I have an interview tomorrow and some of my friends have told me that the questions will be in regards to valuation of certain companies/industries. In terms of DCF, comps, multiples, and asset based, which industries require which one?
example questions: "in what way would you valuate a mcdonalds vs a smaller chain restaurant (think chipotles)?"
"how would you valuate an oil company in these unstable times"
Any help would be appreciated thanks.
ewong - I'm not sure how specific the questions will be but based on the example questions it should not be too difficult.
In the McDonalds vs. Chipotle you will obviously model in higher growth expectations for Chipotle while at the same time mention that in a slowing economy McDonalds may see higher revenue from lower margin items(Dollar Menu).
Is there a specific group you are interviewing for?
it's equity research associate... i think they want to see that i comprehend which industries to use DCF, asset based, etc. for...
would it make sense to say that it might be more appropriate for mcdonalds to be valued using asset based approach seeing as they have very strong intangibles (goodwill, brand recognition)??
likewise, woudlnt' DCF be more appropriate for younger companies with increasing revenue/profitability potentials (like startup tech) that also lack tangible assets??
Hello ewong:
A few thoughts. A bit scattered today, so definitely welcoming anyone else's input as well.
So, let's look at something like NetFlix when they came out in 1997 or so. All valuation methods should be considered, but let's see: the firm had no/negative cash flows, there were no real comparables (I'm sure Blockbuster was commonly used, but consider that their core business models are very different, though they are both in the same industry. Tech ER analysts like Henry Blodget suggested Amazon was a better "comp" than Blockbuster. Though it might be different when you are using valuation as part of a sales shows (ie IBD sponsors that are making a dog and pony show out of the firm), in ER you have a bit more free reign, imo. So, we'd need to make a few judgements.
From there, we realize there is little data out there to help the robustness of our Netflix valuation. So we've got to stretch our assumptions. Though the firm is not producing cashflow yet, perhaps we can consider how similar tech companies have been valued. We believe that the number of customers the company has will define its value. So we use a ratio like Sales/customer, or make up some other ratio that we consider a proxy for value. Again, how credible/accurate these assumptions are depends on our information, which in this example, isn't much.
-think about the core business. Is the firm stable/stable cash flows/growth, etc.? If not, how sensitive are our inputs to change?
-For comparables, what are the key operating assets and how much value do we get out of them? For instance, capital-intensive firms are sometimes compared by (some cash flow)/capex, etc. Tech firms or network-intensive companies are sometimes judged on the cash flow/customer size, etc.
-Tech companies are usually more difficult to value with DCF (save large, established firms). You've got it backwards, there. All else being equal, tech companies usually have untested products, hard-to-size markets, etc. making a DCF (more importantly the assumptions that go into it) difficult to justify.
Hope that helps. You really should consult a few solid resources out there: www.damodaran.com, (I know there are a few ER-focused sites out there for interview prep.
DCF models for tech are a joke. Save for the established semiconductor companies or a company like Oracle/MSFT, there's absolutely no way a DCF can accurately capture a tech company's value. The uncertainty of the growth and other inputs just makes it a meaningless exercise. Comps and compacqs are used almost.
DCFs are also essentially useless with respect to banks and other financial institutions. i can elaborate if someone wants...
thanks for all the advice so far.
and to chelseafc85... by all means, please do elaborate.
I'm assuming its because of the volatile/unpredictable nature of their projected future cash flows??? Would it make more sense to look at book value with some sort of price/book ratio when talking financial firms??
Temporibus fugiat hic et rem ducimus dolor. Esse et dolorem eius consequuntur magnam molestiae aut. Recusandae excepturi numquam non est et.
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...