Why do we generally take EBIT*(1-t) and not NI+Int.Exp in FCFF calculation?

Hello everybody! I have a small question on FCFF calculation.

Generally, we start from multiplying EBIT, let it be $100, by marginal tax rate (let's assume it 40%). As a result we get $60 which is attributable to shareholders and holders of debt. It is from these $60 that we later deduct change in working capital and CAPEX.

On the other hand, we can deduct interest expenses (let's take $20) from EBIT to come up with $80 of EBT. Then, we apply our tax rate (40% rate, hence $32 in tax expense) and get $48 of net income. If we sum up our net income and interest expense, we'll get $68 cashflow to shareholders and holders of debt, a sum which is higher by $8 than that derived in our first calculation. That is fair since we added an assumption about interest expense ($20)

My question is following. The two approaches give different answers. We stick to the first approach simply because it is faster? Or maybe there is some other issue I am not familiar with?

Thanks a lot in advance.

8 Comments
 

If you are computing the EV then you should not be accounting for the existing capital structure of the company. As well, the tax shield is included in the WACC and would thus be double counted.

 

It depends on what you are calculating - if you need FCFF (where you will discount cash flows to both equity- and bond-holders), you don't need the actual interest expense number as tax shield from debt is accounted for in WACC. However, if you are calculating FCFE, you need to adjust for the actual cash tax expense, so you would use the second approach.

 
Best Response

Thanks for your answers. The difference is surely due to not taxing $20 of interest. If we simplify, EBIT(1-t)=EBIT - EBTtax_rate - Int.Exp.tax_rate I don't get why we deduct the last thing, Int.Exp.tax_rate. It seems that we have already eliminated all taxes from EBIT by deducting EBTtax_rate. Why are we deducting more taxes? This means double counting taxes, doesn't it? It seems that EBIT less EBTtax_rate gives a more accurate figure for FCFF as we are not overstating our tax expense. After that we will deduct changes in work. cap. and capex to discount the result by WACC with after-cost of debt. There is absolutely no taxes in numerator (FCFF) and in denominator (WACC with after-cost of debt), and the result is hence consistent.

I am basically trying to find out where is a flaw in my reasoning, if any.

 

If you add back Interest Exp at (1-tax rate) you are essentially going to get the same calculation as EBIT *(1-tax rate). Your problem is you're adding back the interest expense without accounting for the tax shield it provides.

 

Btw, your EBT and your IE depends on you B/S structure. Therefore, if you are doing a valuation from an Asset Side perspective, you can't simply do NI + IE since your current IE depends on a capital structure that you don't want to take into account.

This is why you do not take into account anything which goes below ebit when you do you FCFF. If you start from something which is below your EBIT, you are affecting your results by something which depends on you current capital structure, give the fact that any number you have as EBT and IP depends on you B/S assumptions.

I'm grateful that I have two middle fingers, I only wish I had more.
 

Similique veniam praesentium et assumenda. Quia est quibusdam magnam. Corporis tempore commodi omnis neque quas laboriosam.

Quidem fugit laborum reiciendis inventore omnis quod. Sed qui qui ipsum assumenda.

Sed repellendus nulla esse velit hic alias qui. Mollitia et architecto repudiandae officiis. Et sit illo labore hic velit consequatur voluptatibus praesentium.

Blanditiis numquam ipsa alias aut iure. Est numquam vitae est voluptates ea nulla voluptas ducimus. Hic modi amet laborum id.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.9%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan No 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (46) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $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
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
5
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
6
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
Mimbs's picture
Mimbs
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...”