Beyond ROE: Return on Net Operating Assets (RNOA)

Many investors rely on Return-on-Equity (ROE) to gauge a firm's ability to generate profit from each dollar of equity; a somewhat fundamental determination when assessing the attractiveness of owning a piece of that equity. The problem is, ROE is calculated as net income divided by average stockholders equity, meaning that you have no idea the extent to which leverage played a role in the returns generated for shareholders. In the aftermath of the credit bubble, it should be apparent that not all returns are created equally. For instance, had you been an investor in Merrill Lynch around say, 2006, you may have been lulled into complacency by the firms ridiculous returns-on-equity; oblivious unfortunately to the fact that MER's performance was merely the result of massive amounts of leverage. Fortunately, through calculation of a firm's Return on Net Operating Assets (RNOA), we can isolate the portion of ROE attributable to the operations of the business (the portion that matters).

The general concept behind RNOA is that ROE= Operating Return + Nonoperating Return. As I've said, investors should focus on the operating portion of return, which is calculated as follows:
Operating Return (RNOA) = Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) / Average Net Operating Assets (NOA)

The calculation of RNOA requires you be able to differentiate between the operating, and nonoperating items on both the balance sheet and income statement. This should be somewhat easier to do with the income statement, just because although GAAP doesn't require it, most companies will break out their operating results on their financial statements. Management tends to be judged based on the firms operating results, so this shouldn't be surprising. I'll refer to Dell's most recent full year results to illustrate the RNOA calculation.

Step 1: Calculate NOPAT
For FY '09, Dell logged pretax income of $3324M, and income tax expense of $846M, resulting in an effective tax rate of 25.45% (846/3324). Dell posted operating income of $3190M; therefore, applying the 25.45% tax rate, we can state that Dell's NOPAT is $2378M ($3190 X (1-.2545) ). 

Step 2: Calculate average net operating assets (NOA)
First of all, Net Operating Assets =  Operating Assets - Operating Liabilities. The components of each category are listed below.
Operating Assets
Cash/Cash Equivalents
Accounts Receivable
Inventories
Prepaid expenses
Other Current Assets
Property, plant and equipment (net)
Capitalized lease assets
Natural Resources
Equity method investments (unless unrelated to the core business)
Goodwill and other intangible assets
Deferred income tax assets (current and long term portions)

Other long term assets

Operating Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Accrued Liabilities
Deferred income tax liabilities (current and long term portions)

Pension and other post-employment obligations

Dell's 2009 and 2008 NOA are $6488M and $7501M, respectively. The average of these two numbers is $6995M. Therefore:


RNOA = NOPAT / NOA
= $2378 / $6995
=34%


This compares with a 2009 ROE of:
ROE= Net Income / Avg Stockholders Equity
= $2478M / $4003M
=61.9%


A conclusion which can be drawn from these results is that only 55% of Dell's ROE (34/61.9) is attributable to operations. I'd generally like to see a higher ratio of operating to nonoperating return; however, Dell's 34% RNOA is substantially higher than the 10% average RNOA for publicly traded companies. A further examination into Dell reveals that it's debt-to-equity ratio (total liabilities divided by total stockholders equity) is 5.2, meaning that for every dollar of equity, dell has $5.20 worth of debt. This high debt to equity ratio partially explains the juiced ROE number, and should probably be monitored by investors.


*no positions
Sphere: Related Content

Vertical Analysis of Financial Statements: Coca-Cola v Pepsi

Due to the complexity of corporate financial statements, the prospect of deciphering meaningful insight can be a daunting task. Furthermore, the ratios deployed by professional analysts are numerous, effectively creating a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle whose composition perpetually and frequently fluctuates. Luckily, for those of you who lack either the time or mental stamina to perform calculations such as the disaggregation of the components of return on net operating assets (RNOA), a relatively effective process exists known as Vertical Analysis. The premise of Vertical Analysis is to create common-size financial statements, where all balance sheet and income statement items are converted into percentage terms for purposes of comparison.Using vertical analysis, comparisons can be made between firms regardless of size. This approach is especially useful when determining the relative financial health of competing firms within the same industry. Financial metrics display a large degree of variability across industries; however, within a given industry, competitors should be fairly aligned in terms of funding sources (debt v equity), liquidity, asset turnovers etc. Below is a vertical analysis I prepared using the FY '08 balance sheets from Pepsico (PEP) and Coca-Cola (KO).
Vertical Analysis of Financial Statements - Pepsi v Coke

