CC BY
37
Российский журнал менеджмента 17 (2): 139-158 (2019)
Russian Management Journal 17 (2): 139-158 (2019)
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКИЕ И ЭМПИРИЧЕСКИЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
TOWARD BETTER MEASUREMENT OF FINANCIAL N PERFORMANCE: A ROBUST OEVA-TEVA ALTERNATIVE TO BIASED EVA
R. G. IBRAGIMOV
Higher School of Finance and Management,
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Russiaa I. VELEZ-PAREJA
Grupo Consultor CAV (Capital Advisory & Valuation), Colombia,h /
We demonstrate analytically and illustrate with examples that the conventional measures of the residual operating income such as the Economic Value Added (EVA) are biased by design and so may yield a misleading assessment of financial performance. Fundamentally, the magnitude of the measurement error depends on the amount of realized interest tax shields and the book to value ratio. Other potentially significant sources of distortions induced by the EVA design are identified as well. We propose a robust alternative that is a concurrent evaluation of the Arm's operating and total performance by means of two related metrics, the Operating EVA (OEVA) and the Total EVA (TEVA). Coherent implementation of the OEVA-TEVA technique is simpler than the EVA both analytically and computationally. It is also able to provide additional information for the management decision making. The overall consistency of the OEVA-TEVA approach is supported by a formally proved equivalence of the corresponding OEVA-TEVA valuation model to the fundamental valuation by the cash flow discounting.
Keywords: financial performance measurement, operating EVA, total EVA, economic value added, market value added, valuation.
JEL: G32, G39, M21, M41.
In search for a perfect financial performance measure, the concept of residual income had been introduced as an improvement upon
accounting income in measuring performance. Started with the pioneering applications by Lewis [Lewis, 1955] and Solomons
a Postal Address: Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration,
Higher School of Finance and Management, 82/5, Vernadsky pr., Moscow, 119571, Russia.
b Postal Address: Grupo Consultor CAV (Capital Advisory & Valuation), 18-93 Of 6A, Avenida Miramar,
Cartagena, 130001, Colombia.
© R. G. Ibragimov, I. Vélez-Pareja, 2019
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu18.2019.201
[Solomons, 1965], the notion of residual income came to be the object of extensive debate in the management accounting literature in the 1970s [Amey, 1969; Flower, 1971; Bromwich, 1973; Amey, 1975; Tom-kins, 1975; Emmanuel, Otley, 1976]. Some accounting scholars (e. g. [Anthony, 1973]) had long advocated the residual income measures for evaluating business performance and for use in the pay-for performance compensation systems.
While the origins of the concept trace back to the 19th century, it had actually taken increasing interest of academia only in the early 1990th after the publication of analytical work by Ohlson [Ohlson, 1995] and Feltham and Ohlson [Feltham, Ohlson, 1995]. The residual income based valuation relationship stating that the economic value of an entity at a point in time is equal to the sum of the book value of the entity plus the present value of all of the entity's expected future residual incomes has become a common feature of research into the role of accounting numbers in business valuation [Feltham, Ohlson, 1996; Dechow, Hutton, Sloan, 1999; Penman, Sougiannis, 1997; Myers, 1999; Francis, Olsson, Oswald, 2000]1. About the same time the residual income had been taken up by value-based management practitioners as a means of measuring past performance and rewarding managers [Stewart, 1991; McTaggart et al., 1994], triggering an active debate in the managerial accounting literature. Bromwich and Walker [Bromwich, Walker, 1998] review theoretical papers on the strengths and weaknesses of the value-based management approaches and consider the potential for using residual income as the basis for performance-related reward systems. The work by [Ittner, Larcker, 2001] is a standard reference for extensive survey of the empirical
1 Most research papers, as noted by [Ohlson, 2002, p. 248], tend to refer residual income valuation relationship as the accounting based valuation formula. This is also the case in the financial statement analysis texts [Bernstein, Wild, 1997; Penman, 2001].
management accounting studies summarized through the lens of the value-based management accounting framework, and [Malmi, Ikaheimo, 2003] examine research-based evidence on how these concepts are actually applied.
Recurrently appearing publications indicate sustainable interest in the dual role of residual income as the performance measure and valuation attribute. [Dekker et al., 2012] review developments in the field and explore the importance of value-based measures for performance evaluation of the middle-level managers responsible for firms' primary operating units. They define the value-based measures as "the financial performance measures that include a capital charge for the use of (debt and equity) capital" [Dekker et al., 2012, p. 1216]. Heinrichs and coauthors [Heinrichs et al., 2013] building on Lundholm and O'Keefe's theoretical framework [Lundholm, O'Keefe, 2001] propose and empirically test an extended residual income valuation model that accounts for non-ideal valuation conditions. [McLaren, Appleyard, Mitchell, 2016] using institutional theory as a framework explore and explain the processes involved in the creation, use and decline of comprehensive residual income based management accounting systems.
Probably the best-known member in the family of residual income approaches is the Economic Value Added (EVA®) trademarked and promoted by the Stern Stewart & Co.2 In its essence, EVA is the residual income earned from operations, or residual operat-
2 Trademarked EVA® is unique in that its calculation involves a potential set of up to 160 adjustments to the conventional accounting data. However, according to [Young, O'Byrne, 2000, p. 257], the typical corporate EVA user makes (in most cases) no more than five adjustments. The explanations Young and O'Byrne give for this reduction are twofold: (a) managers are reluctant to deviate from accounting-based numbers; (b) companies have found that most of the suggested adjustments have little impact on profit and capital. The issue of adjustments to the accounting statements is still the subject of debate.
ing income [Penman, 2001, p. 424]3. Putting the residual operating income in place as a basic indicator of financial performance makes sense, as it brings a focus to the core business performance, to the profitability of operations that add value. Onwards, we will use EVA as a common abbreviation for the residual operating income methodology, which by its design and purpose falls on the crossroads of accounting, performance measurement and financial management.
Extensive acceptance in the corporate world and diversity of the EVA related lit-erature4 pushed the metric into the pages of the corporate finance, management accounting and performance management texts.5 As an evidence of its sustainable popularity, the search query for "economic value added" in the Russian Science Citation Index database returns more than 70 publications for the period from 2015 to 2019, which provide a wide range of examples of applying the EVA metric to measuring performance of Russian enterprises in the real and banking sectors, and for a business valuation based on the economic value added model.
Being in place for decades, the EVA metric and its measuring abilities had been an object of extensive empirical research, criticism from academia and proposals for im-provements6. The most cited publication are [Biddle, Bowen, Wallace, 1997], who tested
3 Residual operating income is also referred to as the economic profit [Koller, Goedhart, Wessels, 2010, p. 117].
4 For example, [Sharma, Kumar, 2010] cumulate and categorise 112 papers published from 1994 to 2008 covering various EVA related issues.
5 See, for example, [Grinblatt, Titman, 2001, p. 341-343; Brealey, Myers, 2010, p. 299-301, 709; Arnold, 2005, p. 181-190; Merchant, Van der Stede, 2007, p. 451-452; Bhimani et al., 2008, p. 650-651; Atrill, McLaney, 2009, p. 350-355; Garrison, No-reen, Brewer, 2010, p. 526-527; Horngren, Datar, Rajan, 2012, p. 812-813].
