Valuation with dividend restriction: FCF or DDM?

Hi everyone,

I need to value a holding and have a question related to the valuation method.

Specifically, as the holding fully consolidates all its subsidiaries and we consider to purchase 100% of the holding, when we use the FCF method we include all the cash flows as they appear on the financial statements. For the utilities project I am working on (100% Equity, no debt), it means nice and steady FCFF (=FCFE) over 20 years (A).

However, in my country and probably everywhere else, you cannot distribute dividend if your retained earnings are negative. For capital intensive projects and digressive depreciation, it means that the cash piles up until the end of your project, which can be 20 years later, with the liquidation of the project. In terms of dividend, it means a sad dividend for 19 years and then a huge quasi-lump sum (B).

If the time value of money was not taken into account, those two streams of cash flows will give the same result (that is, the total cash generated by the project). However, if you discount (A) you find a much better value than (B), that is, if you use the Free Cash Flow to Firm method you have better result than if you use the Dividend Discount Model.

Because cash is king, (B) is closer to the cash reality of the holding than (A), but I doubt that the seller will effectively consider a bid at (B). However, by the time the cash generated by the granddaughter will come in the pocket of the grandmother, the latter will probably be dead.

I would be glad to hear your opinion on this matter.

Thanks
Cheers

ps: some people told me that the trick is to use shareholders loans, equity reduction or "management contracts" to allow the cash to leave the company quicker. That is already a good point.

 
Most Helpful

Glad you asked! Yes, I think I've got the answer now :).

Equivalency between DDM and DCF comes from the discount rate.  

  • A lump sum (=dividend) at the end of the project, (say in 20y) if materialized, will have a very different risk than the individual FCF generated by the project, as the dividend is essentially "derisked".
  • In terms of formula, remember than you usually use the market value of your Net Financial Debt as weight for the debt, hence even with a 100% equity project, you'll have a "debt component" once cash starts to accumulate. Where exactly it should be reflected in WACC is a technical discussion I would have loved to have a couple of years ago, but now I just stick to the practice...
  • In practice, I would perform the valuation on the FCF, and flag the liquidity constraints, and potentially apply a haircut on the valuation for ~illiquidity discount

Cheers,

Romain

 

Thanks Romain!

- What do you mean the lump sum is "derisked"?

Let's assume the scenario of two equal (Holdco or not) projects, 100% equity. One calculation of DCF from FCFE and one based on Dividends. They should then both give an equity value with the only difference that the DDM is lower due to the cash flows being moved backwards. Correct? (In practice we wouldn't change our required return so rate of discounting is the same for both.)

Best,

Christiaan

 

Hey Christian,

what I mean is that the lump sum at the end of the project (in 20y) will have a lower risk compared to the yearly FCF. By adjusting the discount rate, you'll reach the same equity value.

Imagine you have an asset producing 100 of FCF next year, and the right discount rate is 10% (to go from year 0 to year 1). Using a DCF approach you'll get an equity value of 100/1.1~ 90.

Now assume that you cannot withdraw the fund before Year 2 because of some local accounting rules. The risk of "going" from year 1 to year 2 is much lower than the risk of going from year 0 to year 1, because the funds have already been produced by the asset.

Investing the cash (100) at the risk free rate in the vehicle, and assuming that the vehicle is risk free between year 1 and year 2, you'll get : 100*(1+RF) / (1+10%) *(1+RF) = 1/(1+10%) ~ 90 again.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Romain

 

Voluptates qui cupiditate sed minus. Vel est enim recusandae corrupti. Voluptas quia voluptates delectus autem ullam.

Vel ut in harum aut libero fugiat. Aut eos porro ab voluptates id exercitationem. Sequi minima dolorem alias quos.

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 (13) $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

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...”