The Fundamental Determinants of Growth

With both historical and analyst estimates, growth is an exogenous variable that affects value but is divorced from the operating details of the firm. The soundest way of incorporating growth into value is to make it endogenous, i.e., to make it a function of how much a firm reinvests for future growth and the quality of its reinvestment. We will begin by considering the relationship between fundamentals and growth in equity income, and then move on to look at the determinants of growth in operating income.

Growth In Equity Earnings

            When estimating cash flows to equity, we usually begin with estimates of net income, if we are valuing equity in the aggregate, or earnings per share, if we are valuing equity per share. In this section, we will begin by presenting the fundamentals that determine expected growth in earnings per share and then move on to consider a more expanded version of the model that looks at growth in net income.

Growth in Earnings Per Share

            The simplest relationship determining growth is one based upon the retention ratio (percentage of earnings retained in the firm) and the return on equity on its projects. Firms that have higher retention ratios and earn higher returns on equity should have much higher growth rates in earnings per share than firms that do not share these characteristics. To establish this, note that

           

where,

            gt = Growth Rate in Net Income

            NIt = Net Income in year t

Given the definition of return on equity, the net income in year t-1 can be written as:

           

where,

            ROEt-1 = Return on equity in year t-1

The net income in year t can be written as:

           

Assuming that the return on equity is unchanged, i.e., ROEt = ROEt-1 =ROE,

           

where b is the retention ratio. Note that the firm is not being allowed to raise equity by issuing new shares. Consequently, the growth rate in net income and the growth rate in earnings per share are the same in this formulation.

Growth in Net Income

            If we relax the assumption that the only source of equity is retained earnings, the growth in net income can be different from the growth in earnings per share. Intuitively, note that a firm can grow net income significantly by issuing new equity to fund new projects while earnings per share stagnates. To derive the relationship between net income growth and fundamentals, we need a measure of how investment that goes beyond retained earnings. One way to obtain such a measure is to estimate directly how much equity the firm reinvests back into its businesses in the form of net capital expenditures and investments in working capital.

Equity reinvested in business = (Capital Expenditures Ð Depreciation + Change in Working Capital Ð (New Debt Issued Ð Debt Repaid))

Dividing this number by the net income gives us a much broader measure of the equity reinvestment rate:

Equity Reinvestment Rate =

Unlike the retention ratio, this number can be well in excess of 100% because firms can raise new equity. The expected growth in net income can then be written as:

Expected Growth in Net Income =

Determinants of Return on Equity

            Both earnings per share and net income growth are affected by the return on equity of a firm. The return on equity is affected by the leverage decisions of the firm. In the broadest terms, increasing leverage will lead to a higher return on equity if the pre-interest, after-tax return on capital exceeds the after-tax interest rate paid on debt. This is captured in the following formulation of return on equity:

           

where,

           

           

           

            t = Tax rate on ordinary income

            The derivation is simple[1]. Using this expanded version of ROE, the growth rate can be written as:

           

The advantage of this formulation is that it allows explicitly for changes in leverage and the consequent effects on growth.

Average and Marginal Returns

            The return on equity is conventionally measured by dividing the net income in the most recent year by the book value of equity at the end of the previous year. Consequently, the return on equity measures both the quality of both older projects that have been on the books for a substantial period and new projects from more recent periods. Since older investments represent a significant portion of the earnings, the average returns may not shift substantially for larger firms that are facing a decline in returns on new investments, either because of market saturation or competition. In other words, poor returns on new projects will have a lagged effect on the measured returns. In valuation, it is the returns that firms are making on their newer investments that convey the most information about a quality of a firmÕs projects. To measure these returns, we could compute a marginal return on equity by dividing the change in net income in the most recent year by the change in book value of equity in the prior year:

Marginal Return on Equity =

For example, Reliance Industries reported net income of  Rs 24033 million in 2000 on book value of equity of  Rs 123693 million   in 1999, resulting in an average return on equity of 19.43%:

Average Return on Equity = 24033/123693 = 19.43%

The marginal return on equity is computed below:

Change in net income from 1999 to 2000 = 24033- 17037 = Rs 6996 million

Change in Book value of equity from 1998 to 1999 = 123693 Ð 104006 = Rs 19,687 million

Marginal Return on Equity = 6996/19687 = 35.54%

The Effects of Changing Return on Equity

            So far in this section, we have operated on the assumption that the return on equity remains unchanged over time. If we relax this assumption, we introduce a new component to growth Ð the effect of changing return on equity on existing investment over time. Consider, for instance, a firm that has a book value of equity of $100 million and a return on equity of 10%. If this firm improves its return on equity to 11%, it will post an earnings growth rate of 10% even if it does not reinvest any money.  This additional growth can be written as a function of the change in the return on equity.

Addition to Expected Growth Rate =

where ROEt is the return on equity in period t. This will be in addition to the fundamental growth rate computed as the product of the return on equity in period t and the retention ratio.

Total Expected Growth Rate =

            While increasing return on equity will generate a spurt in the growth rate in the period of the improvement, a decline in the return on equity will create a more than proportional drop in the growth rate in the period of the decline.

            It is worth differentiating at this point between returns on equity on new investments and returns on equity on existing investments. The additional growth that we are estimating above comes not from improving returns on new investments but by changing the return on existing investments. For lack of a better term, you could consider it Òefficiency generated growthÓ.

Growth in Operating Income

Just as equity income growth is determined by the equity reinvested back into the business and the return made on that equity investment, you can relate growth in operating income to total reinvestment made into the firm and the return earned on capital invested.

You will consider three separate scenarios, and examine how to estimate growth in each, in this section. The first is when a firm is earning a high return on capital that it expects to sustain over time. The second is when a firm is earning a positive return on capital that is expected to increase over time. The third is the most general scenario, where a firm expects operating margins to change over time, sometimes from negative values to positive levels.

A. Stable Return on Capital Scenario

When a firm has a stable return on capital, its expected growth in operating income is a product of the reinvestment rate, i.e., the proportion of the after-tax operating income that is invested in net capital expenditures and non-cash working capital, and the quality of these reinvestments, measured as the return on the capital invested.

Expected GrowthEBIT = Reinvestment Rate * Return on Capital

where,

           

            Return on Capital =

In making these estimates, you use the adjusted operating income and reinvestment values that you computed in Chapter 4. Both measures should be forward looking and the return on capital should represent the expected return on capital on future investments. In the rest of this section, you consider how best to estimate the reinvestment rate and the return on capital.

Reinvestment Rate

The reinvestment rate measures how much a firm is plowing back to generate future growth. The reinvestment rate is often measured using the most recent financial statements for the firm. Although this is a good place to start, it is not necessarily the best estimate of the future reinvestment rate.  A firmÕs reinvestment rate can ebb and flow, especially in firms that invest in relatively few, large projects or acquisitions. For these firms, looking at an average reinvestment rate over time may be a better measure of the future. In addition, as firms grow and mature, their reinvestment needs (and rates) tend to decrease. For firms that have expanded significantly over the last few years, the historical reinvestment rate is likely to be higher than the expected future reinvestment rate. For these firms, industry averages for reinvestment rates may provide a better indication of the future than using numbers from the past. Finally, it is important that you continue treating R&D expenses and operating lease expenses consistently. The R&D expenses, in particular, need to be categorized as part of capital expenditures for purposes of measuring the reinvestment rate.

Return on Capital

The return on capital is often based upon the firm's return on existing investments, where the book value of capital is assumed to measure the capital invested in these investments. Implicitly, you assume that the current accounting return on capital is a good measure of the true returns earned on existing investments and that this return is a good proxy for returns that will be made on future investments. This assumption, of course, is open to question for the following reasons.

á      The book value of capital might not be a good measure of the capital invested in existing investments, since it reflects the historical cost of these assets and accounting decisions on depreciation. When the book value understates the capital invested, the return on capital will be overstated; when book value overstates the capital invested, the return on capital will be understated. This problem is exacerbated if the book value of capital is not adjusted to reflect the value of the research asset or the capital value of operating leases.