6 The number of the EVA related research papers posed to the SSRN's eLibrary (https://www. ssrn.com/) approaches thee hundred, with more than 34 000 downloads of the highest ranking among them.
assertions that EVA is more highly associated with stock returns and firm values, [Wallace, 1997] with the empirical evidence on how compensation plans based on residual income change managers' behavior, [O'Hanlon, Peasnell, 1998], who reviewed the EVA system in the light of its purpose to promote value-maximizing behavior in corporate managers, [Chen, Dodd, 2001], who examined the value relevance of three profitability measures: operating income, residual income, and EVA. More recent authoritative papers are [Malmi, Ikaheimo, 2003] with the real world evidence on how the Value Based Management, and especially EVA, are actually applied by corporations, and [Baker, Deo, Mukherjee, 2009], who evaluate common concerns about EVA, identify the major concerns (distortions caused by the depreciation method, complex adjustments, short-term focus, low correlation with the stock price), and offer some recommendations for using EVA more effectively.
EVA refinements, intended to improve the quality and informational content of performance measurement, evolved mainly along two ideas. The first, is replacing the accounting depreciation by the economic depreciation [Bodie, 1982; Bierman, 1988] to eliminate discrepancies between the accounting and economic income [Young, O'Byrne, 2000, p. 210-218; Ibragimov, 2007; Brealey, Myers, 2010, p. 303-305]. The second is replacing the book value of the firm's assets in the EVA formula by their market value [Bacidore et al., 1997; Albrecht, 1998]. Yet, there is the third, and, perhaps, more basic issue overlooked by researchers and practitioners. Does EVA actually measure what it is intended for? The paper contributes to existing literature by explicitly addressing this question.
Since the EVA (and the residual operating income in general) is supposed to deal with that part of business activities where managerial actions take place, the metric should not be affected by market movements that affect the share price, or by financing decisions that generally belong to the corporate headquarters. The latter is important in the
performance measurement context, since, for example, changing the leverage by adding or reducing debt moves the opportunity cost of capital employed, thus inducing changes in the residual operating income. However, these movements in the performance indicator are an outcome of actions within the finance department of the firm; they are beyond the business managers' control and, therefore, should not be their responsibility.
While the concept of the residual operating income may reasonably be perceived as developed up to the point where no further improvements are visible, taking a closer look at the metric fundamentals suggests that EVA may yield uninformative or even misleading reference point for the performance evaluation [Ibragimov, 2015], where the measurement distortions emerge along two dimensions.
The first and probably critical dimension is a measurement bias inherent in the EVA design. As the subsequent exposition clarifies, the bias stems from contrasting the net operating profit after tax (NOPAT), which is an output of firm's operating activities [Stewart, 1991; Koller, Goedhart, Wessels, 2010], with the capital charge that accounts not only for the opportunity cost of funds investors put into the firm, but also for the side effects of financing, and the latter is introduced by applying the tax adjustment (1 - T) to the cost of debt in the conventional weighted average cost of capital (WACC) formula.
The second source of potential distortions is the conventional simplifying assumptions in calculating the WACC and subsequent inconsistencies in the performance metric calculations. Accounting for the tax effect of leverage in the discount rate is at the core of the standard valuation techniques like discounting the free cash flows at the aftertax WACC. However, calculating the capital charge in EVA via the opportunity cost of funds adjusted for the tax deductibility of interest yields artificial figures that generally fall between the economic profit earned from operations and the total economic prof-
it earned from both the operating and financial activities. The calculated EVA could take a positive value just due to the interest tax shield effect imputed by the after-tax WACC in the capital charge component of the metric, and this positive value would be generally (and, perhaps, erroneously) interpreted as an indication of the operating performance above the minimum acceptable hurdle.
Furthermore, the current WACC and hence the current EVA are highly sensitive to the changes in the present value of future growth opportunities, implying that contrary to a common sense the EVA assessment of past performance depends on anticipated future events unrelated to the financial results in the period under evaluation. Thus, the measurement bias induced by the EVA's basic design may distort performance assessment and remuneration incentives.
In the pages that follow, we demonstrate how and why the measurement bias occurs, and propose a three-step path to calibrate financial performance evaluation. First, we explicitly recognize the two sources of income attributable to investors in a firm: primarily the NOPAT generated by the firm's core assets, and an interest tax shield supplement arising as a side effect of financing activities. Second, we use the cost of unlevered equity kU (corresponding to the risk of firm's assets), rather than the WACC, to calculate the full charge on the book invested capital. And third, we measure the aggregate economic profit and its operating constituent concurrently with two nested metrics: the Operating EVA (OEVA) and the Total EVA (TEVA).
The OEVA is a financial performance indicator that provides an informative view of ongoing operations, and the TEVA is an unbiased modification of EVA for the purpose of measuring overall corporate financial performance. Both measures of past performance are unaffected by the anticipated changes in the firm's future, and the key feature of the OEVA is that it is unaffected by the firm's financial policies and their side effects arising in the course of firm's activities.
The power of the dual OEVA-TEVA analysis lies in the added managerially relevant information it can offer, and in the transparent computationally simple financial measures of performance it provides. An important feature of the OEVA-TEVA approach is that it maintains consistency with the fundamental valuation by the cash flow discounting and can be applied as a self-standing methodology in the capital budgeting and business valuation. Equivalence of the OEVA-TEVA and the free cash flow (FCF) valuation methods is formally proved in the Appendix A, and the terminal value formulas for the OEVA-TEVA valuation are derived from the standard FCF constant growth formula in the Appendix B.
A hurdle rate for operations
A required return for different sources of income depends on a riskiness of the related activity. Residual income from operations is earnings for the operations and so it should be calculated and discounted using the required return that compensates for the risk in the operations, i. e. the cost of capital for operations. As the firm's providers of funds, shareholders and lenders, together hold all the firm's assets, the rate of return that is required to compensate for the overall risk they take on is the risk of assets, generally referred to as the cost of unlevered equity kU. Since the firm is a portfolio of stock and debt, the total required return of the firm is also equal to the weighted average of the expected returns of securities in it. Thus the relevant cost of capital for operations is the before tax weighted average cost of capital, or, equivalently, the required return to unlevered equity,
kU = wf-X + wixkD, (1)
where ktE is the period t cost of levered equity, ktD is the cost of debt, and the weights wE-1 = VW-1 and wD-1 = VtD_jVt-1 have to be equal to the beginning of the period t economic values of equity VtE1 and debt VtD1 relative to the overall economic value of the
levered firm Vt _1 = VtE1 + V^. These weights are generally referred to as the market weights, and using them in the cost of capital calculations is an established rule traced in corporate finance, accounting, valuation and value based management texts.7
Note, that (1) is strictly correct when the (systematic) risk of cash flows from the tax deductibility of interest is the same as the risk of unlevered equity, and throughout the paper we assume, that the appropriate discount rate for the interest tax shields is the cost of unlevered equity. Although, in rigorous theory, this assumption is not applicable for all feasible financial policies of firms, it is widely accepted as a reasonable approximation in cash flows valuation modelling [Miles, Ezzell, 1985; Harris, Pringle, 1985; Schueler and Krotter, 2008]. Regarding the debt financing, it is generally assumed at market terms, meaning that the interest rate on debt in any period is equal to the cost of debt capital, and the value of debt VtD at any time t is equal to its accounting book value Dt.
We do not challenge the fact that a firm paying interest at a rate ktD on debt outstanding Dt -1 benefits from the tax deduct-ibility of interest and obtains the right for the tax shield (TS) subsidy TSt = kiDDi-1Ti. The point here is that the tax advantage of debt does not affect the risk inherent in the firm's operating activities and corresponding required return. The regular tax adjustment (1 - T) applied to the cost of debt in the conventional weighted average cost of capital formula
WACCt = wEkE + wD_1ktD(1 _ T) (2)
is generally interpreted as the after tax cost of debt. However, the net expense kf (1 _ Tt) incurred by the firm is actually the effective book cost of borrowing, not the economic cost of debt capital, which is in essence the creditors' opportunity cost contingent on the
7 See [Yong, O'Byrne, 2000, p. 253-255; Penman, 2001, p. 432; Koller, Goedhart, Wessels, 2010, p. 802; Berk, DeMarzo, 2012, ch. 12].
expected return on alternative investments in the same risk class. What creditors expect to collect are the full (not after-tax) interest payments, and regarding the economic cost of debt capital the tax adjustment (1 - T) to make it the "after-tax cost" is irrelevant with the implication that the composite return expected by all firm's investors is the cost of unlevered equity kU, not the after-tax WACC.
