Negative CAPEX and WC
Is it possible to have negative CAPEX or WC? What does it mean when that happens? Is it relatively common or uncommon for this to happen for large-cap (e.g. Dow Jones) companies?
How to Calculate CapEx
CapEx is the amount a company spends on the acquisition or upgrade of physical, tangible assets such as property, factories and equipment. The capital expenditure formula is:
Capex = New PPE - Old PPE + Depreciation Expense
Can CapEx be Negative?
CapEx cannot be negative. However, some WSO users clarified that when CapEx is netted against asset dispositions – a common “real world” practice – it is possible to get a negative number.
How to Calculate Working Capital
Net working capital is a measure of how a business funds its day to day activities. The net working capital formula is:
Working Capital = Current Assets - Current Liabilities
Can Working Capital be Negative?
Yes, there are several situations in which WC can be negative including:
- Some companies with subscriptions or longer-term contracts often have negative Working Capital because of high Deferred Revenue balances.
- Retail and restaurant companies like Amazon, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's often have negative Working Capital because customers pay upfront - so they can use the cash generated to pay off their Accounts Payable rather than keeping a large cash balance on-hand.
Recommended Reading
Want to improve your financial modeling skills?
Check out WSO’s side-by-side comparison of financial modeling courses and get a WSO discount.
second this question.
negative change in WC means a decline in AR/Inventory and a rise in AP. So your sources of cash are increasing.
but what exactly is the implication of that?
One cause of negative WC is merely that CL > CA, so the firm is unable to pay off CL with cash, etc.
For example, supermarkets.
Its very possible to have negative working capital. It depends on the credit structure in the industry and the company business model.
Negative CapEx... not so much. Since its by definition an expenditure how would you have an inverted CapEx?
It would be the sale of an asset, in which case you'd see it on the CF statement as proceed from the sale of assets.
CapEx generally consists of maintenance CapEx and growth CapEx... logistically, it just doesn't make sense to have negative maintenance CapEx (i.e. someone is paying you to upkeep your PP&E) or negative growth CapEx (i.e. someone is paying you for you to take an assets).
If anyone has a different view, feel free to share.
Walmart is famous for its working capital. It's just: collect payment immediately at sale, turn over inventory in XX days, pay vendors in XX + YY days. The implication is they have stupid amounts of cash, limited debt, and want to open a bank.
Kote:
Just to be clear, you are saying that they turn over inventory in 10 days (having already collected cash), but pay vendors in 20 days (numbers are hypothetical).
Meaning for days 11-20, A/P is up while A/R-Inventories are down after day 10 and working cap is negative.
Exactly.
I cannot think of a situation where negative capex is plausible. Even if you were paid to maintain someone else's PP&E, chances are you are an operator and that fee would be part of your revenue and have nothing to do with capex. The operator would still have their own capex for maintaining their headquarters, replacing carpet cleaning equipment, whatever. This relationship is very common with REITs and third party property management companies.
Negative capex is impossible. Only thing I can think of is that the OP could be referring to a situation where capex
CapEx net of asset dispositions can be negative. This happens in rental businesses. Is that what you're referring to?
what are some of you talkign about? negative capex is completely possible. if the value of the assets you acquire in a certain period is less than the amount you received from dispositions, your NET capex is negative.
working capital can also be negative. that's what revolving credit facilities are for.
What are you talking about? Capex represents the amount you spend to acquire assets to expand your asset base or refurbish your existing one (thus still contributing to total asset value). You are referring to netting capex against asset sales which is not capex but rather net contribution to PP&E. Net contribution to PP&E can indeed be negative, but capex cannot.
i know what capex is. i have been in banking for three years. it is extremely common for companies to use "net capital expenditures" in their credit agreements for covenant purposes. i am trying to make my answer as "real world" for the OP as possible.
Negative working capital is rare but it is certainly possible. When a company is paid in advance for services that will be performed over a period of time, the payment acts as a free loan, creating negative WC.
That would be Deferred Revenue and generally doesn't contribute to working capital.