From here, it's fairly easy to scan through Coke and Pepsi's relative balance sheet percentages(page 2 of pdf) , making some fairly useful generalizations. The first thing I noticed from this comparison is that Pepsi and Coca-Cola have a nearly identical composition of current v long term assets (30/70). However, Cash/Cash Equivalents represents 11.7% of Coke's assets, but only 5.7% of Pepsi's. It appears that Pepsi makes up the difference in it's proportion of (net) receivables to assets (13% v 7.6%); this could just be a timing issue, but it could also mean that Pepsi has become more aggressive in terms of the conditions by which it will offer credit to customers. The next observation I'd make has to do with differences between the two company's capital structures. Pepsi's debt/equity split percentage is 66.2/33.8, whereas Coca-Cola's capital structure is comprised of 49.5% debt and 50.5% equity. Interestingly though, Pepsi's short term debt only represents 1% of the right side of the balance sheet, whereas Coca-Cola comes in at 16.1%. This could just be an indication that Coke relies more heavily on commercial paper to fund it's short term operations; it could also mean that Coke has a significant amount of long term debt coming due in the months ahead. Coca-Cola's 2008 10-K should contain footnote disclosures describing the nature of these short term obligations. In this sense, the vertical analysis above serves as an informative starting point from which to diagnose any potential issues the firm might have down the road. Additionally, vertical analysis can expedite the analysis process by narrowing down which footnotes you, as an investor, should be concerned with.

*no positions  Sphere: Related Content

Fed Flushes $1.7B Worth of Taxpayer Funds Down the Toilet

Last week, under the cover of darkness and in an extraordinary show of Government incompetence, the FDIC seized United Commercial Bank. The problem is that Mingsheng, a Chinese bank, had already approached the Fed about a potential acquisition of UCB. Mingsheng, which had already invested $129M into UCB, was presumably trying to salvage some portion of it's investment. Unfortunately, Mingsheng's application was destined to whither away on a bureaucrats desk, as various branches of the federal government bumbled about in an attempt to resolve the problems at UCB - oblivious it seems to the cost effective solution right before their eyes. They (Mingsheng) were not the only investors though; last year the Treasury injected $298M into UCB as part of the now infamous TARP program. Furthermore, the FDIC estimates that the UCB failure will cost it's Deposit Insurance Fund $1.4B. The DCF is theoretically funded through premia leveled on the banking industry; however, we all know that this cost gets passed onto consumers in the form of higher overdraft, ATM, inactivity etc. fees. Therefore, the Treasury/Fed/FDIC - acting in disorganized concert - managed to flush $1.7B worth of taxpayer money down the toilet.

This is truly an embarrassment. Sphere: Related Content

Diluted EPS and the Capital Structure

Although the financial media's reporting centers almost entirely on a corporation's reported basic earnings-per-share (EPS), most analysts have historically paid attention to a different line on the income statement: Diluted Earnings per Share. Diluted EPS takes into account the potential dilutive effect that would ensue if holders of the firms preferred stock and bonds were to convert their stake into common equity. This possibility theoretically exists whenever investors purchases securities that include a conversion option. Usually there is some sort of market based trigger point, but ultimately those details will be contained on the face of the preferred stock certificate, or in the bond covenants. For the sake of simplicity, let's say that Company X earned $1000 in a given quarter, and there are 1000 shares outstanding, resulting in quarterly Basic EPS of $1/share. However, let's assume that Company X has also financed itself via 500 shares of convertible preferred stock which give holders the right to convert each preferred share into 2 shares of common equity. Assuming that all preferred holders exercised that option, Company X would record 2000 outstanding shares of common stock, and would only have earned 50 cents/share for the same quarter. This hypothetical example is rather extreme for the purposes of making a point; below is a chart showing Basic v Diluted EPS during the most recently reported quarter for 7 large firms:
Corporations must disclose both basic and diluted EPS on the income statement, however the actual calculation is below for those who must know:

Diluted EPS = (Net Income - Preferred Dividends) / (Weighted Average # of Common Shares Outstanding + Additional Shares Due to Dilutive Securities)

Arithmetically, we can see that the dilutive effect increases the denominator, reducing the amount of net income available to each shareholder. In many firms with simple capital structures, the basic and diluted EPS numbers will be identical. However, firms that utilize more complex financing instruments generally have more potential for dilutive equity conversions.

Going forward, I would expect Diluted EPS to continue to gain significance, especially with regards to analysis of financial corporations. As banks struggle to refinance trillions of dollars worth of debt, the use of convertible options should become more popular for a couple of reasons. First, a conversion option represents value to the investor and additional capital for the borrower. Second, if the conversion option is tied to a regulatory trigger like TCE ratios, then the borrower is essentially selling an automatic equity boosting instrument for times of market distress. If things play out like I anticipate regarding convertible debt, the gap between basic and diluted EPS will grow further. Equity investors need to monitor these developments to insure that they are not diluted into oblivion.