Discounting the expected as if fully equity financed cash flows at the tax adjusted cost of capital is the standard technique in valuation that incorporates the tax benefits of financing decisions indirectly via the denominator of the present value calculations. However, the capital charge calculations in the EVA formula by applying the after tax WACC implicitly assume that WACC is the appropriate rate of return required to compensate investors for the risk of investing in the firm, while it is not. In effect, the after-tax WACC is an overall expected return corresponding to the particular mix of both operating and financing activities.
By combining expressions (1) and (2) one can see that the after-tax WACC is actually the cost of unlevered equity ktU reduced by the amount equal to the ratio of period t tax shield to the beginning of period value Vt _ 1 of the levered firm8:
TS
WACCt = kU - . (3)
Vt-1
Intuitively, it means that investors in the firm (debt and equity) together may be willing to accept a rate of return from operations lower than prescribed by the associated risk kU on condition that the shortfall in operations is covered by the interest tax shield subsidy from the government. However, this exogenous benefit does not make operations themselves less risky, and consequently, any metric based on a spread between the return on investment and the WACC is generally predisposed to deliver
8 The formula was first introduced by [Taggard, 1991] and derived in a more general setting by [Tham, Velez-Pareja, 2004].
a misleading benchmark in measuring operating performance. We illustrate this point with numerical examples in the next section.
Measurement errors induced by the basic design of EVA
EVA is designed to be a measure of operating performance. It departs from the net after tax operating income and subtracts the charge on the book invested capital (IC) to generate this income:
EVAt = NOPATt - ICt-1 ■ WACCt. (4)
Since the after-tax WACC sets an understated benchmark for the opportunity cost of funds employed, the straightforward implication of applying WACC to calculate the capital charge is that EVA will generally overstate results when implemented as the financial measure of efficiency in operations.
Assume, for example, a hypothetical Alpha Corporation with the following book and market information at time t = 1: IC0 = = $845, EBIT1 = $120, D0 = $380, kD = 6.0%, T = 35%, V0 = $950, and kU = 9.9%. Calculations from this data yield
NOPAT = EBIT1 (1 - T) =
= 120 • (1 - 0.35) = $78.00,
TS1 = 0.06 • 380 • 0.35 = $7.98,
WACC1 = 9.90% _ (7.98/950) = 9.06%,
EVA1 = NOPAT - IC0 ■ WACC1 =
= 78 - 845 • 9.06% = $1.44.
Positive EVA apparently indicates that the Alpha's dollar return is above the minimum acceptable level. However, EVA1 = = $1.44 is the difference of NOPAT1 = $78.00 earned from operations, which is, in fact, 6.8% below the factual required dollar return of IC0 • kU = 845 • 9.9% = $83.66, and the capital charge of IC0 ■ WACC1 = 845 x x 9.06% = $76.56, whichis imputed (by the "after tax" adjustment in WACC) to be 8.5% lower than the $83.66 dollar opportunity cost of capital employed. Subtracting the full capital charge based on the factual
benchmark kU = 9.9% from NOPAT 1, one finds a negative value 78.00 _ 83.66 = -$5.66 as an input for judgment, indicating that contrary to the positive EVA-signal the operating assets are underperforming. This example advocates that EVA could be misleading when used for its intended purpose.
Next, recall that the two basic sources of income attributable to providers of funds, both debt and equity, are the NOPAT from operations and the tax savings, arising from tax deductibility of interest expenses. By rationally capturing the tax advantages of debt, managers can mitigate poor returns from operations and even pull the aggregate financial result above the threshold required by investors. However, decisions on the side of financing per se do not affect the operating efficiency of the firm, as well as they do not reduce the risk inherent in operations. The total economic profit earned by a firm (the excess of earnings over the opportunity cost of capital invested in the business) is a composition of operating earnings above the hurdle for operations and the benefits gained due to the tax deductibility of interest. This amendment alters the assessment of Alpha's performance.
Going back to numbers, the negative value of difference between the operating profit and the full capital charge NOPAT1 - IC0 ■ kU = = -$5.66 is a clear warning of operating return being lower than required to cover the opportunity cost of funds. However, adding the contribution from financing, the shortfall in operations is more than covered by the tax savings on interest TS1 = $7.98. The aggregate economic profit of the Alpha Corporation amounts to -5.66 + 7.98 = = +$2.32, which is a healthy overall outcome warranted by the tax advantage of debt. Another observation from this readjusted viewpoint is that the conventional EVA1 = = $1.44 significantly (by 38%) understates the aggregate economic profit in the measurement period, suggesting that EVA may also yield a biased reference point for making decisions when accepted as a flow financial measure of firm's overall performance.
In sum, EVA accounts for the tax benefits of debt indirectly through the reduced cost of capital and the lower capital charge as a substitute for the direct increase in income by dollars of actually earned interest tax shields. Since WACC is not the threshold rate of return for operations, but the investors' required return for a particular blend of operating and financing activities, the conventional EVA-based analysis may produce a fuzzy assessment of financial performance and distort management remuneration.
Calibrated tools for measuring performance
A sensible path to sharpen the view of performance is to decompose the whole into the operating and financing components, and to evaluate them concurrently to see the contribution of each into the end-result in the measurement period. The logical starting point is the core operations, and we introduce the Operating EVA (OEVA) as a metric for measuring operating performance:
OEVAt = NOPATt - ICt-1 ■ kU. (5)
By applying the cost of unlevered equity to calculate the capital charge, we make two important modifications. First, we account for the factual required return on capital employed (both debt and equity), and second, we eliminate distortions that may arise out of the side effects of financing decisions implicitly introduced into the assessment of operating performance by the conventional WACC-based EVA.
OEVA can be expressed in an equivalent form as the beginning of period invested capital multiplied by the operating performance spread (the difference between the return on invested capital ROICt = NOPATt/ICt-1 and the cost of unlevered equity kU):
OEVAt = ICt-1 ■ (ROICt - kU). (6)
For the purpose of measuring firm's overall performance, the Total EVA (TEVA) is defined as the sum of OEVA and the interest tax shield:
TEVAt = OEVAt + TSt. (7)
TEVA explicitly adds the interest tax subsidy from the government (a side effect of debt financing) to what is earned by the firm in excess of dollar opportunity cost of funds invested in its business activities:
TEVAt = NOPATt - ICt-1 ■ kU + TSt. (8)
Remembering the conventional relation
NOPATt = NIt + Intt (1 _ T), (9)
the Total EVA can be restated in terms of net income (NI) and interest expenses (Int):
TEVAt = NIt + Intt _ ICt_1 • kU. (10)
Expression (10) provides an intuitive interpretation for the metric: TEVA is an aggregate income of the stockholders and debt holders less the dollar opportunity cost of the book capital invested to earn this income. The advantage of formulation (10) is that it requires minimum effort to collect input data. To calculate TEVA analyst needs the net income and the interest expenses from the Income Statement and the total assets less non-interest bearing current liabilities from the Balance Sheet.9
Calculation of TEVA by the formula (7) requires explicit estimation of the tax shields, which in practice may not be as simple as the interest expenses times the corporate tax rate. In a general case, the interest tax shield in a particular period is a piecewise linear function of earnings before interest and tax for that period, and it may also be affected by other sources of tax de-ductibility available to the firm, such as losses carried forward, exchange losses and inflation adjustments to the equity book value in financial statements.10 The TEVA expression (10) captures these effects (implicitly) from the data in the financial statements.