A negative working capital example would be: you have keep 5 days of inventory on hand and zero receivables but you get 60 day terms from your supplier... negative working capital.
All that tells me is purchase/borrowing terms...I'm confused, or perhaps just ignorant, on how what you said translates into your current liabilities being greater than current assests?
Anywho, wouldn't the most common ways to have negative WC be to invest your cash in something fixed, eg capex, thereby lowering your current assets? If you're not investing in a fixed asset, and thus we are ONLY focusing on the cash conversion cycle, then I think it's impossible to have negative WC barring an inventory write down, or selling inventory below cost, or something odd like that.
Cash is invested in inventory-> inventory is sold --> revenue and profit is made (which increases WC by the amount of the profit margin as the sales revenue flows into cash or A/R) --> cash from the sale is used to pay back suppliers ....nowhere in the cash conversion cycle would current liabilities exceed current assets...in fact, as i said, as profits are made, net WC will increase.
By CAPEX, I mean the one used to calculate FCF. I'm not really sure if that is just the amount spent on PP&E or if it is a net amount.
Anyways, I have spoken to a friend about this before and he told me that negative CAPEX is possible if the firm sells assets.
The main reason why I ask this is because I forecast CAPEX based on %sales. So, in years when sales are expected to fall (recession, etc.), I get a negative CAPEX. I am still trying to wrap my head around what exactly that means, though.
If negative CAPEX is impossible, then I'll just set =MAX(0, calculated CAPEX) on my Excel spreadsheet.
Well shit, you friend said so? Why didn't you say that earlier.
All kidding aside... how do you get to negative CapEx by making CapEx a % of sales? Thats impossible unless you're recessionary period is causing negative sales!? Check your formula.
I double checked my method. What I've been doing:
Ratio: CAPEX/Sales
Bloomberg gave me a negative CAPEX, so I got a negative ratio. Next year, no matter what Sales will be, CAPEX will be negative.
This is really weird...If you have a Bloomberg, perhaps you can see if I am messing something up. I did JNJ EQUITY, then FA, then added a quick field "Capital Expenditures." It does not make much sense to me that JNJ would be selling more assets than it is buying, considering that it manufactures medical products and would probably be selling assets only when the assets have been replaced by new assets.
It means you have a bust in your model.
I too have been in banking for three years in real estate, the industry with possibly the highest prevalence of asset dispositions. In "real world" applications, a figure that nets capex against asset dispositions is useless because you will still model each line item separately and that net amount will vary widely from year to year in many industries.
"The main reason why I ask this is because I forecast CAPEX based on %sales. So, in years when sales are expected to fall (recession, etc.), I get a negative CAPEX. I am still trying to wrap my head around what exactly that means, though."
I don't understand how you are getting a negative capex figure if you're modeling it as a % of sales. Let's say sales decline from $2 mm to $1 mm and capex is 2% of sales, it would still be positive. Even if you model capex growth based on sales growth, you'd simply have a smaller capex figure than the prior year, not negative.
"In "real world" applications, a figure that nets capex against asset dispositions is useless "
Uh, it's not useless from a cash point of view.
not really sure what bank you work at, but netting capex against asset dispositions is not "useless", especially if you work in leveraged finance where cash generation is paramount. if company x has a 700mm maturity coming due next year and they're sitting on little cash but a boatload of pp+e/property, guess what happens.
from what the OP has said about having negative capex in his model - it sounds to me like you're modeling capex off sales growth instead of as a % sales itself. check your formula.
You refinance...
Agree with Marcus on his % of sales comment.
I suppose the only negative CapEx example I could think of would be if a company recorded tooling expense as CapEx and its customers reimbursed for tooling at a set-rate rather than the actual rate.
One of our portfolio companies does get reimbursed for tooling expense by its customers, though the reimbursement typically falls short of the actual expense.