*no positions
Sphere: Related Content

Contingent Convertible Bond Ruminations

The latest idea to revolve around the task of inoculating the global financial system involves a financial instrument known as the contingent convertible bond. Overall, I'm somewhat pleased that the discussions surrounding financial reform have begun to deviate from the bonus-recipient-witch hunt mentality which has dominated the Obama Administration's rhetoric to date. Furthermore, it's encouraging to see the private sector begin to formulate it's own prescriptions; opposed to of course government solutions which amount to nothing more than throwing (other people's) cash at the situation, appointing czars of every shape and form, and hoping the problem solves itself.

Contingent convertibles are a nifty bit of financial innovation (isn't that supposed to be synonymous with evil and destructive?) that takes regular convertible bonds and adds a twist. The process would play out something like this:

1. Investors give cash to banks, and in return, they receive contingent convertible bonds.
2. Investors receive regular coupon payments, just like with any other bond.
3. If and only if the bank's capital ratio falls below a certain threshold determined by the bond contract, the instrument will convert into equity.

Part of the draw for contingent convertibles is that the conversion clause is not based upon observable market prices. In that sense, even the most concerted efforts by short-sellers can not trigger the conversion. Conceptually, assuming these instruments comprised a significant enough portion of global banks' capital structures, they would act as automatic stabilizers during periods of economic distress, bolstering banks' capital ratios without the need for TARP-like government interventions. As an aside, will widespread use of contingent convertibles be evidence of the Europeanization of financial markets? We all know how much the Europeans love their automatic stabilizers.

To briefly play devil's advocate, I could see the establishment of contingent convertibles causing a wholesale shift in the way bank stocks are valued. Capital ratios would be monitored very closely in order to develop a probability of equity conversion; this could cause bank stocks to prematurely fall in anticipation of a massive equity dilution. I could also see bank stocks' losing all of their appeal in terms of a dividend investment. That might not be an issue now, what with 1 cent dividends imposed by the Treasury; however, I have to assume that by say 2015, banks will once again be paying healthy dividends. The problem is from the banks standpoint, the debt to equity conversion will amount to the elimination of a contractual obligation to make semi-annual interest payments, and replace it with the extremely optional payment of a dividend. If I were investing in a bank's contingent convertibles from a current income perspective, I would prefer that the potential conversion be structured so that I received some class of preferential stock whereby a dividend comparable to the coupon rate was guaranteed. Nevertheless, the discussions surrounding contingent convertibles is a net positive in my book; we'll just have to wait and see if this new "movement" has the legs necessary to become a widespread reality.
Sphere: Related Content

Analyzing Leases On and Off the Balance Sheet

In the midst of the criticism that's been leveled towards financial innovation of all shapes and sizes, one form of financial instrument in particular has managed to travel under the radar: leases. Although leases have never been accused of wreaking financial destruction, they do serve as a convenient means of off-balance sheet financing.

The first thing to know about leases as they pertain to financial statements is that there are two main categories: Operating Leases and Capital Leases. The closer a lease is to an actual purchase agreement, the more likely it is that the lease should be classified as Capital. There are however four conditions which, if any are met, automatically render the agreement a Capital Lease. They are:

1. The lease agreement contains a provision whereby, at the end of the lease term, title to the leased asset is transferred from the lessor to the lessee.
2. The lease agreement provides the lessee an option to purchase the leased asset at bargain terms (like $1 for instance)
3. The term of the lease agreement constitutes a period of time which is greater than or equal to 75% of the leased assets useful/economic life.
4. The present value of all scheduled lease payments is greater than or equal to 90% of the fair market value of the leased asset.

At this point, you're probably questioning why it really matters whether accountants refer to the lease as Operating or Capital. Simply put, a Capital Lease must come onto the balance sheet via a debit to Leased Asset and a credit to Lease Liability. The amount recorded on the balance sheet is the present value of all future lease payments. Operating Leases on the other hand are not capitalized, and only appear to external stakeholders in the form of footnote disclosures in regulatory filings. The accounting for Operating Leases is relatively straightforward however; lease payments simply flow to the income statement and are recorded as Rent Expense. Capital Leases though, have interest and principle components that must be amortized over the lease term just like a debt instrument. Below is an amortization schedule for an asset of FMV $70,000 , a lease term of 6 years and $15,000 annual payments. Using the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) function on Excel, I'm able to discover that the lease contains an implied interest rate of 7.69%.
As I mentioned above, the leased asset must be depreciated over time. Below is the depreciation table for the same example.
The table above brings me to the next point: expenses under a Capital Lease are front-loaded, whereas an Operating Lease maintains consistency. In years 1-6 in the above example, the total expense for an Operating Lease would be $15,000/year. Keep in mind that my prior point isn't applicable to the cash flow statement; I'm only discussing income statement implications. From a cash flow standpoint, the interest portion of Capital Leases is classified as a Financing Activity, and the principal re-payment is considered an Operating Activity. Under Operating Leases, the entire rent expense is classified as an Operating Activity. In this sense, Capital Leases will result in higher cash flow from operations than a similar Operating Lease.