9 This idea was originally introduced in [Velez-Pareja, Tham, 2004].
10 For an extensive discussion of these issues, see [Velez-Pareja, Tham, 2010].
To see how EVA is formally related to TEVA and OEVA, just substitute the WACC formulation (3) into the formal definition (4) of EVA, and after elementary rearrangements obtain
EVAt = OEVAt + TSt • V-1 =
t-1 (11)
= TEVA, _ TS, •
If in period t there is a positive tax shield contribution to the investors' income, i. e. TSt > 0, then EVAt exceeds the operating component (OEVAt) of the total economic profit by the fractio n (ICt _J Vt _1) of the TSt. And when the Market Value Added (MVA),
MVAt_1 = Vt_1 _ ICt_1, (12)
is also positive, then EVAt is lower than the total economic profit (TEVAt) in period t by the amount of the TSt multiplied by the ratio (MVAt_1/Vt_1), thus falling between the values of the OEVAt and TEVAt.
Summing up, the conventional EVA calculated by applying the after tax WACC to impose the capital charge on the operating earnings will generally overestimate the economic profit from operations, will match the aggregate economic profit when MVA is zero, and can take hoax values higher than TEVA in cases where MVA is negative. All three metrics, EVA, OEVA and TEVA, would be expected to yield one and the same value when there is no contribution associated with the debt financing. In fact, when TSt = 0, equation (11) immediately reduces to EVAt = OEVAt = TEVAt, and an intuitive example here is an all equity financing. Another relevant situation would be the case of a levered firm incurring losses in period t and therefore no profits to shield by the interest expenses.
The formal analysis above confirms the observations of previous section. By its basic design, EVA is prone to be fuzzy, in sense that it measures neither the operating, nor the total profits actually earned by a firm in excess of the dollar opportunity costs of the capital employed. Fundamentally, the scale
of measurement distortion depends on the amount of tax benefits from debt in the measurement period, and on the IC to V ratio.
Measurement improvements
In addition to the measurement slips induced by the EVA design, there are also other sources of potentially significant distortions in the EVA -based performance evaluation. This section covers the relevant issues emphasizing how and why the calibrated measures, OEVA and TEVA, perform better than the conventional EVA.
Eliminating the future growth penalty on past performance
A notable situation where the EVA design leads to misrepresentation of results is when a firm experiences a shift in the value of its future growth opportunities. The effect arising is closely related to the issue of accounting for the capital charge, spotted in the practitioners literature as "an important but neglected area for research" [Young, O'Byrne, 2004, p. 253]. To illustrate, assume that all previously stated financial data for the Alpha Corporation remain unchanged at time t = 2 as they were at time t = 1, except for the beginning of period value of equity, which has doubled (due to emergence at t = 1 of inexistent at t = 0 future growth opportunities) from VEE = V0 _ D0 = 950 _ 380 = $570 at t = 0 to VE = $1140 at t =1. A higher equity value entails a higher cost of capital followed by a higher capital charge, and the latter transforms the Alpha Corporation from a positive EVA company into a negative EVA company. Specifically,
V1 = 380 + 1140 = $1520,
WACC2 = 9.90% _ (7.98/1520) = 9.38%,
EVA2 = 78 _ 845 • 9.38% = -$1.22.
Successive EVA figures indicate a deterioration in performance. However, there are no changes in profits or assets base generating those profits, as well as in the financial ratios like the profit margin, assets
turnover, return on invested capital etc. Altogether, Alpha's performance in periods 1 and 2 is stable by any conventional accounting criteria, and the negative signal prompted by the observed EVA figures is contrary to the factual results. The origin of this controversy is the capital charge penalty imposed on the current EVA by the WACC appreciation at time t = 2, the latter coming from the reduced tax shield adjustment:
VE > v0e ^ V1 > v0 ^ TS2V1 < TS1IV0 ^ WACC2 > WACC1.
From the standpoint of performance assessment, both the increase in WACC and the higher capital charge following the increase in equity value (due to earlier unavailable future growth opportunities) are artificial effects unrelated to the past and current performance. Invested capital, its opportunity costs, profits and tax saving on interest, all are the same at t = 1 and at t = 2. Therefore, switching from a positive EVA1 = $1.44 to a negative EVA2 = -$1.22 is a manifestation of the bias introduced into the performance measurement by the EVA design.
Everything falls into place when the calibrated measures are applied to evaluate performance. Substituting data for the Alpha Corporation into (5) and (7) obtain
OEVA2 = OEVA1 = 78 _ 845 • 9.90% = = -$5.66,
TEVA2 = TEVA1 = -5.66 + 7.98 = = +$2.32.
The operating performance indicator OEVA is stable in periods 1 and 2, but operations are inefficient since NOPAT is lower than required to cover the opportunity cost of capital invested in operating assets. Aggregate financial performance, as indicated by TEVA, is also stable, and tax savings on interest ensure a positive overall result. The effect of switching from positive in period 1 to negative in period 2 economic profit is eliminated when OEVA and TEVA are used for performance evaluation.
Cancelling the inconsistency errors Exposition and conclusions in the previous sections regarding the measurement bias inherent in the EVA design and the relationship between EVA, OEVA and TEVA implicitly assume that the necessary conditions for consistency in calculating WACC are satisfied. The basic three of them are: (a) the weights are based on the economic (market) values of debt and equity at the beginning of measurement period; (b) interest and taxes are paid in the period they are accrued; and (c) earnings before interest and tax exceed the interest on debt [Velez-Pareja, Ibragimov, Tham, 2008]. However, it is not uncommon in practice that these assumptions are not met; and since the capital charge component of EVA is highly sensitive to the cost of capital, the outcome of EVA -based analysis will depend upon how WACC is calculated de facto. Inconsistencies easily slip in when the formula (2) is used; introducing even more confusion in the EVA-based performance assessment. In this section we explain with examples how the inconsistency errors occur in the EVA calculations, and demonstrate that the dual OEVA-TEVA financial performance measurement eliminates even the possibility of such errors.
Imputed tax shields error. To be specific, assume for instance that under the terms of loan agreement, the Alpha Corporation does not have to pay interest in the period 1, all other data being the same as stated earlier. Given that V0D = D0 = $380 and V0 = $950, the value of Alpha's equity is VE = 950 - 380 = = $570. Therefore, the Alpha's capital structure is 40% debt, wD = 380/950 = 0.40, and 60% equity, wE; = 1 - wD = 0.60.
To calculate WACC by the formula (2) we have to calculate the cost of levered equity first, and this is done by the formula
kE = kU + V^T(kU _ kD). (13)
This formulation does not include a tax term (1 - T), since tax shields are assumed to be as risky as the company's unlevered
cash flows [Taggart, 1991; Inselbag, Kaufold, 1997; Tham, Velez-Pareja, 2004].
Substituting the relevant data for the Alpha Corporation yields
kE = 9.90% + (0.40/0.60) x
x ( 9.90% - 6.0%) = 12.50%,
WACC1 = 0.60 • 12.50% +
+ 0.40 • 6.0% • (1 - 0.35) = 9.06%.
NOPAT and IC are unaffected by the interest payments, therefore
EVA1 = 78 - 845 • 9.06% = $1.44.
Note, that the resulting figure EVA1 = = $1.44 is the same as if the interest has been paid and the interest tax shield has been earned. However, when a firm does not pay interest, the benefits of sheltering income from tax are forgone, and the economic profits actually earned are reduced by the tax shields missed. This is not captured by the conventional EVA, because the tax shield effect is introduced into the calculations irrespective of interest payments by the (1 - T) adjustment to the cost of debt in the formula (2).