Or issue equity. Read the use of proceeds of most FO / ATM offerings in the corresponding prospectus; 95% will list a combination of "general corporate purposes," acquisitions, or the reduction of debt. Or you issue more debt and effectively roll back the maturity schedule. Selling assets in most non-real estate industries is a last resort used when leverage or ECM concerns prevent the aforementioned options. Don't give me this "I'm not sure what bank you work at" crap, you act like asset sales were the obvious solution for an upcoming debt maturity.
None of this changes the fact that: A) There is no negative capex B) The whole reason for this thread came from a simple modeling error by the OP (I am implying this from his later statement)
OP here.
So, did you find the modeling error? I am using Bloomberg data, which gave me the negative CAPEX. Since Bloomberg quotes a negative CAPEX, I started this thread to see how that would even be possible.
If you find the modeling error, let me know.
The bloomberg output is probably just showing capex as a negative because it's an outflow of cash. It's rare that you're going to project out asset sales > capex in the future. Sometimes for liquidity purposes it's necessary to think about a large asset sale (as was mentioned earlier), but usually that would be a one-time event.
I would also add something onto the WC comments above: if you're focusing on the change in WC for doing a DCF or LBO then you should be including items like deferred revenues, accrued expenses, prepaid expenses, etc. as all these items are paid in cash and you want to capture the timing of that CF somewhere.
Also, let me know how to fix the modelling error.
...switch the minus to a plus? Or did I miss something.
I rescind my modeling error mistake and will instead call it a failure of common sense. It took me all of 5 seconds to realize what you had done wrong for a company that you seem to be spending a fair amount of time analyzing.
That's all? How about the %sales thing?
Also, for the APV's FCF formula FCF=EBIT+Depr-CAPEX-Ch. in WC, should the CAPEX be a positive or negative number?
Ha ha. yeah. Well, it all makes sense now.
But, WC can be negative right?
Capex should be a positive number in the FCF formula because it is a cash outflow that reduces your free cash flow. To make things explicit:
EBIT 1000 Depr 200 Capex 300 Delta WC 400
Using your formula: FCF = 1000 + 200 - 300 - 400 = 500
While capex is positive, the effect on your FCF is negative.
Edited
It really will depend on the company in question. For example, some companies will only keep cash on hand equivalent to what they need to survive -- i.e., this should be included in working capital. However, look at a company like Microsoft -- they have billions of dollars in cash lying around, but they really only need a small fraction of that to function as a company. From what I've seen, you generally exclude cash from the initial working capital calculation, and then determine a sufficient cash balance (i.e. minimum cash balance) needed to maintain operations.
I would say every company has a necessary working capital balance that it must maintain. The plug to achieve that balance is cash. Excess cash is not included in the calculation of working capital.
Yeah, I guess that could be a fine line. But when it comes down to it, cash is not a working capital item. Because working capital isn't paying wages and taxes and law suits and legal fees and postage etc... working capital Is really just trade capital... which its also sometimes called. So its the capital you need to buy from suppliers and sell to customers.
I've in the past just used a minimum cash balance which is based on some sort of management estimate and used that as a minimum cash amount, swept all other cash to revolver etc...
I mean if you really want to get into all this BS... is not Revolver Availability WC then too?
How do I determine safety cash vs. excess cash? I usually count all cash on the balance sheet as safety cash, as 1) that was how I was taught and 2) most companies have a relatively stable cash balance.
That's not really your determination to make, it would generally be given by management. However, in calculating FCF, you would NEVER consider any cash balance -- safety cash or excess cash. For the purposes of the change in working capital number to calculate FCF, cash is always excluded.
EDIT: Determining the necessary cash balance can be difficult without management guidance. I would generally say you need management guidance, but if you're desperate, you can look at the company's financials when they were in a period of very fast growth (i.e. spending as much as possible) and check out their cash balance. They'll generally maintain the bare minimum cash balance, and there you can see what balance is necessary to make the company's working capital sufficient. Even then, there are issues -- i.e. companies will raise funds and sit it in their cash balance and slowly spend over time, and as companies mature, their working capital requirements very often change (and we hope they change in a positive way).
