Interview question over appropriate use of valuation multiples

Hi, recently finished an interview and was stumped by one of the question.

Between EV/EBITDA, EV/EBIT and P/E, under which circumstance would you use one multiple over another? Hypothetical if we were analysing 2 companies in the consumer/F&B sector, Company A being a manufacturing facility while Company B is just a distributor of the processed food, which multiple would you use to analyse each of the company and why?

My rationale when tackling this question was:

1) EV/EBITDA is more appropriate for asset-heavy companies as it excludes effects from D&A (such as depreciation policy) and capital structure (such that two companies of similar revenue size are valued on the same basis no matter the capital structure)

However, it got me to thinking:

1) Why do we want to exclude D&A? What if both companies have the same costs, but Company B has higher D&A. Does that not mean Company A has better returns on its prior capex, since it can generate the same level of profitability (pre-D&A) with lower historical capex?

2) Why do we want to exclude the effects of capital structure, by excluding interest expense? If both companies have the same EBITDA, but one significantly more levered, would that not be a cause for concern?

3) If EV/EBITDA is favoured for asset-heavy companies, why can't it be used for distributors too? Is there a reason a certain valuation multiple is favoured for asset-light companies?

4) To my understanding, even for asset-heavy companies, EV/EBITDA should also be used cautiously. One example is trucking companies, who periodically replace their whole fleet with huge amounts of debt. Hence, looking at EV/EBITDA right before it replaces the fleet would make the company seem severely undervalued. Is the correct course of action then to use P/E, a combination of both or an average multiple across the historical cycle?

There might be some flaws with my understanding, appreciate any guidance!

5 Comments
 

Based on the most helpful WSO content, here's a detailed breakdown of when to use different valuation multiples and how they apply to the hypothetical scenario of analyzing two companies in the consumer/F&B sector:

Valuation Multiples Overview:

  1. EV/EBITDA:

    • Appropriate for: Asset-heavy companies.
    • Rationale: Excludes the effects of depreciation and amortization (D&A) and capital structure, providing a clearer picture of operational performance.
    • Use Case: Manufacturing facilities with significant capital expenditures and varying depreciation policies.
  2. EV/EBIT:

    • Appropriate for: Companies where D&A is a significant expense.
    • Rationale: Includes D&A, which can be important for companies with substantial fixed assets.
    • Use Case: Companies where the impact of D&A on profitability is significant and should be considered.
  3. P/E:

    • Appropriate for: Equity valuation, considering the effects of capital structure and taxes.
    • Rationale: Reflects the earnings available to equity holders after interest and taxes.
    • Use Case: Comparisons where the capital structure and tax impacts are relevant.

Hypothetical Scenario Analysis:

  • Company A (Manufacturing Facility):

    • Recommended Multiple: EV/EBITDA
    • Reason: Manufacturing facilities are typically asset-heavy with significant capital expenditures and depreciation. EV/EBITDA excludes D&A, providing a clearer view of operational performance without the noise of different depreciation policies.
  • Company B (Distributor of Processed Food):

    • Recommended Multiple: EV/EBIT
    • Reason: Distributors are generally asset-light, but if D&A is still a significant expense, EV/EBIT would be more appropriate as it includes D&A, reflecting the impact of any capital investments on profitability.

Addressing Specific Questions:

  1. Why exclude D&A?:

    • Excluding D&A in EV/EBITDA helps to compare companies on an operational basis without the distortion of different depreciation policies. However, if D&A is significant, EV/EBIT might be more appropriate to reflect the impact of capital investments.
  2. Why exclude the effects of capital structure?:

    • Excluding interest expense in EV/EBITDA allows for a comparison of operational performance without the influence of different financing decisions. However, high leverage can be a concern, and P/E might be used to reflect the impact of capital structure on equity value.
  3. Can EV/EBITDA be used for distributors?:

    • While EV/EBITDA is favored for asset-heavy companies, it can also be used for asset-light companies if the goal is to compare operational performance without the impact of D&A. However, EV/EBIT might be more appropriate if D&A is significant.
  4. Use of EV/EBITDA for asset-heavy companies:

    • EV/EBITDA should be used cautiously for companies with cyclical capital expenditures, like trucking companies. In such cases, a combination of multiples or an average multiple across the historical cycle might provide a more balanced view.

Conclusion:

  • Company A (Manufacturing Facility): Use EV/EBITDA to exclude D&A and focus on operational performance.
  • Company B (Distributor): Use EV/EBIT to include D&A and reflect the impact of capital investments.

This approach ensures that the valuation multiples used are appropriate for the specific characteristics and operational dynamics of each company.

Sources: Why even use EBITDA?, Why do P/E multiples and EBITDA multiples yield different valuation results?, DCF Modeling Course ~ Pre-training text.pdf, Secondary PE Modeling

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.
 

I see so I got it mixed up.

So for asset-heavy companies (e.g. manufacturers), we should use EBIT to factor in the significant amount of capex?

In that case, why don't we use EBIT for asset-light companies too, since it is easier to calculate than EBITDA?

 

Asset light businesses D&A is obviously not a significant expense and usually isn’t contributing significantly to core business operations and also can be manipulated with accounting techniques so using EBITDA is a better proxy for cash flow to firm

 

Eveniet voluptas nesciunt modi eligendi quis repellat dolores qui. Ut in amet rerum iusto. Autem quo quo ullam occaecati. Suscipit recusandae laudantium architecto voluptas eius dolor rerum.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.2%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (43) $259
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (75) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (68) $101
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
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
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...”