OEVA and TEVA are free from this imputed tax shield bias and react accordingly. Since the Alfa pays no interest on debt, then TS1 = 0 and TEVA1 = OEVA1 = 78.00-83.66 = = -$5.66. Operating performance is unaffected (as captured by OEVA), and TEVA equals the total economic profit actually earned exclusive of any virtual amount of nonexistent interest tax shields (counted in EVA). In line with the analysis in previous section, the values of both metrics match, as will also the value of EVA if calculated consistently. In fact, applying formula (4) instead of (2) immediately obtain, that in the case of zero tax shield WACC is equal to the cost of unlevered equity kU, and therefore, EVA = OEVA = TEVA.
The target and the book capital structure errors. According to the established rule in corporate finance, WACC should be the market weighted average of the cost of equity and the cost of debt. A widespread substitute
for this rule is to use the long term target weights to calculate WACC. Another fairly common approach is using the book weights. Both methods are attractively simple, but computational simplicity comes at a cost of added distortions in performance assessment.
Assume, for example, that for the purpose of calculating WACC the management of Alpha Corporation adheres to the target debt weight wD = 0.5. Under the constant leverage assumption the formula (3) transforms into the WACC model introduced by [Harris, Pringle, 1985]
TS
WACC = kU -, t
= kU -
and, therefore,
Vt-1
Dt-1kDT Vt-1
(14)
= kU - wDkrT,
WACC1 = 9.90% _ 6.0% • 0.5 • 0.35 = = 8.85%,
EVA1 = 78 _ 845 • 8.85% = $3.22.
One can see that calculations using the target weights in WACC yield the EVA figure more than two times higher than EVA1 = $1.44 with the market weights in WACC, and 38% higher than the attainable TEVA1 = $2.32.
With the book weights in WACC, the EVA view of the Alpha's performance looks distorted as well. Given IC0 = $845 and D0 = = $380, the book value of equity is 845 _ 380 = = $465, and the book weights are wD = = 380/845 = 0.45, wE = 1 _ wD = 0.55. Consequently
kEE = 9.90% + (0.45/0.55) x x (9.90% _ 6.0%) = 13.09%,
WACC1 = 0.55 • 13.09% + 0.45 x
x 6.0% • (1 _ 0.35) = 8.96%,
EVA1 = 78 _ 845 • 8.96% = $2.32.
Since the book value of the Alpha's invested capital is significantly lower than its market value, calculations yield understat-
ed WACC1 = 8.96% < 9.06% and overstated EVA1 = $2.32 > $1.44.
In contrast to the WACC based capital charge in EVA, the opportunity cost of capital applied to calculate the capital charge in OEVA and TEVA is the risk of assets kU (the cost of unlevered equity), which is unaffected by the firm's capital structure. Accordingly, OEVA and TEVA are free from errors associated with the target capital structure assumption and the book capital structure simplification.
Practical implications
Distortions in the performance assessment induced by the EVA design and supplement aberrations arising from inconsistency or simplifying conventions when calculating WACC can lead to misrepresentations and wrong conclusions regarding the firm's financial performance, trigger unintended errors in making decisions and produce distortions in the corporate reward system. A strong argument in favor of calibrated metrics proposed in the paper is that all prerequisites for the emergence of such errors are eliminated in the performance measurement based on OEVA and TEVA. TEVA fits better than EVA for measuring firm's overall financial performance, and OEVA is a robust metric that provides an informative view of ongoing operations. A distinct advantage and, perhaps, the most important property of the OEVA is that it is unaffected by the firm's financing decisions. Both the OEVA and TEVA are computationally transparent and straightforward for interpretation. And on top, the valuation models with OEVA and TEVA as the valuation attributes are equivalent to the fundamental discounted cash flow model. Next section offers a compact presentation of the valuation-related issues.
Valuing a firm by TEVA and OEVA discounting
The value V of a levered firm at time t in terms of TEVA is equal to the book invested
capital at time t plus the present value of all expected future TEVAs. In symbols,
Vt - ICt + tTEVAt+s • (1 + kU)_s, (15)
s=1
where the upper value L of a summation index s denotes the expected end of life of the company. Typically, L = <» for a going concern, but can be a finite year for those cases where the firm is expected to have a finite life.
The structure of TEVA valuation model is similar to that of the conventional EVA model
V = ICt + i^EVAt+s n (1 + WACCj\ (16)
s=1 j=1
and if done consistently, they both yield the same value as the basic free cash flow (FCF) valuation model
Vt - lFCFt+sn(1 + WACCt+j)_1. (17) s=1 j=1
Symbol n in equations (16) and (17) denotes the product. Appendix A provides an algebraic proof of equivalence of the TEVA and FCF valuation models.
The value of levered firm at time t can also be expressed as the sum of its book invested capital, the present value of expected OEVAs (VOEVA) and the value of the interest tax shields (VTS):
Vt = ICt + VtOEVA + VtTS, (18)
VtOEVA - j^OEVAt+s (1 + kU)_s, (19)
s=1
VtTS -iTSt+s (1 + kU)_s. (20)
s=1
Since the value of a levered firm is also equal to the sum of its value VU were it un-levered and the value of the interest tax shields
Vt = VtU + VtTS, (21)
then it immediately follows that discounting expected OEVAs at the cost of unlevered equity kU and adding the book invested capital yields the value VU of unlevered
firm, which is the present value of expected future free cash flows discounted at kU:
yOEVA + ICt = yU ^
= ÍFCFt+s .(1 + kU)-s. (22)
s=1
The key difference between the TEVA and EVA valuation models is that the cost of un-levered equity kU is applied both to calculate the metric and to discount the forecasted annual TEVAs, while EVA is calculated and discounted with WACC. This difference is a source of advantage of the TEVA valuation model over the EVA model in the real-life applications. To see why, recall that the value of firm is equal to the present value of its future free cash flows discounted at WACC only when WACC is the market weighted average of the cost of equity and the cost of debt. Therefore, to maintain consistency in the valuation model, WACC has to be recalculated period by period to account for the changes in the capital structure and to a possibly changing cost of debt arising from the operating, investment and financing decisions made by the management. Different numeric values for WACC should be applied each year to calculate and discount EVA, and here the analyst is confronted with a triple circularity problem. To calculate EVA she needs to know WACC, to calculate WACC she in turn needs to know V, and to calculate V she needs to know the values of EVA and WACC in all future periods of the forecast horizon. This circularity issue, though solvable either numerically or analytically [Vélez-Pareja, Tham, 2009; Mejia-Pelaez, Vélez-Pareja, 2011], adds substantially to building up computational complexities in structuring and handling consistent EVA valuation model.
On the contrary, the discount rate kU in the OEVA-TEVA based valuation model is independent of changes in the capital structure and could be assumed constant (unless the firm decides to change its business mix, substantially altering the systematic risk of operations). Consequently, the OEVA-TEVA valuation requires much fewer restric-
tive assumptions to estimate the cost of capital and therefore, less prone to errors in the periodic and present value calculations. The OEVA-TEVA model is free of implicit and explicit complexities and in-consistences discussed in the previous sections and simpler than the EVA model both analytically and computationally.
Decomposition of the Market Value Added The Market Value Added (MVA) can also be reformulated in terms of TEVA. Just remembering that the value of firm equals its book invested capital plus the present value of expected future TEVAs, one immediately obtains that the firm's MVA is equal to the present value of the expected future TEVAs discounted at the cost of unlevered equity kU. Stating in symbols
MVAt = JjTEVAt+s -(1 + kU)-
(23)
s=1
Relying on the additivity of present values and in line with the OEVA-TEVA approach of disaggregating overall performance into the operating and financing components, we can split MVA into the Operations Value Added (OVA) and the Financing Value Added (FVA ):
MVAt = OVAt + FVAt.
