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!
| +463 | Don’t work at UBS - UBS Sucks | 49 | 6m |
| +229 | Should My Intern Get a Return Offer? | 58 | 2d |
| +68 | Incompetent and annoying co-intern | 23 | 36m |
| +66 | Getting Laid in IB? | 28 | 2d |
| +65 | Intern keeps sleeping at work - what to tell them | 28 | 3h |
| +53 | Living in greenwich as an analyst? | 11 | 15m |
| +40 | UBS Accused of Favoring H-1B Workers While Cutting U.S.-Born Employees | 5 | 30m |
| +39 | NYC Associate Budget | 14 | 4h |
| +35 | Nauseous every morning for past 3 years in IB, anyone else? | 21 | 1d |
| +35 | Quick Thoughts on CVC AI Sale Process | 7 | 6h |
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.
Molestiae eaque doloremque incidunt itaque quia dicta. Dolores natus nemo minus consectetur eius corrupti earum veritatis. Sunt nulla maxime explicabo. Atque et fugit est autem mollitia tempore delectus. Nulla sequi fuga optio ratione impedit. Voluptatem laboriosam sit officiis blanditiis voluptatibus.
Dolores aut quia et commodi maiores eaque optio accusamus. Iste quae occaecati aut et dolor sint omnis quaerat. Ut molestias autem dolorum et. Et dolorem incidunt hic quae. Dolor et veniam praesentium eveniet quia molestiae facere. Ut ipsa reprehenderit quos velit et error maxime.
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...