á      The operating income, like the book value of capital, is an accounting measure of the earnings made by a firm during a period. All the problems in using unadjusted operating income described in Chapter 4 continue to apply.

á      Even if the operating income and book value of capital are measured correctly, the return on capital on existing investments may not be equal to the marginal return on capital that the firm expects to make on new investments, especially as you go further into the future.

Given these concerns, you should consider not only a firmÕs current return on capital, but any trends in this return as well as the industry average return on capital. If the current return on capital for a firm is significantly higher than the industry average, the forecasted return on capital should be set lower than the current return to reflect the erosion that is likely to occur as competition responds.

Finally, any firm that earns a return on capital greater than its cost of capital is earning an excess return. The excess returns are the result of a firmÕs competitive advantages or barriers to entry into the industry. High excess returns locked in for very long periods imply that this firm has a permanent competitive advantage.

Negative Reinvestment Rates: Causes and Consequences

The reinvestment rate for a firm can be negative if its depreciation exceeds its capital expenditures or if the working capital declines substantially during the course of the year. For most firms, this negative reinvestment rate will be a temporary phenomenon reflecting lumpy capital expenditures or volatile working capital. For these firms, the current yearÕs reinvestment rate (which is negative) can be replaced with an average reinvestment rate over the last few years. (This is what we did for Embraer in the Illustration above.) For some firms, though, the negative reinvestment rate may be a reflection of the policies of the firms and how we deal with it will depend upon why the firm is embarking on this path:

á      Firms that have over invested in capital equipment or working capital in the past may be able to live off past investment for a number of years, reinvesting little and generating higher cash flows for that period. If this is the case, we should not use the negative reinvestment rate in forecasts and estimate growth based upon improvements in return on capital. Once the firm has reached the point where it is efficiently using its resources, though, we should change the reinvestment rate to reflect industry averages.

á      The more extreme scenario is a firm that has decided to liquidate itself over time, by not replacing assets as they become run down and by drawing down working capital. In this case, the expected growth should be estimated using the negative reinvestment rate. Not surprisingly, this will lead to a negative expected growth rate and declining earnings over time.

B. Positive and Changing Return on Capital Scenario

The analysis in the previous section is based upon the assumption that the return on capital remains stable over time. If the return on capital changes over time, the expected growth rate for the firm will have a second component, which will increase the growth rate if the return on capital increases and decrease the growth rate if the return on capital decreases.

Expected Growth Rate  =

For example, a firm that sees its return on capital improves from 10% to 11% while maintaining a reinvestment rate of 40% will have an expected growth rate of:

Expected Growth Rate =

In effect, the improvement in the return on capital increases the earnings on existing assets and this improvement translates into an additional growth of 10% for the firm.

Marginal and Average Returns on Capital

            So far, you have looked at the return on capital as the measure that determines return. In reality, however, there are two measures of returns on capital. One is the return earned by firm collectively on all of its investments, which you define as the average return on capital. The other is the return earned by a firm on just the new investments it makes in a year, which is the marginal return on capital.

            Changes in the marginal return on capital do not create a second-order effect and the value of the firm is a product of the marginal return on capital and the reinvestment rate. Changes in the average return on capital, however, will result in the additional impact on growth chronicled above.

Candidates for Changing Average Return on Capital

            What types of firms are likely to see their return on capital change over time? One category would include firms with poor returns on capital that improve their operating efficiency and margins, and consequently their return on capital. In these firms, the expected growth rate will be much higher than the product of the reinvestment rate and the return on capital. In fact, since the return on capital on these firms is usually low before the turn-around, small changes in the return on capital translate into big changes in the growth rate. Thus, an increase in the return on capital on existing assets of 1% to 2% doubles the earnings (resulting in a growth rate of 100%).

The other category would include firms that have very high returns on capital on their existing investments but are likely to see these returns slip as competition enters the business, not only on new investments but also on existing investments.