(24)
The OVA is defined as the present value of expected future OEVAs discounted at kU, and it accounts for the value of firm's operations over and above the capital invested:
OVAt =%OEVAt+s (1 + kU )-s.
(25)
The FVA measures how much value has been added or destroyed by the firm's financial maneuvers. Basically, it is the present value of expected interest tax shields:
FVAt = VtTS,
(26)
but can also include other effects of financing, such as issuance costs and commissions, debt and tax subsidies, financial distress costs.
This decomposition of MVA is similar to the Adjusted Present Value (APV) analysis
of [Myers, 1974] in the capital budgeting, and in the context of performance evaluation, it can help managers to see not only how much value is added to the money investors have put into the firm, but also where the value comes from. [Adsera, Vinolas, 2003] elaborated a method of explicitly incorporating financing effects (such as contributions from tax shields and bankruptcy costs) into the EVA and discounted cash flow valuation models, however, their results are limited to the particular case of growing perpetuities.
Terminal value formulae for the OEVA-TEVA valuation model
When performing a valuation the future is usually divided into two periods: the explicit forecast period of N years where the valuation attribute is forecasted a year by year from the projected financial statements, and the perpetuity period after that, accounted for by the terminal value. With respect to the TEVA valuation model, there is a choice of several interchangeable options for the terminal value calculation under the standard steady state assumptions of a constant growth rate gTV and a constant return ROICTV on new investments in perpetuity. Here we present the formulations derived, and details of derivation are available in the Appendix B.
The first formulation is in terms of TEVA:
TVN = ICn + TVTEVA,
TV TEVA = TEVAN+1
N
TEVAn+2 - TEVAn+1
kU -(kU - gTV) .
(27)
(28)
And the second one, similar to the "key value driver formula" mentioned in [Koller, Goedhart, Wessels, 2010, p. 119], is in terms of the TEVA drivers:
m 17-TEVA _ TEVAN+1 + M + gTV ■ TSn+l (29)
kU -(kU - gTV)
where
M = NOPAT,
gTV
N+1
ROICtv
■(ROICtv - kU).
+
Both expressions (28) and (29) are equivalent to the standard Gordon-type terminal value formula in the free cash flow valuation model
FCF,
N+1
TV =
N WACCtv - gtv
(30)
where WACCTV is the weighted average cost of capital for the firm in perpetuity.
The TV expressions (28) and (29) can also be restated in terms of OEVA and the interest tax shields in perpetuity
TV TEVA _ rpTT-OEVA , rrrrrTS TVN ~ TVN TVN ,
where
TVTS _ TSN+1
N _ kU -gTV '
TV OEVA = OEVAn+1
M
N
kU
kU (kU - gTV)
(31)
(32)
(33)
or, equivalently,
OEVA
TVN
OEVA
■N+1
kU
OEVAn+2 - OEVAN+1
kU (kU - gTV) ■
(34)
Note, that formulas (28) and (34) require explicit calculations of the valuation attributes for the two extra periods, N + 1 and N + 2, beyond the forecast horizon of N years.
Concluding Remarks
Measuring financial performance is an essential part of any business management system. None of the established financial metrics is perfect, and very often an idea of improvements falls on the path of increasing complexity that in the end can easily outweigh the benefits gained. Our proposition is taking three steps toward constructive simplification, which make the economic profit based performance assessment easier to perform, interpret and finally integrate into the corporate perfor-
mance management system. Contrary to what one might expect from "simplification", the steps proposed do not reduce the quality of measurements; they improve it and make results more reliable.
First, we recognize that the aggregate income attributable to the suppliers of funds is essentially the sum of the NOPAT and the tax savings on interest. On the side of the firm's investors, this is exactly the aggregate book income of the stockholders and debt holders, net income plus interest on debt, which provides the factual basis for the estimation of economic profit earned by the firm in a measurement period.
Second, we use the risk of assets to calculate the full charge on the money investors put into the firm. This is a logical extension of the first step, ensuring consistency in the financial model. Since the tax effects of leverage are taken into account explicitly in the flows, the opportunity cost of capital is the weighted average cost of capital unadjusted for taxes. This approach has its counterpart — Capital Cash Flow valuation model in the universe of discounted cash flow analysis [Ruback, 2002].
Third, we replace the traditional EVA, with the two complementary financial metrics: the Operating EVA (OEVA) for the purpose of measuring operating performance, and the Total EVA (TEVA) for the purpose of measuring overall performance. The OEVA-TEVA approach to performance assessment leaves aside distortions, complexities and inconsistencies inherent in the basic design of EVA. It is straightforward for interpretation and computationally simpler relative to EVA; it requires much fewer restrictive assumptions to estimate the cost of capital and so is less prone to errors that distort managerial perception of performance. The key role in the OEVA-TEVA analysis clearly belongs to OEVA. Undis-torted by the side effects of financing decisions it provides an informative financial estimate of the operating efficiency, and being nested in TEVA it forms the basis for the firm's overall performance evaluation.
+
Additional, but not the least relevant argument in support of our OEVA-TEVA proposition is the equivalence of the OEVA-TEVA based valuation model to the fundamental
approach of valuing a firm by cash flow discounting, so that it may be also utilized as a standalone methodology for investment project appraisal and business valuation.
Appendix A
EQUIVALENCE OF THE TEVA AND FCF VALUATION
First, we show that the yearly dynamics of the two valuation models are equivalent for an arbitrary year t in the forecast period. Since the models and the discounting procedure are applied in the same way for any year, then the equivalence must hold for any and all years. By this argument, the equivalence is proved.
The free cash flow valuation model
The FCF model suggests that the levered firm value, Vt is equal to the present value of all expected free cash flows discounted at a periodically adjusted weighted average cost of capital
't+1)
(A.l)
Vt = 1 FCFt+s n(l + WACCt
s = 1 J = 1
L denotes the expected end of life of the company.
Since the value at each date t includes the value of all subsequent cash flows, it is simpler to compute Vt by working backward from period t + 1, discounting that period free cash flow FCFt + 1 and the value Vt + 1 of free cash flows in year t + 2 and beyond
FCF + V
V = rcrt+i^ Vt+i
V l + WACCt+1.
(A.2)
Equation (A.2) represents yearly dynamics of a levered firm value according to the FCF model.
Following a common definition [Koller, Goed-hart, Wessels, 2010, p. 154-156],
FCFt = NOPATt -(ICt - ICt-i).
(A.3)
Time index t - 1 on a balance sheet or other stock items means end of year t - 1, or equiva-lently, beginning of year t.
Yearly value dynamics in the TEVA valuation
model
According to the TEVA model, the value of a levered firm at time t is:
Vt = iCt + t™A+L.
t t S (l + kU)s
(A.4)
Taking the term TEVAt+1/(1 + kU) outside the summation we can rewrite (A.4) as
Vt = iCt + ÈTEVAt+s
■=i (1 + kU )s
= IC , TEVAt+i
TEVAt
(A. 5)
i y T
i + kU ' i + kuy (i + kU)s
Note that the value of the levered firm at time t + 1 is
V = IC +yTEVAt+s
Vt+i ICt+i ^ 2-i,
s=2 (i + kU )
and, consequently. L TEVA
S=2 (i + kU
= ^ - ICf^,.