Thanks!
And don't forget... WC based on quarter end numbers may be totally understating peak working capital requirements during the quarter.
Unless you think that managements don't manipulate the balance sheet at quarter end (Repo 105 anyone?).
Walmart and its Negative Working Capital (Originally Posted: 05/15/2011)
The negative working capital that Walmart, McDonalds, and the like experience only makes sense to me if the cash they get from sales is NOT included in current assets.
So my question: Is excess cash (cash not necessary for operations) excluded from current assets? If so, then I can see why these firms could have a negative working capital.
If excess cash is not excluded, then I don't see how the current asset doesn't also increase when the firms sell goods on a cash basis, and thus working capital is still positive (even though there is low A/R, the cash part of CA makes up for it).
dude, normally cash is not included in the WC calc.
Walmart pays its suppliers whenever it wants - it's Walmart. They have so much power that they can negotiate these deals with its suppliers so that accounts payable >> accounts receivable.
retailers normally have 0 AR + inventory. Yet, they always pay their suppliers after weeks or months so when you have 0 AR + inventory - HUGE AP, you're most likely gonna end with a big minus in WC. When calculating WC, Cash is NOT included. It's confusing I know, because a lot of accounting manuals define WC as CA-CL, but that's bullshit cause cash, investments should not be included. The calculation of WC is simply AR+Inventory - Non-interest bearing current liabilities (i.e. Accounts Payable)
Rerum officiis non quo libero ipsam quisquam voluptatem. Nostrum ut animi voluptatem qui voluptate et id. Vitae vitae velit mollitia tempora dolores id dolorem. Hic quia delectus nam voluptatibus tempora qui. Porro aut est labore explicabo reiciendis. Quis ullam ut perferendis libero repellat possimus debitis.
Quia eum aut asperiores ea. Sed enim omnis doloribus saepe quia dolorem et. Ea occaecati quo eaque est error distinctio. Illo dicta perspiciatis incidunt et molestiae molestiae tempora. Est eligendi voluptatem aperiam ad sit veritatis cupiditate. Quo quod accusamus voluptas magnam rerum. Ducimus eligendi rerum debitis.
Omnis quia et temporibus fugit eligendi nihil. Esse quia iste exercitationem repudiandae. Quae dolore dignissimos minus et ut est. Ad ea aut accusantium et voluptatem nemo dignissimos libero. Explicabo non et assumenda.
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...
Facere nam et repudiandae unde est distinctio. Ex modi illo labore aperiam dolor. Et quo voluptatem aut itaque autem molestias eaque ullam. Illum perferendis veniam ad voluptatem distinctio. Velit eligendi consequuntur enim perspiciatis neque vel.
Delectus illo doloribus maiores sit. Eveniet velit minus nulla aut. Est rerum ipsum vero beatae. Deserunt error error ratione alias et dolorum ut.
Soluta rem modi omnis rerum. Voluptates qui et consequatur quaerat sit aut. Pariatur dolore voluptatibus assumenda libero assumenda. Cumque quisquam esse praesentium non ex molestiae.
Voluptatem est nihil numquam asperiores consectetur nam. Natus vel qui aperiam non nihil. Ipsum tenetur est sit atque dolor saepe. Voluptatum odit odit dolores earum.
Excepturi maxime hic aut cupiditate animi perferendis velit. Odit quidem quae ea repellat praesentium. Neque saepe omnis quis nobis illum perspiciatis non et. Est repudiandae libero hic tempora a qui. Dolores officia quod exercitationem eum molestiae est. Dolorum commodi commodi pariatur adipisci blanditiis.
Occaecati saepe error est voluptates adipisci. Expedita corrupti enim omnis et exercitationem praesentium. Eveniet ducimus doloremque voluptatem et. Laborum fugiat id veniam eos voluptatem.
Et est similique ut ut quia voluptatibus tempora repudiandae. Nobis tempora impedit modi voluptas. Ducimus animi earum laborum repellendus illo impedit vel.