Focus on Operating Efficiency: Net Operating Profit Margin

In a previous installment, I covered a measure of after-tax operating profitability known as NOPAT (Net Operating Profit After Taxes). NOPAT serves as a relevant indicator of a firm's ability to operate efficiently, as it strips away many transitory, one-time items from the picture, focusing only on the firm's core business profitability. From an analytical perspective however, NOPAT may be more significant as a numerator of a ratio than as a stand alone measure. One of the most important such metrics is the Net Operating Profit Margin (NOPM).

Calculating the Net Operating Profit Margin is very easy, assuming however that you can properly calculate a firm's Net Operating Profit After Taxes. See this post if you need a refresher on NOPAT. Anyways, below is the formula:

Net Operating Profit Margin = NOPAT / Sales Revenue

Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) FY 2008 NOPM Calculation

Net Operating Profit Margin = NOPAT / Sales Revenue
= $8591M / $118,364M
= 7.26%

To verbalize HP's NOPM of 7.26%, we would say that for every dollar of sales, HP was able to generate 7.26 cents worth of after-tax operating profit. For many companies, operating profit margin may be a more concise measure of performance than the commonly cited Gross Profit Margin. Several small business owners I know are proud of what they perceive to be an impressive gross profit margin at their business. I usually dismiss such talk, as any fool can go out and sell cheaply manufactured products to generate a healthy looking gross profit margin. To pass the NOPM test though, you must be able to operate the organization efficiently and effectively. Because net operating profit margins vary greatly across industries, it's most productive to compare NOPM's across competing organization's within an industry. Below is a focus on HP and it's primary tech industry competitors from a NOPM perspective.

Clearly, industry leaders like IBM and Apple tend to have very healthy net operating profit margins. There's a little bit of "chicken or the egg" dilemma inherent to that observation; i.e. larger industry leaders are better able to exert their will down the supply chain and operate more efficiently.

Although NOPM is only one element that should be considered when evaluating a company's/stock's relative investment attractiveness, it is nonetheless a very insightful indicator of the profitability of a company's operations.The most important analysis that should be performed as a companion to the NOPM calculation is an evaluation of a firm's leverage. NOPM strips out interest expense, effectively looking at the firm from a non-levered position.I'll get into that portion of analysis later via an examination of the debt-to-equity ratio.

*no positions
Sphere: Related Content

Windows 7 Upgrade From RC to Home Premium

Based upon the sheer level of confusion and misinformation that's percolating across the internet, I'd like to clear up an issue that many people have been speculating about.

Can I Use a Windows 7 Upgrade disc to install the recently released, fully operable version of Windows 7 on top of the RC installation? The answer is yes.

About a month ago, I installed the Windows 7 RC on a separate partioned hardrive of my Mac. I also own two copies of XP, and a copy of Vista Ultimate; however, both had been removed from my Mac prior to the RC installation. From within Windows 7 RC, I took the following steps that resulted in a fully functional install of Windows 7 Home Premium.

1) Purchased Windows 7 Home Premium at the student discount price (at least I'm recouping a fraction of the price of business school prior to graduation) of $29.99.
2) Downloaded the installation files onto my Windows 7 RC desktop. Time was approximately 40 minutes.
3) Click the setup.exe file to begin installation.
4) Select a "Custom" or "Clean" Installation.
5) Enter the product key provided during checkout.
6) Enjoy your fully operable version of Windows 7 Premium.

To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has acknowledged that the above installation method is a viable possibility; however, they've also claimed that it is not a "supported" method of installation. I'll provide an update if there are any problems, but thus far everything is running perfectly smoothly.

Disclosure: no position in MSFT stock. Furthermore, Microsoft has absolutely no role in the publishing of this post, including but not limited to free products, or even a remote suggestion that I provide their new product with free publicity.
5) Enter the Windows 7 Home Premium product key obtained during Sphere: Related Content

Evaluate Operating Performance: Net Operating Profit After Taxes

Although I'm partial towards the use of Operating Cash Flow (OCF) as a primary basis for performance measurement, investors should nonetheless be familiar with Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT). NOPAT is completely derived from the income statement, subjecting itself to the usual non-cash adjustments dictated by GAAP. However, NOPAT is useful because, as the name implies, it is strictly a measure of operating performance.

Calculation of NOPAT is relatively straightforward, you're simply multiplying Income From Operations Before Taxes by the corporation's effective tax rate. To calculate the tax rate, divide income tax expense by net income before taxes(NIBT); make sure you place NIBT, also known as Pretax Income in the denominator, and not Operating Income. Once you've determined the total taxes owed, you just subtract it from Operating Income to arrive at NOPAT. The two step process is delineated below:

Tax Rate = Net Income Before Taxes / Income Tax Expense
Net Operating Profit After Taxes = Income From Operations Before Taxes X (1-Tax Rate)

*Note that a company's annual reports and 10-Q's will not always show a neatly constructed income statement that spoon feeds you the Operating Income, Pretax Income, and Income Tax Expense lines. GAAP doesn't require the income statement to be constructed in any special sort of way, thus you may have to occasionally deploy some common sense. Nearly all of the time however, websites like Yahoo!Finance and (if you have a subscription) S&P's NetAdvantage will go ahead and break out the necessary line items. The point is, pay attention.