C. Negative Return on Capital Scenario

            The third and most difficult scenario for estimating growth is when a firm is losing money and has a negative return on capital. Since the firm is losing money, the reinvestment rate is also likely to be negative. To estimate growth in these firms, you have to move up the income statement and first project growth in revenues. Next, you use the firmÕs expected operating margin in future years to estimate the operating income in those years. If the expected margin in future years is positive, the expected operating income will also turn positive, allowing us to apply traditional valuation approaches in valuing these firms. You also estimate how much the firm has to reinvest to generate revenue growth, by linking revenues to the capital invested in the firm.

Growth in Revenues

            Many high growth firms, while reporting losses, also show large increases in revenues from period to period. The first step in forecasting cash flows is forecasting revenues in future years, usually by forecasting a growth rate in revenues each period. In making these estimates, there are five points to keep in mind.

á      The rate of growth in revenues will decrease as the firmÕs revenues increase. Thus, a ten-fold increase in revenues is entirely feasible for a firm with revenues of $2 million but unlikely for a firm with revenues of $2 billion.

á      Compounded growth rates in revenues over time can seem low, but appearances are deceptive. A compounded growth rate in revenues of 40% over ten years will result in a 40-fold increase in revenues over the period.

á      While growth rates in revenues may be the mechanism that you use to forecast future revenues, you do have to keep track of the dollar revenues to ensure that they are reasonable, given the size of the overall market that the firm operates in. If the projected revenues for a firm ten years out would give it a 90% or 100% share (or greater) of the overall market in a competitive market place, you clearly should reassess the revenue growth rate.

á      Assumptions about revenue growth and operating margins have to be internally consistent. Firms can post higher growth rates in revenues by adopting more aggressive pricing strategies but the higher revenue growth will then be accompanied by lower margins.

Operating Margin Forecasts

            Before considering how best to estimate the operating margins, let us begin with an assessment of where many high growth firms, early in the life cycle, stand when the valuation begins. They usually have low revenues and negative operating margins. If revenue growth translates low revenues into high revenues and operating margins stay negative, these firms will not only be worth nothing but are unlikely to survive. For firms to be valuable, the higher revenues eventually have to deliver positive earnings. In a valuation model, this translates into positive operating margins in the future. A key input in valuing a high growth firm then is the operating margin you would expect it to have as it matures.

            In estimating this margin, you should begin by looking at the business that the firm is in. While many new firms claim to be pioneers in their businesses and some believe that they have no competitors, it is more likely that they are the first to find a new way of delivering a product or service that was delivered through other channels before. Thus, Amazon might have been one of the first firms to sell books online, but Barnes and Noble and Borders preceded them as book retailers. In fact, one can consider online retailers as logical successors to catalog retailers such as L.L. Bean or Lillian Vernon. Similarly, Yahoo! might have been one of the first (and most successful) internet portals but they are following the lead of newspapers that have used content and features to attract readers and used their readership to attract advertising. Using the average operating margin of competitors in the business may strike some as conservative. After all, they would point out, Amazon can hold less inventory than Borders and does not have the burden of carrying the operating leases that Barnes and Noble does (on its stores) and should, therefore, be more efficient about generating its revenues and subsequently earnings. This may be true but it is unlikely that the operating margins for internet retailers can be persistently higher than their brick-and-mortar counterparts. If they were, you would expect to see a migration of traditional retailers to online retailing and increased competition among online retailers on price and products driving the margin down.

            While the margin for the business in which a firm operates provides a target value, there are still two other estimation issues that you need to confront. Given that the operating margins in the early stages of the life cycle are negative, you first have to consider how the margin will improve from current levels to the target values. Generally, the improvements in margins will be greatest in the earlier years (at least in percentage terms) and then taper off as the firm approaches maturity. The second issue is one that arises when talking about revenue growth. Firms may be able to post higher revenue growth with lower margins but the trade off has to be considered. While firms generally want both higher revenue growth and higher margin, the margin and revenue growth assumptions have to be consistent.

 


[1]