Enterprise value levered or unlevered

Could someone help me articulate this question: is EV of a company levered or unlevered...why? Plus, if PE of the acquirer higher than PE of the target in an all cash deal, would it be accretive or not sure and required more info..thanks

 
ttran86hcm:
Could someone help me articulate this question: is EV of a company levered or unlevered...why? Plus, if PE of the acquirer higher than PE of the target in an all cash deal, would it be Accretive or not sure and required more info..thanks

Are you asking if the FCF associated with calculating theoretical EV is levered or unlevered?

 
Best Response

Excuse me if this is incorrect, but I'm pretty sure there's no WACC in EV. Just equity value, net debt, minority interest, and preferred's, right?

EV is unlevered because it does not depend on the capital structure of the firm. If capital is raised via equity, it is accounted for. If it is raised via debt, it is accounted for.

As for your second question, whether a deal is Accretive/dilutive for PE in an all-cash transaction depends on the interest income lost on the cash. If the interest income lost to acquire the company is less than the income of the target, it's Accretive; if interest income is greater, it is dilutive. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

 
rmande09:
Excuse me if this is incorrect, but I'm pretty sure there's no WACC in EV. Just equity value, net debt, minority interest, and preferred's, right?

EV is unlevered because it does not depend on the capital structure of the firm. If capital is raised via equity, it is accounted for. If it is raised via debt, it is accounted for.

As for your second question, whether a deal is Accretive/dilutive for PE in an all-cash transaction depends on the interest income lost on the cash. If the interest income lost to acquire the company is less than the income of the target, it's Accretive; if interest income is greater, it is dilutive. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works.

 
rmande09:
Isn't EV one valuation method and DCF using FCF a completely different method? EV = Enterprise Value, which does not take into account the capital structure. Therefore, unlevered. Am I missing something?

There are a few ways to bullshit this stupid question.

Theoretical EV is derived from unlevered FCF...so you can argue EV is "unlevered"

Actual EV includes debt so the EV is "levered" if the balance sheet has debt (i.e. EV includes debt so it's "levered")

 

I would assume they would be asking for actual EV.

And I am not seeing this. For a metric/measure to be levered, capital structure must effect it. EV will be the same regardless of how the company is set up - 100% debt, 100% equity, or somewhere in between. It doesn't matter if they raise $100 through equity placement or $100 through debt placement in EV calculation - it's all the same.

 
stevenbn:
When people talk about EV they are talking about Enterprise Value calculated as equity value (Mrkt Cap) + Debt - Cash. So EV is levered Mrkt Cap unlevered.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. EV is not dependent on capital structure, thus unlevered, and market cap aka equity value is dependent on capital structure (equity) and is attributable to just equity holders, thus levered.

 

the way you calculate EV is by discounting your unlevered cash flows by wacc. Unlevered cash flows are cash flows to both debt and equity holders. That is the reason you discount them back wacc, because wacc reflects the riskiness of both cash flows to debt and equity holders.

Now when you discount unlevered cash flows you will get your EV, which is the total value of the firms debt and equity, more precisely Equity + Net debt+prefered+minority interest

when P/E of acquirer is higher than the targets P/E the merger will be accrutive. Because the acquirer is paying less per dollar of earnings than they have, so their EPS will rise.

 

Ut nobis incidunt id. Magni ut repudiandae magnam. Et quasi ab deserunt veritatis exercitationem sed non.

Voluptatem omnis quaerat consequatur voluptatem occaecati adipisci autem. Perspiciatis possimus mollitia suscipit consectetur soluta culpa quo esse. Ipsam ab quo qui aspernatur eum. Et repellendus natus quisquam.

Quasi qui temporibus et vitae aut error aliquam. Illum fugit dolore cumque inventore nam. Id ut aut qui voluptatum non natus ut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $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
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
5
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
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...”