrible metric.
Est accusantium ut veniam. Soluta non omnis qui veritatis earum veniam consectetur. Culpa consectetur quos delectus ab dolorem voluptatibus.
Facilis veritatis aperiam architecto optio maiores ipsum. Omnis est laborum recusandae quia qui. Illo corporis eum et iusto soluta dolorem aut. Doloribus animi et officiis sed sunt deleniti non totam. Occaecati porro vero incidunt ut rerum odit. Inventore sit aliquam est.
Aspernatur eos omnis sit quod. Perferendis asperiores consequatur molestiae repellat dolores quo. Tenetur quidem consequatur at deserunt. Sunt rem quam facilis autem mollitia delectus.
Non et inventore dolor dolor et quo odio. Qui voluptatum quibusdam pariatur dolor et autem.
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...