Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +227 | Coverage Banking is Paradise | 29 | 5d |
| +111 | London Recruiting is Paradise | 45 | 15m |
| +101 | UBS preparing for a October Layoff Massacre | 72 | 3m |
| +77 | My Motivation Is At An All Time High | 13 | 3d |
| +48 | Is 7 years in banking enough to retire, or am I delusional? | 26 | 3h |
| +41 | Do actual investment bankers despise IB TikTokers as much as I think they do? | 25 | 1h |
| +39 | Work and Suicide | 19 | 2h |
| +33 | MM IB --> NYC IB? | 17 | 22h |
| +24 | Negotiating VP Sign-On Bonus (NOT Tied to Deferred Comp)? | 22 | 12h |
| +24 | Should I escape the matrix | 3 | 3d |
Career Resources
Slide 5, how can it be Approximately 452 employees? It's approx 450 or exactly 452 but gotta make a choice there mate
Oh thanks a lot. I'm a new bee let me know what you think about the rest of the slides
Bump!
slide 4 "1 month" is upside down and looks weird
It's in Sync with the rest of the wording
For slide 13, not sure if you meant to have your COGS numbers in bold
The spacing before the first sentence on slide 9 is also inconsistent when you look at the the 2 textboxes side by side
Anything on the content?
Oh...yes thanks
The presentation is attached
In slide 13 you have a comment saying that a loan payment affected 2017 ebitda, how come?
loan payment was classified as non-overhead expenses
well, as far as i know, non operational expenses shouldnt be in ebitda, but maybe you have some different accounting standard
you can make a 2017 pro-forma ebitda, including this 53, to show the ebitda is growing
the company accounted for it like that but i agree
The 3% perpetuity growth rate of FCFF(!) assumed for the terminal value are very optimistic, given that revenue(!) CAGR for the past 3 years was only 2% p.a. This suggests not only considerable revenue growth for the TV, but also margin expansion. If you feel more comfortable extending your forecast period, do so, but the TV should really not violate steady state conditions for mature companies.
I'd soft-pedal this a lot - it should be lower than your cash flow growth during your forecasting period. Didn't dive into it too deeply, but maybe something like 1.5% is more realistic (really though, you will need to decide that and think about what is a sound assumption)
I get your points, but any reason why it should be lower than the cash flow growth during forecasting period?
Yes, the reason is quite simple:
TV has a tremendous impact on overall EV. It often contributes ~50% to EV and is extremely driven by the TV growth rate. Why? Because we are talking about perpetuity here. A repeating cashflow that comes in forever, year by year. Of course, the discount rate will work against it and diminish the value of the cash flows as we continuously progress in time, but still, the ~50% contribution to EV (depending on how far you forecast, what your growth rate is) can severely damage the validity of your model.
It should be lower, because it makes no sense that the cash flows of a business will grow slowly (relatively) for 5 years, only to grow faster in perpetuity suddenly, as if someone shot the starting pistol at a race. This is a question of internal consistency, not a scenario based decision.
What we should strive for is an operating model that converges to a "steady-state", a phase where the business is able to reliably carry itself and exhibits modest growth (company already harvested its growth potential in the forecast years).
This will
- A) allow us to model scenarios within the forecast years - B) decrease error frequency in TV assumptions since "steady state" is assumed to be forecasted more easily than non-steady-state.
Sidenote: Of course it is possible that the next 5 years might be bad in terms of growth, but then you would model a few years extra, where growth picks up (if you REALLY want to model this scenario), and not just increase the perpetuity growth rate.
Perfect, I was already bench-marking this against a recent listing that had 6% for growth. I thought I was rather cautious with my 3%.
6% is A LOT. As mentioned in my response above, one might want to think about extending the forecast period rather than making flat-out perpetuity assumptions that possess a huge lever in TV calculations
Facilis dolores rerum amet et dolorem neque et. Laboriosam reprehenderit voluptate quo rerum hic aliquam ipsa. Ab quod consequatur non qui molestias ratione.
Dolore magnam id dolor rem veniam doloremque. Fuga officiis qui voluptatem dolor omnis eaque.
Ducimus aliquid nesciunt ipsum maiores. Sit quasi pariatur labore.
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...
Rerum est vitae rerum fugiat autem tempore odio. Nihil in amet placeat rerum nemo magnam sit. Et rerum dolor cum dolorum. Reprehenderit qui qui corporis placeat ut rem corrupti. Soluta debitis non sunt et. Non accusantium non natus perspiciatis omnis vitae.
Itaque aut praesentium eaque laboriosam dignissimos ea. Aspernatur ex quis expedita inventore. A at non ut autem. Voluptatem exercitationem quia occaecati. Iure sed totam aspernatur a non veniam repudiandae. Velit deserunt molestias id maiores eaque ab.
Corrupti officiis saepe quis aliquam. Eveniet et numquam sunt eius excepturi. Labore repudiandae odit unde quo. Beatae veniam perferendis aliquam expedita vero ratione. Ut voluptates quasi assumenda sed assumenda quidem.