In Part I, we looked at Shareholder Equity as the first step in calculating the value of a company. Shareholder Equity essentially tells us how much our company is worth if it shut down operations, sold off its assets, paid its debts, and distributed the cash to the shareholders. Though Shareholder Equity tells us the "wind up" value of the company, we do not expect our company to, well, wind up its operations.
Thus, we need to know its intrinsic value—our company's value as an ongoing business. Once again, as always, we turn to Warren Buffett for advice.
A quick refresher on the definition of intrinsic value by Warren Buffett, with highlighting added by me:
Intrinsic value is an all-important concept that offers the only logical approach to evaluating the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses. Intrinsic value can be defined simply: It is the discounted value of the cash that can be taken out of a business during its remaining life.
Intrinsic value is the "wind up" value—cash we get when the company shuts down—plus any future cash that our business can generate, which can then be distributed to us or plowed back into the company to generate even more cash.
In his 1986 Letter to Shareholders, Warren Buffett defined the term "owner earnings"—the cash that is generated by the business' operations, regardless of the earnings the company reports to Wall Street. Mr. Buffett:
...we consider the owner earnings figure, not the GAAP [earnings] figure, to be the relevant item for valuation purposes—both for investors in buying stocks and for managers in buying entire businesses.
The owner earnings calculation tells us whether or not our business could survive, and thrive, on its operations alone, or if it constantly needs to find alternative sources of cash (selling stock, taking on debt, etc) to grow. In addition, owner earnings are essentially our earnings—the amount of cash our business can use to pay us or fuel growth.
Mr. Buffett, how do we determine owner earnings?
[Owner earnings] represent (a) reported earnings plus (b) depreciation, depletion, amortization, and certain other non-cash charges...less ( c) the average annual amount of capitalized expenditures for plant and equipment, etc. that the business requires to fully maintain its long-term competitive position and its unit volume.
(Don't worry—it is easier than it sounds. In 1986, it was fairly difficult to obtain information. Today, it is all right at our fingertips with a click of the mouse.)
Reported Earnings (the earnings Wall Street adores) plus Non-Cash Charges (tax write-offs that did not actually require cash) minus Capital Expenditures (the cash the business must spend to keep product pumping off the assembly line, so to speak).
Think in terms of your personal finances: You (a) report certain income to the IRS for taxes, you (b) get certain allowed write-offs, even if they didn't cost you a dime in cash, and you (c) have to repair or replace your car every few years to get to and from work—"expenditures" that don't show up anywhere on your tax return but still eat up your cash. Your "reported" income on your tax return says one thing; your "owner earnings" probably tell a much different story.
Before you throw your hands in the air, decide it is too difficult and "math-y", and skip to a site offering the next "hot stock tip," I'll let you in on a secret—somebody has already done the work for us. Still, follow me through an example so you can understand where the numbers come from and how to do it yourself. Then, I'll tell you where to find what you need.
We start with the Statement Of Cash Flows—an accounting report that companies must submit to the SEC along with their annual reports. Broken down into three sections, the Statement Of Cash Flows tells us (1) how much cash the business generates (or eats) From Operations, (2) how much it generates (or eats) From Investing Activities, and (3) how much it generates (or eats) From (external) Financing.
As is, Buffett called these reports "absurd" because the Cash Flow From Operations does not include the capital expenditures the company has to spend on property, plants, machinery, and equipment (item c in Buffett's calculation). Capital expenditures are listed under the heading "Cash Flows From Investing Activities" for some reason. To quote Buffett:
Why, then, are "cash flow" numbers so popular today? In answer, we confess our cynicism: we believe these numbers are frequently used by marketers of businesses and securities in attempts to justify the unjustifiable (and thereby to sell what should be the unsalable)...though dentists correctly claim that if you ignore your teeth they'll go away, the same is not true for [capital expenditures].
To calculate owner earnings, you must rearrange the "absurd" to make it "rational." Let's look at the famous Johnson & Johnson valuation valuation that so many thousands have enjoyed.
At the end of 2006, Johnson & Johnson reported to the SEC $14,248 million of "Net cash flows from operating activities"—the basis for our calculation. If you look under "Cash flows from investing activities," you'll see that JNJ also spent $2,666 million on "Additions to property, plant and equipment" without which JNJ could not produce its products. Ready for the hard part?
Subtract $2,666 from $14,248—you have $11,582 million in owner earnings for 2006. "Wait," you say. "Buffett says we should use the average annual amount to find owner earnings!" Right—which is precisely why we don't judge a business on one year of performance and we analyze companies using many multi-year timeframes. But that's part of the discussion for Part III.
