well, as far as i know, non operational expenses shouldnt be in ebitda, but maybe you have some different accounting standard

you can make a 2017 pro-forma ebitda, including this 53, to show the ebitda is growing

 

The 3% perpetuity growth rate of FCFF(!) assumed for the terminal value are very optimistic, given that revenue(!) CAGR for the past 3 years was only 2% p.a. This suggests not only considerable revenue growth for the TV, but also margin expansion. If you feel more comfortable extending your forecast period, do so, but the TV should really not violate steady state conditions for mature companies.

I'd soft-pedal this a lot - it should be lower than your cash flow growth during your forecasting period. Didn't dive into it too deeply, but maybe something like 1.5% is more realistic (really though, you will need to decide that and think about what is a sound assumption)

 
weit23:
The 3% perpetuity growth rate of FCFF(!) assumed for the terminal value are very optimistic, given that revenue(!) CAGR for the past 3 years was only 2% p.a. This suggests not only considerable revenue growth for the TV, but also margin expansion. If you feel more comfortable extending your forecast period, do so, but the TV should really not violate steady state conditions for mature companies.

I'd soft-pedal this a lot - it should be lower than your cash flow growth during your forecasting period. Didn't dive into it too deeply, but maybe something like 1.5% is more realistic (really though, you will need to decide that and think about what is a sound assumption)

I get your points, but any reason why it should be lower than the cash flow growth during forecasting period?

 
Most Helpful

Yes, the reason is quite simple:

TV has a tremendous impact on overall EV. It often contributes ~50% to EV and is extremely driven by the TV growth rate. Why? Because we are talking about perpetuity here. A repeating cashflow that comes in forever, year by year. Of course, the discount rate will work against it and diminish the value of the cash flows as we continuously progress in time, but still, the ~50% contribution to EV (depending on how far you forecast, what your growth rate is) can severely damage the validity of your model.

It should be lower, because it makes no sense that the cash flows of a business will grow slowly (relatively) for 5 years, only to grow faster in perpetuity suddenly, as if someone shot the starting pistol at a race. This is a question of internal consistency, not a scenario based decision.

What we should strive for is an operating model that converges to a "steady-state", a phase where the business is able to reliably carry itself and exhibits modest growth (company already harvested its growth potential in the forecast years).

This will
- A) allow us to model scenarios within the forecast years - B) decrease error frequency in TV assumptions since "steady state" is assumed to be forecasted more easily than non-steady-state.

Sidenote: Of course it is possible that the next 5 years might be bad in terms of growth, but then you would model a few years extra, where growth picks up (if you REALLY want to model this scenario), and not just increase the perpetuity growth rate.

 

Ut cupiditate aut odit accusantium quaerat. Occaecati tempora dolor eos sed corrupti rerum ipsum. Eum labore ea et. Quia fuga est sit sit ut earum qui.

Natus expedita non amet accusamus ullam explicabo sit. Dolorem ut iusto consequatur ea eum est facere aut.

 

Expedita earum aperiam itaque reprehenderit quia. Non voluptas similique numquam expedita facilis earum. Ut est ad voluptatum consequatur necessitatibus amet velit. Enim sunt est expedita modi id hic aut. Adipisci dolorem aperiam ut qui laudantium consequatur.

Modi quia molestiae eum eligendi voluptas. Consequatur hic voluptatem molestiae reprehenderit. Assumenda voluptate atque iure et nobis libero et. Laboriosam rerum eligendi dolores quo autem occaecati aut.

Autem qui reprehenderit delectus autem. Dignissimos possimus maiores quo id. Iure ad sunt qui amet. Id atque suscipit aut aspernatur aut quam. Nulla ut dignissimos sed incidunt. Voluptate mollitia ut occaecati et dolorem.

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 (87) $260
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (146) $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
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
Linda Abraham's picture
Linda Abraham
98.8
10
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
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...”