(A.6)
(A. 7)
After substituting (A.7) into the expression (A.5) the latter simplifies to
Vt = ICt + ^ElA^ + Y+W ■ (Ft+1 - ICt+^.(A.8)
Finally, reducing to a common denominator, we obtain the relation of levered firm values for two subsequent time periods according to the TEVA valuation model
Vt = Ict + TEVA+i + V -IC+i t t i+kU
(A.9)
Proof of equivalence
By definition
TEVAM = NOPATt+1 - ICt ■ kU + TSM.(A. 10)
Multiplying both sides of (A.9) with (1 + kU) obtain
Vt + Vt ■ kU = ICt + ICt • kU + + TEVAt+1 + Ví+1 - ICM
(A. 11)
Substituting (A.10) into (A.11) yields
Vt + Vt . kU = ICt + ICt • kU +
NOPATt+1 - ICt • kU
TSt+1 + Vt+1 - ICt+i.
(A.12)
After making rearrangements and taking into account (A.3), equation (A.12) reduces to
Vt + Vt • kU _ TSt+1 = FCFt+1 + Vt+1. (A. 13)
Factoring out Vt in the left had side of (A.13), obtain
Vt ji + kU _ j = FCFt+! + VM. (A. 14)
Remembering (3), the expression (A. 14) finally transforms into the (A.2) — the yearly dynamics of a levered value in the FCF valuation model.
Appendix B
DERIVATION OF THE TERMINAL VALUE FORMULAS FOR THE TEVA
AND OEVA VALUATION
Start with the standard TV formula in the free
cash flow valuation model, assuming constant growth gTV in perpetuity and a constant cost of capital WACCTV
TV
FCF
WACCr
gTV
(B.1)
Under the assumption of constant return ROICTV on new investments starting year N + 1 to infinity, the free cash flow is the NOPAT less the reinvestment to grow assets [Koller, Goed-hart, Wessels, 2010, p. 214]
fcfn+1 = nopatn+1-i1 - roir
gTV
therefore
NOPAT„
TVn =
1-
g
TV
ROIC„,
WWACCTV gTV
According to (3)
JIQ
WACCtv = kU - TN1.
(B.2)
(B.3)
(B.4)
Substituting (B.4) into (B.3) after rearrangements obtain
nopatn+ 11 -
TVn =-
ROIC_
■ TS A
kU - gTV
-. (B.5)
Next, multiply and divide the right hand
side of (B.5) by kU and then subtract and add
(NOPATN• gTV + TSN• gTV) in the numerator
of resulting expression. Regrouping members in the numerator yields
TV,
_ (NOPAT,+1 + TSn+1))u - gTV)
kU -(kU - gTV)
NOPATK1
_ gTV
' ROIC
(ROICTV -kU)
kU -(kU - gTV)
+TSN+1 ' gTV _
kU -(kU - gTV)
NOPATn+1 + TSN+1
(B.6)
NOPAT,
N+1 ROIC
(ROICTV -kU)
+ TSN+1 ' gTV
kU ( - gTV ).
Remembering (8), it follows that NOPATN+1 + + TSN+1 = TEVAn+1 + ICN • kU, and (B.6) final ly transforms into the formula
TV - IC + TEVAN+1 TVN - ICN +-TU--
NOPATn
ROIC
(B.7)
(ROICtv -kU) + TS,+1 - gTV
kU ( - gTV)
which is the combination of (27) and (29).
After applying simple algebra to the numerator of the last term on the right-hand side of (B.7)
+
+
+
U
k
+
+
NOPATn+1 • • (ROICTV -hU) + gTV • TSN+1 =
- nopatn+1 ■ gTV + tsn+1 ■ gTV -
- NOPAT__gTV__hU =
nu^atn+1 roictv h -
U_
_ (nopatn+2 - nopatn+1 ) +
+ (TSN+2 - TSN+1) - (ICN+2 - ICN+1) ' h
= TEVAn+2 - TEVAN+i-
Formula (B.7) transforms into the terminal value formula in terms of TEVA
TVn = ICN
tevan
U
tevan+2 - tevan+1
hU ■(hU - gTV) '
(B.8)
which is the combination of (27) and (28).
Next, equation (B.7) remembering (8) is reformulated in terms of OEVA
tv„ = IC^oevan+±
hU
g TV
lN+1" ROIC
(B.9)
NOPATN+ ■ (ROICTV -hU)
TS
kU •(kU - gTV) and (B.8) transforms into
TV = IC + OEVAn+1
TVN = ICN +-йй--
OEVAn+2 - OEVAN+! ^ TS
hU - gTV
(B.10)
kU -(кй - gTV)
Consequently
TVn = ICN + TV°EVA + TV™, (B. 11)
TV OEVA _
OEVAn +i + OEVAN+2 - OEVAN+1 _
hU - gTV )
OEVAn+! hU NOPATn
(B.12)
ROIC
■(ROICTV - hU)
hU ■(hU - gTV)
+
+
+
REFERENCES
Adserá X., Viñolas P. 2003. FEVA: A financial and economic approach to valuation. Financial Analysts Journal 59 (2): 80-87.
Albrecht T. 1998. The search for the best financial performance measure: A comment. Financial Analysts Journal 54 (1): 86-87.
Amey L. 1969. The Efficiency of Business Enterprises. Allen and Unwin: London.
Amey L. 1975. Tomkins on 'residual income'. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 2 (1): 55-68.
Anthony R. 1973. Accounting for the cost of equity. Harvard Business Review (51): 88102.
Arnold G. 2005. Handbook of Corporate Finance. A Business Companion to Financial Markets, Decisions & Techniques. Financial Times/Prentice Hall: Edinburgh Gate.
Atrill P., McLaney E. 2009. Management Accounting for Decision Makers. Pearson Education: Essex.
Bacidore J. M., Boquist J. A., Milbourn T. T., Thakor A. V. 1997. The search for the best
financial performance measure. Financial Analysts Journal 53 (3): 11_20.
Baker H. K., Deo P., Mukherjee T. 2009. EVA Revisited. Journal of Financial Education (35): 1_22.
Berk J., DeMarzo P. 2012. Corporate Finance: The Core. Pearson Education: Boston, MA.
Bernstein L. A., Wild J. J. 1997. Financial Statement Analysis: Theory, Application and Interpretation. McGraw-Hill: Homewood, IL.
Bhimani A., Horngren C. T., Datar S. M., Foster G. 2008. Management and Cost Accounting. Pearson Education: Essex.
Biddle G. C., Bowen R. M., Wallace J. S. 1997. Does EVA® beat earnings? Evidence on associations with stock returns and firm values. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24 (3): 301_336.
Bierman H. 1988. Beyond cash flow ROI. Midland Corporate Finance Journal 5 (4): 36_39.
Bodie Z. 1982. Compound interest depreciation in capital investment. Harvard Business Review 60: 58_60.
Brealey R., Myers S. 2010. Principles of Corporate Finance. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.
Bromwich M. 1973. Measurement of divisional performance: A comment and extension. Accounting and Business Research (3): 123-132.
Bromwich M., Walker M. 1998. Residual income past and future. Management Accounting Research 9 (4): 391-419.
Chen S., Dodd J. L. 2001. Operating income, residual income and EVA™: Which metric is more value relevant? Journal of Managerial Issues 13 (1): 65-86.
Dechow P., Hutton A., Sloan R. 1999. An empirical assessment of the residual income valuation model. Journal of Accounting and Economics 26 (1-3): 1-34.
Dekker H. C., Groot T., Schoute M., Wiers-ma E. 2012. Determinants of the use of value-based performance measures for managerial performance evaluation. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 39 (9-10): 1214-1239.
Emmanuel C. R., Otley D. T. 1976. The usefulness of residual income. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 3 (4): 4351.
Feltham G. Ohlson J. 1995. Valuation and clean surplus accounting for operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research (11): 689-731.
Feltham G., Ohlson J. 1996. Uncertainty resolution and the theory of depreciation measurement. Journal of Accounting Research (34): 209-234.
Flower J. 1971. Measurement of divisional performance. Accounting and Business Research (1): 205-214.