I keep referring to Morningstar's site as a source of research. Believe me—I am not in any way affiliated with them and I am not a big fan of mutual funds for most investors. Still, I have to keep going back to them because they've already done a lot of the heavy lifting for us.
This link will take you to Morningstar's Cash Flow report for Johnson & Johnson. Change the ticker and you'll find reports for thousands of companies. At the bottom of the report is "Free Cash Flow". Voila!
Calculating The Value Of A Business - Part I
Calculating The Value Of A Business - Part III
Calculating The Value Of A Business - Part IV
Please wait while your comment is submitted. (It may take a moment.) Comments on F Wall Street are moderated which means that your comment will appear only after it has been reviewed by Joe. Comments are typically reviewed and approved (or denied) quickly, except between 11:30PM and 5:00AM (CST) – Joe has to sleep some time!
Thank you for participating on F Wall Street. Once your comment has been approved, it will appear here. While waiting, check out some other articles on the blog or click here to return to the article.
| Excel 2007 | | | Excel 2003 |
| (ZIP, 168kb) | (ZIP, 138kb) |
Mon @ 12:45PM | View comment
g said,
good timing!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Sun @ 1:14AM | View comment
mike said,
ROIC is not based on earnings. it's just EBIT * (1-t) / invested capital. The flaw with ROIC...
What The Heck Is CROIC?
Thu @ 8:00AM | View comment
Cale Smith said,
New Ponzio Capital site looks great, Joe, and good to see you back posting!
BreitBurn Energy: Playing the Commodities Crash
Wed @ 5:50PM | View comment
kalidasa said,
in correction to an earlier post, it is Sham Gad(www.gadcapital.com) or www.shamgad.blogspot.com
Hedge Funds and the Early Buffett Partnership
Tue @ 3:29PM | View comment
Joe Ponzio said,
I think it got overheated. I still feel like it's a good long-term holding (if the buy price is right)....
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
Tue @ 2:48PM | View comment
Nutrisystem Coupon said,
Dude, what happened to this stock? You would think in January this stock would be jumping through the roof...
Is Nutrisystem Healthy?
Tiago
Jul 20th, 2007
8 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jul 20th, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Mat
Jul 31st, 2007
According to Morningstar data, JNJ never invested more than $3.4B a year on acquisitions over the past 10 years. Again over the past 10 years, subtracting the average capital invested from average FCF reduced the "real" FCF by about 40%.
So the question is: Do you believe JNJ will continue to spend as much on acquisitions and will they pay a fair price? Given the recent spree of M&As and sky high prices, I'm skeptic about the quality of the investments made.
What do you think?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Aug 1st, 2007
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
I don't include M&A in the calculation because I try to get the raw cash that JNJ could produce if it couldn't acquire businesses, sell stock, or take on additional debt. Their past acquisitions have all contributed to the growth in owner earnings, and we can only hope (and track) whether that growth can be sustained.
If JNJ can't buy anything next year, it will still likely produce more cash than it did last year. Unfortunately, all we can do is buy the cash—it is up to management to figure out what to do with it.
Is management rational with shareholder money? It seems so. CROIC is high, owner earnings are growing. Will that continue in the future? We can't be certain, which is why we need that margin of safety.
I understand exactly what you are saying, but I think a better candidate for concern would be Alcatel-Lucent. With no predictability in the numbers and a constant burn of cash, ALU's acquisitions seem more like an attempt to fix a failing (or difficult) business than to increase shareholder value.
My two cents.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
mm
Sep 19th, 2007
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/ceasa/policy/occasional_papers.htm
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Sanjay Shetty
Oct 26th, 2007
24 comments
One reads so much about manipulation of a companies reported numbers, cashflow as well... what should one watch out for, to check for free cash flow manipulation if any.
Regards,
I blog at: http://indiainvestor.wordpress.com
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
E
Nov 27th, 2007
2 comments
I have a question about capital expenditures. What should be included in the capital expenditures calculation? I looked at The Volvo Group for example, and they have "Investments in fixed assets" and also "Investments in leasing assets". When calculating capital expenditures, is it only the "Investments in fixed assets" that should be included, or both of them?
In the annual report from 2006, in note 7 to the consolidated financial statements they write that capital expenditures for the Volvo Group is 14,034. Seems like it is the capex including both the fixed assets and the leasing, or? In the consolidated cash flow statement they say "Investment in fixed assets" is 9,969 and "Investments in leasing assets" is 4,611. I don't really get this.