I'll use Hewlett-Packard Company (HPQ) to illustrate an example calculation of NOPAT:
HPQ NOPAT - Year Ended October 31st 2009
Tax Rate = $2144M / $10,473M
= 20.47%

Net Operating Profit After Taxes = $10,802M X (1-.2047)
= $10,802M X 0.7952
=$8,590M

Hewlett-Packard's NOPAT of $8590M compares with net income of $8329M for fiscal year 2008; at only 3% less than NOPAT, 2008 net income is indicative of only a modest amount of interest expense for the year ($329M). The disparity between NOPAT and net income isn't always so minimal, as can be seen in the chart below:
General Electric (GE)'s large disparity between NOPAT and net income is an obvious first observation to make. The primary driver of this phenomenon is the $26,209M worth of interest expense incurred by the company during 2008. The second result of such a massive interest expense is that GE's 2008 effective tax rate was only 5.3% (interest is deductible). The relationship between these two variables will change based upon the industry, and circumstances specific to the company.

*long GE
Sphere: Related Content

Measuring Investment Capacity: Operating Cash Flow to Capital Expenditures

The price that an investor is willing to pay to acquire a share of a corporation's common equity is largely a function of the corporation's potential earnings growth. When purchasing a stock, you are effectively paying for earnings growth in advance of its actual occurrence. At a basic level, in order to grow, a company must be able to invest in both its existing and future property, plant and equipment. A grading contractor who can barely afford the maintenance on his existing machinery will most likely not be expanding the business any time soon. Therein lies the analytical significance of the Operating Cash Flow (OCF) to Capital Expenditures (Capex) Ratio.

Once again, net cash flows provided by operating activities serves as the foundation of this ratio; because non-cash items on the income statement won't exactly help a company purchase a new tract of land or an excavator, we can go ahead an dismiss net income as irrelevant. The point is to isolate the cash generated by a company's operations, and determine whether it is adequate to fund investment in its income producing assets. To calculate the ratio, simply go to the statement of cash flows, and divide "Cash flow from operations" by "Capital Expenditures". A ratio greater than one (1) indicates that a company's operations are generating the cash necessary to fund its annual investment needs. I'll use the cash flow rich Exxon (XOM) as an example:

Operating Cash Flow to Capital Expenditures = Operating Cash Flow / Capital Expenditures
= $59,725M / $19,318M
= 3.09

During fiscal year 2008, Exxon generated over three times the cash needed from operations in order to fund investment in its plant, property and equipment. The chart below compares the ratio for several other companies.

Clearly, some companies are more cash rich than others, and are better prepared to fund growth internally. A ratio of less than one (1) is indicative of a company that may need to borrow money, or that is in decline. I think we all know the story of Blockbuster (BBI); its ratio is so low because it is in decline (to be fair, it is officially in decline from a brick and mortar video delivery standpoint). OCF to Capex is definitely an important ratio that should be part of every investors toolbox. Sphere: Related Content

Operating Cash Flow to Current Liabilities: The Self-Sufficiency Ratio

One of the most fundamental questions we can ask about a company is whether or not it is generating the cash necessary to service its debts. Furthermore, it's important to differentiate between cash generated from operations, and cash generated from financing activities (borrowing or stock issuance); once a company starts raising money for the sole purpose of meeting current debt obligations, we might as well just call it a Ponzi-scheme. To help make that determination, we'll use the Operating Cash Flow to Current Liabilities Ratio.

To calculate the ratio, first locate Net Cash Flow From Operating Activities (CFFO); its found on the statement of cash flows.Next, go to the balance sheet and locate Current Liabilities; this represents debt that matures in one year or less, accounts the company must pay within the year, and the current (one year or less) portion(s) of long term debt.You'll need to calculate the average amount of current liabilities for the period you're examining. Therefore, because the balance sheet represents only a single point in time, you'll need to average the current liabilities section from the two separate balance sheets which mark the beginning and end of the period for which you want to perform the analysis.Divide CFFO by the average current liabilities, and there you have the ratio. Any result less than 1 indicates that the company is not able to liquidate its current liabilities from operating cash flow; in other words, the company will probably have to sell assets, borrow money or issue stock in order to meet its short term debt obligations. (Hence, the "self-sufficiency" title to this post).The 2008-2009 solution is, of course, to conduct a mass layoff. Nothing frees up cash quicker than handing out 10,000 or so pink slips.

