Friday, October 9, 2009

Calculations of Return (ROA vs ROE vs ROIC)

Return on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE) and return on invested capital (ROIC) are the three most prevalent metrics used to obtain an idea of the returns a company generates, and to compare this return generation to the company’s peers. While important information can be learned from each one of these metrics, there are some significant differences between them.

ROA, calculated as net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) divided by total assets, shows the returns the company is able to generate relative to its entire asset base. While generally a good metric to use in comparing companies in same industries, this metric can be skewed when a company is holding lots of excess cash or assets for sale. These assets, while not expected to generate income are used in the calculation thereby causing the return on assets to appear lower than that which the company’s actual productive assets generate.

ROE, calculated as net income after tax divided by total equity (excluding preferred shares), demonstrates the percentage return earned on each dollar invested by the shareholders of the firm. This metric is very relevant when comparing companies with similar capital structures but outside of such a scenario it should not be relied upon. As Assets = Liabilities + Equity, the more debt a company has in its capital structure the smaller the equity will be as a percentage of total assets. Unlike the ROA metric, which remains stable throughout all capital structures, ROE can appear extremely high or extremely low when comparing a company to another employing a very different percentage of debt to equity.

My personal favorite of the three is ROIC, calculated as NOPAT divided by ‘operating net working capital plus operating fixed assets’. Operating fixed assets are any assets that are expected to contribute to earnings such as equipment, land (if not excess), goodwill, intangible assets, etc. Using operating net working capital, calculated as ‘current assets’ minus ‘excess cash’ minus ‘current liabilities’, also ensures that current assets that aren’t expected to generate earnings (such as excess cash) are not included in the calculation. This metric is my favorite as it gives a good indication of a company’s actual capacity to generate returns through utilization of its productive assets. Also, this metric can be used to compare companies employing varying capital structures. My main use of this metric is in comparing it to a company’s weighted average cost of capital (WACC), an estimation of the return expected by the debt and equity holders of the firm on a weighted average basis. The purpose of comparing the two is described in a previous article.

4 comments:

  1. Jonathan,
    I'm enjoying your blog. Please keep up the good work.
    Couple of questions:
    1. I am also a value-oriented investor, and I also use ROIC as one of my eleven factors. However, I'm not an accountant and after reading your explanation of Invested Capital(IC) in your ROIC discussion, I'm wondering if we are calculating IC the same way. I calculated IC as Shareholders Equity + Long-Term Debt. How does that compare with your denominator?
    2. I have never considered using WACC as part of my analysis. I see the benefit of doing so, but I'm wondering if the effort to do so for every company I analyze is necessary (i.e. really worth the effort)? For larger corporations (say S&P 1000), wouldn't WACC normally be in say the 6-10% range? And as such, wouldn't it be relatively less important in our analysis for any company whose ROIC is greater than 15%?
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Jeff!

    1.Both denominators should arrive at the same result as Assets = Liabilities + Shareholders' Equity (I'm sure you know that but just for other readers' benefit). The reason I like my way of doing it is because let's say there was a fixed asset held for sale that we know is not expected to contribute to current revenue generation, then my method let's you choose not to include it in the calculation. The equation you use would account for ALL fixed assets assuming current liabilities aren't being used to finance fixed assets (which on a healthy balance sheet shouldn't be the case). I believe this makes sense, please confirm.

    2. It's true that if you just want an idea of whether the company has a moat or not, a high ROIC greater than the average range for WACC would be a good indication. The reason I calculate WACC anyways is because I use it in my DCF model. If you just want an idea of average costs of capital per industry, Damodaran has a great list on his site HERE.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, your explanation makes perfect sense.
    Also, thanks for the Damodaran link.
    I admit that I'm a skeptic when it comes to using DCF for valuation estimates since I have yet to be convinced that estimating future growth (for the next several years) for any company can be done with sufficient confidence to make it worthwhile. A future blog post by you on this topic would be appreciated.
    Regards,
    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeff,

    Funny you say that. The DCF I use is actually a "no growth" DCF. I am in exactly the same camp as you. I first make sure I believe the current earnings power is sustainable, and then I use the last 12 months earnings to extrapolate as a perpetuity into the future. Also, when I use a growth assumption (long term as in 2-4%) in the formula, growth is only included when ROIC is greater than WACC.

    I hope this helps.

    Best,
    Jonathan

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Subscribe via RSS