What should be included when calculating capital expenditures?
I would be very happy if someone could help me and write some words about this. What do you think Joe?
Thanks for a great blog!
/E
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Alan
Jun 23rd, 2008
2 comments
Great use of the Morningstar data. Do you know of an equivalent in the UK as Morningstar's UK site has less data for free (you have to be a premium subscriber to get what the US site gets.)
Thanks.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Jun 24th, 2008
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Alan
Jun 24th, 2008
2 comments
http://ogres-crypt.com/ph...
"per=" can either specify "q" (quarterly) or "a" (annual)
"get=" specifies how many periods to get
"wb=" can either specify "y" (open in workbook) or "n" (open in browser)
"sym=" specifies the ticker symbol
Thoughts?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Jeff
Jun 24th, 2008
4 comments
Unbelievable link.
Any clue where it's pulling that data from??
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Jae Jun
Jun 29th, 2008
12 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Andrew
Feb 22nd, 2009
4 comments
Why doesn't Buffett's calculation of owner earnings subtract principal payments on debt?
On one hand, I think they should be subtracted because they are cash flows that are not available to owners, but to creditors.
On the other hand, as you reduce the "net debt" portion of enterprise value, you inherently increase the equity value.
How do you look at this? Thanks.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Feb 25th, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
When you buy a business as an ongoing concern, you are buying that future cash flow. You hope that management has enough sense to increase the value of the business or, in the absense of the ability to do so, to pay the cash out as dividends.
How management uses that cash (e.g., to pay off debt) does not affect the value of that cash flow; so, it is not subtracted from owner earnings — the amount of cash the business can generate regardless of how management employs that cash.
Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Andrew
Feb 26th, 2009
4 comments
Buffett's "owner earnings" is very much like FCFE; both are meant to be free cash flow available for shareholders. However, like I said, the defintions differ in that FCFE is after debt payments, while owner earnings is not.
The "value" of the enterprise is the cash you can take out of it, like you said. So then after discounting those cash flows you have an EV, from which you subtract net debt, to find the equity value. But discounting FCFE, which is after debt payments, is meant to find equity value directly.
Yet, Buffett's owner earnings is net income d&a and non-cash items - maintenance capex. If a company has required debt payments for the next 5 years that is the entirety of that owner earnings, how is that cash owners can take out of the business? Literally, it's not. But my question is, does Buffett ignore that because paying down debt principal, while not literally available to be given to shareholders, inherently increases the equity value portion of the EV. For example, if a business is worth X, with a capital structure of half debt, half equity, and you pay down debt..... assuming the business is still worth X, you have a capital structure of less than half debt, MORE than half equity---- so it does benefit shareholders, although somewhat indirectly.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Amit
Mar 1st, 2009
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Mar 3rd, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
I originally misunderstood your question. The "principal" portion of a debt payment increases the value of the company because it reduces overall debt and serves to reduce future cash flow burdens. Theoretically, management could refinance any such principal interest loan into, say, a bond with no principal payments for some time. Assuming you are valuing the business as an ongoing concern, the business could theoretically delay those principal payments indefinitely by refinancing periodically in the future.
As such, the owner earnings used to pay down debt would be able to be withdrawn from the business.
The point is this: The owner earnings tell us what the business can produce. How management uses this year's cash to increase the future value (paying off debt or refinancing it ad nauseum to pay out dividends) doesn't change the amount of cash produced by the business' operations this year. We hope to find managements intelligent enough to use that cash wisely.
Does that make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Andrew
Mar 4th, 2009
But how about this scenario:
A highly leveraged company...
owner earnings of 83 mm
Market cap of 300 mm
Net debt of 822 mm
EV of 1,122 mm
Do you consider the free cash flow yield to be 7.4% or 27.7%?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Mar 23rd, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Let's say the business' debts are at 6%. Today's interest payment is $49.3 million. (That was already accounted for in owner earnings.) It has $83 million to pay down debt. Let's say that it uses 70% of its excess cash flow to pay down debt each year.
Twelve years from now, the company is debt-free and generating $129 million in owner earnings. The markets are acting rationally, and this business is selling for, say, ten times cash flow — or, $1.2 billion.
Your return would be about 12%. Paltry, you say, because you want higher returns. Well...the price will not likely tick up 12% a year; rather, when the fear surrounding this company subsides, it will likely explode up to a more rational price over the course of a year or two, and then begin to tick up from there.
