Just crossed across this issue. I get how the DCF is done for the unlevered metric, but I have doubts about the levered - suddenly, it seems weird to me. Do I calculate the terminal value or do I get it just by bringing the cash flows to pv?
| +134 | How to stop feeling like shit for not making it in IB? | 52 | 40m | |
| +99 | If Tik Tok is forced to sell, what banks do you think would be involved in the deal? | 46 | 46s | |
| +66 | Updated LA Banking Scene (2024) | 49 | 3h | |
| +54 | Why Is It Called Investment Banking? | 19 | 13h | |
| +38 | Ranking banks that went under | 19 | 7h | |
| +31 | UBS Actual Buyside Exits 2024 Post-Integration | 9 | 2d | |
| +29 | A strategy for SA applicants late to the game like myself | 12 | 10h | |
| +28 | Relevance of A-Levels for U.K. London recruiting | 21 | 45m | |
| +26 | Series 79 Help / Tips to Pass The First Attempt | 11 | 1d | |
| +25 | Burnt Out M&A ASO | 10 | 13m |
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.
Yes, if you're performing a DCF for a set of levered free cash flows, you're doing exactly the same thing except on a levered basis.
The reason why you have a terminal cash flow is to build in the assumption that the company is going to be a going concern to perpetuity since you don't know its operating life. If you're valuing a project with a limited life, this would not be a concept that you involve.
How would be the TV Calculation?
Exactly the same as you would do for FCFF for the Gordon Growth model. For terminal multiple method, you would use a metric representative of levered earnings like net income instead of EBITDA like you normally would in an unlevered situation.
how can it make sense if for the TV for the FCFF you are using the WACC? analyst at my group told me to
1) Take the value of the TV 2) Subtract debt out of it 3) Discount it to PV using cost of equity (i.e TV/(1+re)^n)
would this be okay?
Your TV wouldn't be calculated with the WACC but with the cost of equity instead, since you're looking at everything on a levered basis.
Not too sure what the mechanism is behind what your analyst told you, but it doesn't sound right.
bump
Velit adipisci qui qui cumque. Doloremque nesciunt voluptatem ex repellat. Enim corrupti tenetur est nihil pariatur. Fuga aut non in sequi error. Dolor rerum autem laborum qui necessitatibus.
Autem laudantium est temporibus quisquam soluta quis. Recusandae est repellendus eos necessitatibus quia. Praesentium debitis repellat doloremque dicta recusandae illo.
Id id distinctio nisi. Quis expedita corporis totam in repudiandae. Non recusandae ut sint facilis. Voluptatibus cupiditate aspernatur ut sed adipisci ut. Debitis provident commodi molestias aliquam in. Ad fugit non ab qui.
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...