One company whose CFFO to Current Liabilities ratio I was particularly impressed with is Intel (INTC). I'll run through the calculation using Intel's numbers below:

Operating Cash Flow to Current Liabilities = Net Cash Flow From Operations / Average Current Liabilities

=$10,926M / ( ($7818M + $8571M) /2)
=$10,926M / $8194.5M
=1.33

As you can see, Intel's ratio of 1.33 stacks up quite favorably against the other companies in the chart below:

Obviously, despite Wal-Mart's poor looking ratio of 0.4, there is no reasonable chance that it won't be able to pay its bills. I imagine that, being the largest employer in America, Wal-Marts wages payable account grows by hundreds of millions of dollars every week. In fact, accounts payable represented around 70% of Wal-Mart's short term debt. As is always the case, this ratio is not a silver bullet, and needs to be used in conjunction with other tools. Sphere: Related Content

Free Cash Flow: The Alternate Bottom Line

One of the themes that I continually emphasize with regards to fundamental analysis is an approach that treats net income as an ancillary, rather than primary, valuation metric. Instead, investors should use Free Cash Flow (FCF) as a starting point from which to assess a company.

Fundamentally, free cash flow is cash generated in excess of a firm's operating costs and capital expenditures (CapEx). Capital expenditures are investments a company makes in its property, plant and equipment. CapEx can be investment in new land, machinery etc., or substantial "repairs" such as putting a new roof on a building. Therefore, CapEx can simultaneously be thought of as investment necessary for growth of the business, and investment necessary for maintenance of the firm's assets. Free cash flow then, is a pure cash measurement that is indicative of the firm's ability to finance expansionary activities from internally generated cash. Conversely, negative free cash flow is potentially indicative of the need for future borrowing.

I prefer to take one additional step in the FCF calculation, and net out dividends. If a company regularly declares dividends, a real cash outlay will occur, and it will detract from the firm's ability to expand operations. You could argue that dividends are voluntary and can be reduced or eliminated; however, that would adversely affect the stock price as the market adjusted to the new, reduced stream of cash flows. The point is, be aware that there are varying definitions of free cash flow. An example of the FCF calculation for General Electric (GE), 2008 reported results follows:

Free Cash Flow = Operating Cash Flow - Capital Expenditures - Dividends
Free Cash Flow= ($48,601M - $16,010M - $12,408) = $20,183M

GE reported $17,410M for its 2008 net income, obviously a couple billion and change shy of its free cash flow generated for the year. The chart below looks at free cash flow v net income at GE and four other companies.
Despite the fact that Exxon (XOM) makes every other industrial corporation look like a mom & pop general store, a major observation to be taken from the chart is that FCF can be either greater, or less than, net income. I wouldn't lay out a bright line rule as to what the ratio between these two should ideally be; the ideal relationship will change depending upon the specific corporation. For instance, Wal-Mart (WMT) primary method of expansion is via construction of new stores, a cash outlay that is already netted out of the free cash flow equation. There might not even be any new ventures for which Wal-Mart would need to apply its free cash flow. A diversified conglomerate like General Electric however, must constantly venture into new business activities, thus necessitating ample free cash flow. The more important point is to look at the FCF trend over time, and within the context of the company's current status. Sphere: Related Content

Earnings Quality Analysis: Operating Cash Flow to Net Income

In my intro to fundamental analysis, I focused on discrediting the P/E ratio as a viable means of gauging the relative value of a stock. The premise behind my campaign of disparagement was that net income, or the "E", is influenced by so many non-cash adjustments as to render its predictive value useless. In general, you could say that my complaints revolve around the concept of "earnings quality" (or lack thereof in many circumstances). Although earnings can consist of both cash and non-cash adjustments, I think we can all agree that earnings based on an increase in a company's cash position are of a higher quality than those which are not. Luckily, there's a useful ratio we can deploy against the income statement to determine the quality of a firm's reported earnings: Operating Cash Flow (CFFO) to Net Income

As the name implies, the ratio is calculated by dividing a company's operating cash flow by it's net income. Operating cash flow is an item found on the Statement of Cash Flows, and is often labeled "Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities", or "Cash From Operating Activities". Basically, business activities are all placed in one of three categories: Operating, Investing, and Financing. Operating activities are the actions a company takes pursuant to its normal, or core business activities. For instance, a PC company like Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) sells computers and printers as it's core operating activity; if HP sold a piece of land it owned, that cash increase would not appear as cash provided by operating activities. Once you've located your CFFO number, move over to the income statement and find net income. Make sure you use the after tax figure. Divide the two, and there you have your ratio.

Example: Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), 2008 fiscal year totals
Operating Cash Flow: $14,591M
Net Income: $8329M
CFFO to Net Income = $14591M / $8329M = 1.75

The following chart should put HP's 1.75 CFFO to Net Income ratio in perspective; it shows that same ratio for HP and 6 other large tech firms.When a company's CFFO to net income ratio rises above 1, it is indicative of a strong ability to fund it's activities through generation of operating cash flow. In other words, a higher ratio means that the firm's earnings are of a higher quality. Both Apple (AAPL) and Intel (INTC) were able to generate cash from operations that was nearly twice reported earnings. Dell (DELL) however, actually generated less cash from operations than it reported in net income. If I were an investor in Dell, I would probably keep an eye on this ratio in order to determine whether it was a chronic issue at the company. A CFFO to net income ratio which remains below 1 for an extended period of time could be an indication that the company will need to raise money to fund its operations.

Next installment: Free Cash Flow: The Alternate Bottom Line

*no positions Sphere: Related Content