What is a rational price? If we stick with the "ten times cash flow" theme, this business should be an $800 million company today. If it takes four years for the company to prove that it can handle its debt and manage through this crisis, it would (at the above valuation metric) be a $900 million or so business. With the fear surrounding the company beginning to subside, Mr. Market will begin pushing the business higher — to a more rational level.
Over the course of four years, an investor in this scenario would earn about 32% a year (regardless of where the price went tomorrow or next year).
All of this, of course, goes back to the original question: Can this business navigate the storm and emerge stronger? The numbers are the easy part.
Does that make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Ajay
Apr 7th, 2009
6 comments
I am new to investing and thought of getting some knowledge before bumping head on with Mr. Market.
I have a question regarding FCF and owner earnings according to you:
Free Cash Flow=Net Cash From Operations - Capital Expenditures
Owner Earnings = Net Income Non-Cash Charges (Depreciation, etc.) - Capital Expenditures
Looking at JNJ 2006:
FCF will be : 14248 - 2666 = 11582
OE: 11053 2177 - 2666 = 10564
Why than you have taken OE as FCF here. I am missing a point here ?
Also how did you arrive at a return of 12% and 32% in Andrew's hypothetical example ?
Thanks in Advance and hats off to you for this wonderful blog.
Regards
Ajay
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Andrew
Apr 11th, 2009
4 comments
Then why doesn't he also add back interest expense, after tax, to owner earnings? While on the accounting cash flow statement, this is considered an operating cash flow, it's really a financing cash flow. It's an expense that would not be required of a company with an all-equity capitalization.
My issue is: FCFF is before all payments to debt holders (interest and principal), and FCFE is after all payments to debt holders (interest and principal). Buffett does not appear to be consistent with his treatment of one financing cash flow (interest) and another financing cash flow (principal payments). How do you reconcile this?
Thanks.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Andrew
Apr 11th, 2009
4 comments
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joe Ponzio
Apr 27th, 2009
Joe on twitter
Ponzio Capital
Assuming the company uses that debt to effectively increase pre-debt-payment earnings by $80,000 a year, the net effect of that borrowing would be an increase in earnings of $30,000 ($80,000 income minus $50,000 in debt payments).
You can't add the $50,000 back in to the mix because without that borrowing and debt payment, the extra $30,000 of profit wouldn't exist.
Though the debt (and thus, interest payments) are a function of the capital structure, they play an integral role in the earnings power of the business. A company doesn't have to be debt free so long as it is intelligently employing that debt. But, we shouldn't ignore the cost of that debt or its effect on earnings, both because it exists and if it didn't.
Make sense?
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Edward Allen
Apr 29th, 2009
1 comment
If we are trying to get at the core free cash a business generates, it struck me that we need to also take account of the cash that the business sucks up in inventory and WIP each years. After all it's likely that a steadily growing business will require a similar steadily growing amount of cash isn't it??
So would you recommend that the equation is:
Reported Earnings Depreciation - Capital Expenditures -changes in working capital
where Change in working capital is the change in STA less STL each year
Or am I double counting something here?!
what got me started on this was looking for the possible uses of OE in a business after dividends & buy backs, and it lead me to this. Can you think of any other core ways a business can utilise the proportion of OE that it actually retains?
many thanks
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Joie
Jul 19th, 2009
3 comments
I have read 5 year annual report of 4 companies in the food industries in my country
No apparent preference, just picked some random industry where the products are well known in the market.
Either using owner earning or free cash flow, the hardest part is to estimate the capital expenditure.
How do you do it ? Do you just look for "purchase of fixed assets" in the Investing part of the cash flow statement ? Or do you look for balance sheet changes between the year in the fixed assets ?
If the cap ex for a year has been found, does it have to be averaged out for 5 year to compute the owner earning and free cash flow ?
Regards,
Joie
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Dustin Noe
Oct 10th, 2009
1 comment
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Stephen Kutney
Nov 18th, 2009
6 comments
I have this paper from Joe called Owner Earnings vs. Free Cash Flow. I see the inventories subtraction on page 13 but I don't see it mentioned in the text of the paper or the book as something that should be subtracted.
Steve
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Eric T
Jan 2nd, 2010
Joe,
I noticed you kept out additional working capital needs in your buffet quote. I have read that buffet subtracts the additional working capital needs (if any) from one year to the next in his owner earnings calculation. I suppose this is to help account for principal payments on long term debt that are coming due. Why don't you include this in your calculation?
Thank you
-Eric T.
( REPLY | PERMALINK )
Your Name
Feb 9th, 2010