think about it like this, two companies otherwise equal except one has a shitload of cash and the other has nothing. which one has a higher market value of equity? and you don't add excess cash to get to enterprise value. only on wso...

 

some of these responses are completely off, i wonder where the hell u guys are getting these junks from...

to the OP: if you're valuing a company's equity using the DCF method cash flow is basically the most important variable in determining the value of a company

A company's total enterprise value/worth is made up of Equity/Debt more like every dollar on the asset side of the BS is financed with either debt or equity so to value a firm's equity you first find how much the entire enterprise is worth and subtract the outstanding debt from it to get the equity value

Lets put aside the argument of whether DCF accurately captures a firm's value for a second and just go over the theory. Much like valuation of bonds, DCF derives the value of a company based on expected future cash flow. Sum it up, you project the amount of free cash flow available to both creditor/shareholders into the future, discount it by the proper WACC/rate and you'll get yourself an enterprise value.

Obviously the model/theory is only as good as the assumptions, thats the tricky part of DCF, you're are basically projecting into the future, hence many ppl on the street discredits it

I hope I've helped with your question OP

 
J15:
some of these responses are completely off, i wonder where the hell u guys are getting these junks from...

to the OP: if you're valuing a company's equity using the DCF method cash flow is basically the most important variable in determining the value of a company

A company's total enterprise value/worth is made up of Equity/Debt more like every dollar on the asset side of the BS is financed with either debt or equity so to value a firm's equity you first find how much the entire enterprise is worth and subtract the outstanding debt from it to get the equity value

Lets put aside the argument of whether DCF accurately captures a firm's value for a second and just go over the theory. Much like valuation of bonds, DCF derives the value of a company based on expected future cash flow. Sum it up, you project the amount of free cash flow available to both creditor/shareholders into the future, discount it by the proper WACC/rate and you'll get yourself an enterprise value.

Obviously the model/theory is only as good as the assumptions, thats the tricky part of DCF, you're are basically projecting into the future, hence many ppl on the street discredits it

I hope I've helped with your question OP

thanks for telling us what a dcf is. for most of us, this is a new concept.
 

I've always thought of it like paying for cash with cash. If a company's value is determined to $1mm, and the cash balance is $100k, I'm not going to pay $100k to get $100k. That's like taking a dollar out of my left pocket and putting it into my right pocket. Instead, the $100k cash balance is subtracted to get to EV, and the assumption is that the cash balance will be used to retire debt or shore up the cap structure in some way.

 
KRMcNamee:
I've always thought of it like paying for cash with cash. If a company's value is determined to $1mm, and the cash balance is $100k, I'm not going to pay $100k to get $100k. That's like taking a dollar out of my left pocket and putting it into my right pocket. Instead, the $100k cash balance is subtracted to get to EV, and the assumption is that the cash balance will be used to retire debt or shore up the cap structure in some way.

So you're basically only paying 900k?

 

when the cash is used to pay down debt, the equity portion of the EV increases and the debt portion of EV decreases. the assumption is that cash on hand is limited because the return is very low. Either it is paid out in dividends, reinvested in another project, or used to pay down debt -- all activities that flow to equity holders.

 

Thanks for the explanation, but I'm a little bit confused. The equity portion of the EV is the Market cap, not the shareholders' equity on BS. I was confused why the equity portion of the EV increases when the cash is used to pay down debt? Market cap is price times shares outstanding.. so do you mean there happens something to share price or share count when the debt is paid out w/ cash?

 

i'd like to hear the definitive answer to this as well. my thinking is that if i'm holding stock in a company sitting on a ton of cash, i'm assuming that the company will either a) invest cash into products that generate returns above the hurdle rate or b) redistribute the cash back to equity holders in dividends or stock repurchases.

Because I'm seeing a return either way on that cash hoard, it affects my purchase and pricing decision, and therefore is captured in the equity value.

 

For Valuation purposes: Equity value= EV - Debt (since equity holders have no claim on this and is included in EV calc) + cash... This is used usually in a private company where you use a DCF to calculate EV and want to figure out the value of the common shares

But if you are solving for Enterprise value; Stock price * shares outstanding=equity value; Equity Value + Debt - cash= enterprise value...This is why you use EV/EBITDA multiple or P/E; the former are both before consideration of debt and the latter after...

Final answer.

 

Subtracting cash makes no sense. Upon purchase, a buyer gets the excess cash sitting on the BS of the target, so the buyer needs to pay for that cash right? Say there's $100 of cash on the BS - if that $100 is not included in the price (i.e. the enterprise value) paid for the target, then the buyer is getting $100 in cash for free, right?

In other words, that cash has a value ($100) so why is something of value not included in the purchase price? The $100 is implicitly included in equity value and should REMAIN included in the equity value rather than being subtracted and netted out - otherwise, as I explained, it's a free $100 for the buyer, right?

 
Best Response

Hey guys,

This is the height of us confusing the unnecessary. It would be amateur of us to simply follow a rule to deduct cash from EV and forget about how the EV is derived.

As already pointed out by other friends, Equity = Assets - Liability. It can also be pointed out by using: Equity = Assets - Net liability (debt net off excess cash). Hence Equity value has in itself the cash component which is a current asset.

How to derive Equity Value same from EV? When deriving EV from Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), we tend to forget what D/E ratio we had used. Few people use net debt (net off excess cash) for D/E while others use total debt in (D/E) ratio. The latter is greater than the former because excess cash increases both sides of the equation D + E = Assets. Moreover, it is appropriate to use total debt because of the tax advantage for the debt.

When WACC is calculated using D/E (total debt/equity), the resulting EV will have the excess cash component.

For actual EV in the above case, the excess cash is deducted to keep both sides of the equation at optimum level. L + E = Assets. When excess cash is not deducted, the Liability shows high against high cash balance on the asset side.

When deriving Equity value from Enterprise value we can use two methods: EV - Net debt = Equity value EV - Total Debt + Excess cash = Equity Value

Both will be the same. But what would be wrong? EV - Net debt - Excess Cash = Equity Value (Never !!!)

If we see where we started, we know where to end and what to add or subtract. Nothing biggie ;)

Thanks, Ari

 

Dolor doloribus qui assumenda voluptates. Quia deserunt delectus rerum ducimus earum accusantium consequuntur. Molestiae accusantium omnis corrupti iure libero libero. Id et est aut aliquam quaerat quia. Ut quasi qui earum molestiae. Non quo et enim.

Explicabo consequatur eos enim sed numquam doloremque. Cum molestias dolores debitis aut ipsa.

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 

Labore incidunt quisquam excepturi soluta explicabo. Sed blanditiis ad vel animi. Odit est illum voluptates error qui quia. Fuga iure error repellendus consequuntur ut asperiores in. Ab velit impedit velit molestiae eligendi. Incidunt error at aliquam dignissimos voluptatem. Soluta fuga et maxime culpa eius.

Ut et laboriosam eum fugit est temporibus molestiae. Labore voluptas qui occaecati sequi. Repudiandae totam aperiam porro sapiente autem ad dolore porro.

Enim recusandae totam aut asperiores architecto. Voluptates officia praesentium accusantium id perspiciatis eos est laborum. Porro alias repudiandae voluptatibus facilis et unde. Id quidem ratione consequuntur et.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

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

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 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

April 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

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (145) $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
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
10
numi's picture
numi
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...”