Francis J., Olsson P., Oswald D. 2000. Comparing the accuracy and explainability of dividend, free cash flow and abnormal earnings equity value estimates. Journal of Accounting Research (38): 71-102.
Garrison R. H., Noreen E. W., Brewer P. C. 2010. Managerial Accounting. McGraw-Hill: N. Y.
Grinblatt M., Titman S. 2001. Financial Markets and Corporate Strategy. McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.
Harris R., Pringle J. 1985. Risk-adjusted discount rates extensions from the aver-
age-risk case. Journal of Financial Research 8 (3): 237-244.
Heinrichs N., Hess D., Homburg C., Lorenz M., Sievers S. 2013. Extended dividend, cash flow, and residual income valuation models: Accounting for deviations from ideal conditions. Contemporary Accounting Research 30 (1): 42-79.
Horngren C. T., Datar S. M., Rajan M. V. 2012. Cost accounting: A managerial emphasis. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ibragimov R. G. 2007. Financial estimate of administrative solutions: About application and interpretation of parameter EVA. Audit and Financial Analysis (5): 141149. (In Russian)
Ibragimov R. G. 2015. Why we should not trust the EVA-based assessment of performance? Finansovye Issledovania 3: 164170. (In Russian)
Inselbag I., Kaufold H. 1997. Two DCF approaches for valuing companies under alternative financing strategies (and how to choose between them). Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 10 (1): 114-122.
Ittner C. D., Larcker D. F. 2001. Assessing empirical research in managerial accounting: A value-based management perspective. Journal of Accounting and Economics (32): 349-410.
Koller T., Goedhart M., Wessels D. 2010. Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies. John Wiley & Sons: Hobo-ken, NJ.
Lewis R. 1955. Planning, Managing and Measuring the Business. A Case Study of Management Planning and Control at the General Electric Company. Controllers Institute Research Foundation: N. Y.
Lundholm R., O>Keefe T. 2001. Reconciling value estimates from the discounted cash flow model and the residual income model. Contemporary Accounting Research 18 (2): 311-335.
Malmi T., Ikaheimo S. 2003. Value Based Management practices — some evidence from the field. Management Accounting Research 14 (3): 235-254.
McLaren J., Appleyard T., Mitchell F. 2016. The rise and fall of management account-
ing systems: A case study investigation of EVA™. The British Accounting Review 48 (3): 341-358.
McTaggart M., Kontes P. W., Mankins M. C. 1994. The Value Imperative: Managing for Superior Shareholder Returns. The Free Press: New York, NY.
Mejia-Pelaez F., Vélez-Pareja I. 2011. Analytical solution to the circularity problem in the discounted cash flow valuation framework. Innovar 21 (42): 55-68.
Merchant K. A., Van der Stede W. A. 2007. Management Control Systems. Pearson Education: Essex.
Miles J., Ezzell J. 1985. Reformulating tax shield valuation: A note. Journal of Finance 40 (5): 1485-1492.
Myers J. 1999. Implementing residual income valuation with linear information dynamics. The Accounting Review (74): 1-28.
Myers S. 1974. Interactions of corporate financing and investment decisions — implications for capital budgeting. Journal of Finance 29 (1): 1-25.
O'Hanlon J., Peasnell K. 1998. Wall Street's contribution to management accounting: The Stern Stewart EVA® financial management system. Management Accounting Research 9 (4): 421-444
Ohlson J. 1995. Earnings, book values, and dividends in equity valuation. Contemporary Accounting Research (11): 661-687.
Ohlson J. 2002. Discussion of "residual income and value-creation: The missing link". Review of Accounting Studies (7): 247-251.
Penman S., Sougiannis T. 1997. The dividend displacement property and the substitution of anticipated earnings for dividends in equity valuation. The Accounting Review (72): 1-21.
Penman S. H. 2001. Financial Statements Analysis and Security Valuation. McGraw-Hill: N. Y.
Ruback R. S. 2002. Capital cash flows: A simple approach to valuing risky cash flows. Financial Management 31 (2): 55-103.
Schueler A., Krotter S. 2008. The link between residual income and value created
for levered firms: A note. Management Accounting Research (19): 270-277.
Sharma A. K., Kumar S. 2010. Economic value added (EVA) — literature review and relevant issues. International Journal of Economics and Finance 2 (2): 200220.
Solomons D. 1965. Divisional Performance: Measurement and Control. Richard D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Stewart G. B. 1991. The Quest for Value. Harper Business: N. Y.
Taggart R. 1991. Consistent valuation and cost of capital expressions with corporate and personal taxes. Financial Management 20 (3): 8-20.
Tham J., Vélez-Pareja I. 2004. Principles of Cash Flow Valuation. Elsevier Academic Press: Burlington.
Tomkins C. 1975. Residual income: A rebuttal of professor Amey's argument. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting (2): 161168.
Vélez-Pareja I., Tham J. 2004. EVA(c) Made Simple: Is it Possible? Working paper. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 497545
Vélez-Pareja I., Ibragimov R., Tham J. 2008. Constant leverage and constant cost of capital: A common knowledge half-truth. Estudios Gerenciales 24 (107): 13-34.
Vélez-Pareja I., Tham J. 2009. Market value calculation and the solution of circularity between value and the weighted average cost of capital WACC. Revista de Admin-istraçâo Mackenzie 10 (6): 101-131.
Vélez-Pareja I., Tham J. 2010. Company's valuation in an emerging economy — case study TIMANCO S.A. The Valuation Journal 5 (2): 4-45.
Wallace J. S. 1997. Adopting residual income-based compensation plans: Do you get what you pay for? Journal of Accounting and Economics 24 (3): 275-300.
Young D. S., O'Byrne S. F. 2000. EVA and Value-Based Management: A Practical Guide to Implementation. McGraw-Hill: N. Y.
Initial Submission: May 13, 2019 Final Version Accepted: June 28, 2019
К вопросу улучшения измерения финансовой результативности: надежная OEVA—TEVA как альтернатива смещенной EVA
Р. Г. Ибрагимов
Высшая школа финансов и менеджмента Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте РФ, Россия
И. Велес-Пареха
Консалтинговая группа (Консультирование и оценка капитала), Колумбия
В статье показано аналитически и проиллюстрировано на примерах, что традиционные измерители остаточного операционного дохода, такие как экономическая добавленная стоимость (EVA), являются конструктивно смещенными и поэтому могут приводить к ошибкам в анализе финансовой результативности. Величина ошибки измерения зависит главным образом от суммы реализованного процентного налогового щита и соотношения балансовой и рыночной стоимости активов. Также идентифицированы и другие потенциально значимые источники искажений, порождаемые конструкцией EVA. В качестве надежной альтернативы предлагается одновременная оценка операционной и общей результативности фирмы с помощью двух взаимосвязанных показателей: операционной EVA (OEVA) и полной EVA (TEVA). Реализация техники OEVA-TEVA проще, чем EVA, в части как аналитики, так и вычислений. Она также может предоставить дополнительную информацию для принятия управленческих решений. Состоятельность OEVA-TEVA подхода в целом подтверждается формально доказанной эквивалентностью корреспондирующей OEVA-TEVA модели оценки и основополагающей оценки методом дисконтирования денежных потоков.
Ключевые слова: финансовое измерение результативности, операционная EVA, полная EVA, добавленная экономическая стоимость, добавленная рыночная стоимость, оценка.
JEL: G32, G39, M21, M41.
For citation: Ibragimov R.G., Vélez-Pareja I. 2019. Toward better measurement of financial performance: A robust OEVA-TEVA alternative to biased EVA. Russian Management Journal 17 (2): 139-158.
Статья поступила в редакцию 13 мая 2019 г. Принята к публикации 28 июня 2019 г.