The final nuance that's important to grasp is that Operating Leases can distort certain leverage related financial ratios such as debt to equity and return on assets (ROA). The distorting effect can range from very minimal to materially drastic, especially in the case of businesses like airlines who lease the majority of their assets. Nevertheless, leases should be reason alone to spend some time examining the footnote disclosures found in your subject firm's financial statements.

*no positions
Sphere: Related Content

Corporate Inventory Analysis and Costing Methods

For Home Depot (HD) and many other corporations, inventory represents one of the single largest items on the balance sheet. For 2008, inventory represented 25.9% of Home Depot's total assets. Furthermore, inventory turns over many times throughout the course of the year, feeding into the firm's income statement through cost of goods sold (COGS). In order to understand inventories, you first need to be aware of the three major inventory costing methods.

When the concept of inventory costing methods was first presented to me, I wasn't sure what exactly there was to talk about; if a company buys a widget for cost X, it would make sense that upon the sale of that widget, X dollars would flow to cost of goods sold. Furthermore, if you had to place a value on your inventory in it's entirety, it would make the most sense to simply report the sum of the cost of all items in inventory. Unfortunately, the accountant powers- that- be didn't design inventory costing in such a straightforward manner. As a corporation, you basically have three choices in terms of inventory costing: first-in-first-out (FIFO), last-in-first-out (LIFO), and average cost. In FIFO, the oldest price stored in inventory is assigned to cost of goods sold. With FIFO, the most recently recorded price is attached to the good and flows to COGS. Average cost, as the name implies, assigns the average cost of the inventory item. During inflationary times, the FIFO costing method is the most profit-advantageous because yesterday's cost is being booked as today's expense. The opposite would of course apply during times of falling prices. Because of the profit implications, the IRS requires corporations to remain consistent with their costing method. From what I've been told, the IRS will allow you to switch methods - but only once. Below is a quick example showing how different inventory costing methods can result in completely different COGS (and subsequently gross profit margins) - for the same transaction.
In this simplified example, I'm assuming that Company A is purchasing hammers from the manufacturer/distributor, holding them in inventory, and subsequently selling them at its retail locations. I'm also assuming some severe inflation in the hammer supply industry, but it was done to help clarify the point. As is evident though, FIFO leads to significantly lower cost of goods sold, gross profit margins, and ultimately net income. You should check the footnotes that accompany the firm's financial statements to determine which method is being used. This is important due to a profit-boosting phenomenon known as LIFO Liquidations, which usually occurs during times like now when corporations are allowing their inventories to dwindle lower and lower without replacement. The result is that new sales begin to cut through years of (assumedly lower) price layers, lowering COGS and boosting net income. This could result in a temporary profit windfall, however it's unlikely to repeat itself, and should almost be considered an extraordinary aspect of income (in my humble opinion).

Now that you have a cursory grasp of inventory costing, I'll move on to two ratios that will help to assess a given company's inventory situation: Inventory Turnover and Average Inventory Days Outstanding.

Inventory Turnover measures the number of times that a firm's inventory has "turned over" during the year. It's calculated as follows:

Inventory Turnover = Cost of Goods Sold / ( (Starting Inventory + Ending Inventory) / 2 )
Home Depot's Inventory Turnover
= $47,298M / ( ( $10,673M + $11,731M) / 2 )
= $47,298M / ($22,404M / 2)
= $47,298M / $11,202M
= 4.22

The implication here is that Home Depot's inventory turned over 4.22 times during its 2008 fiscal year.

Some sources provide a several step process for determining the next ratio, Average Inventory Days Outstanding. The shortcut though is to just 365 and divide it by Inventory Turnover. For Home Depot:

Average Inventory Days Outstanding = 365 / (Inventory Turnover)
=365 / 4.22
=86.49

This means that, during 2008, the average item spent 86.49 days in Home Depot's inventory. This ratio should be compared across several years to determine trends in the firm's inventory. As an example, during 2007, Home Depot's average inventory days outstanding was 87.25. This means that Home Depot actually improved its turnover from 2007 to 2008, which is contrary to what I would expect during a recession. This year-over-year comparison is probably most indicative of efficient inventory controls at the company. My expectation though is that when Home Depot reports fiscal 2009 results (towards the beginning of February 2010) we'll be able to observe an increase in the average inventory days outstanding. I may be wrong though, and HD could have conceivably scaled down its inventory to meet sales demand in an efficient manner that will allow it to remain consistent with its ~86 day turnover rate. It's items like these that should allow investors to discern between market leaders and laggards coming out of this recession (and into the new normal?)

*no positions

Sphere: Related Content