I'm reading Rosenbaum, and they note that ROIC uses a pre-interest earnings numerator while ROE and ROA use an earnings metric net of interest expense.
Why is this? The book didn't really explain the reasoning behind this.
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +183 | UBS preparing for a October Layoff Massacre | 162 | 6m |
| +80 | My Motivation Is At An All Time High | 13 | 4d |
| +63 | Work and Suicide | 29 | 28m |
| +49 | Is 7 years in banking enough to retire, or am I delusional? | 28 | 1h |
| +46 | Do actual investment bankers despise IB TikTokers as much as I think they do? | 28 | 10h |
| +34 | MM IB --> NYC IB? | 17 | 1d |
| +28 | A Message to Students Who Think this Job Will Fix Their Life | 6 | 1h |
| +27 | Should I escape the matrix | 5 | 18h |
| +25 | Lawyer moving into Banking | 23 | 5h |
| +24 | Negotiating VP Sign-On Bonus (NOT Tied to Deferred Comp)? | 22 | 1d |
Career Resources
You want to account for the effects of leverage when looking at ROE and ROA. Net income is the amount of income available to equity holders, so it makes sense to consider that as their return. In this case, you want a levered numerator.
Invested capital is comprised of both equity and debt capital, so you want to use a numerator that is unlevered, which in this case would be EBIT (as you're not accounting for the interest expense).
It's similar to how when you're doing a valuation based off FCF, using a levered free cash flow would give you an equity value while using an unlevered free cash flow would give you an enterprise value.
If net income is for equity holder why do u use assets which comprise of both equity and liability then?
I think you're thinking that Assets = Liabilities + Equity in a literal sense. That's not the case. That equation just means that, in order for the balance sheet to balance, the size of your assets must be equal to the size of your liabilities plus your equity (to remain solvent, liquid, and operational).
May be wrong here (just a sophomore) but ROE and ROA naturally are equity metrics so it makes sense to incorporate interest expense, since that will not go towards the company's equity holders. ROA may be a little more iffy but I think it is still valid because the assets don't incorporate the liabilities of the company.
Think about it this way: if a company levers up and another does not would their ROE metrics make sense if it were EBIT/Equity? The levered company is going to have much higher EBIT and appear to have a greater ROE. Likewise, if you use Net Income/Invested Capital the company without leverage is going to seem much more attractive because of the interest expense, even though the invested capital is generating a much greater rate of return to all investors.
For ROIC you are looking at ALL invested capital, so you should use EBIT which is cash flow that is received by both equity and debt holders.
ROA should use NOPAT.
Nemo iure voluptas corrupti qui. Consectetur blanditiis explicabo corrupti temporibus excepturi aut corrupti ut. Aut enim cumque cumque aspernatur non nisi autem.
Ex praesentium iste ut aperiam voluptas qui numquam. Tempore est qui sit porro quia non sequi. Corrupti est fugiat tempora molestiae illum quidem et earum. Cupiditate sed enim quibusdam facilis velit sit.
Esse impedit minima totam blanditiis. Facere dolorem adipisci id alias ea. Sit dolorum consequatur magnam voluptas ex occaecati adipisci. Aut ducimus nihil dolore non. Odio ipsum dolor porro ex error aut. Minus nostrum qui dignissimos et minus quam.
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...