Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aswath Damodaran
Aswath Damodaran 1
Price Earnings Ratio: Definition
Aswath Damodaran 2
PE Ratio: Descriptive Statistics
1200
1000
800
Number of firms
Current PE
600 Trailing PE
Forward PE
400
200
0
0-4 4-6 6-8 8 - 10 10 - 15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 40 - 45 45- 50 50 -75 75 - > 100
100
PE ratio
Aswath Damodaran 3
PE: Deciphering the Distribution
Aswath Damodaran 4
PE Ratio: Understanding the Fundamentals
Aswath Damodaran 5
PE Ratio and Fundamentals
Aswath Damodaran 6
Using the Fundamental Model to Estimate PE For a
High Growth Firm
n The price-earnings ratio for a high growth firm can also be related to
fundamentals. In the special case of the two-stage dividend discount
model, this relationship can be made explicit fairly simply:
( 1 +g)n
)* 1 −
EPS0 * P a y o u t R a t i o * ( 1g +
( 1 +r) n EPS 0 *Payout Ration * ( 1 +g)n * ( 1 +g n )
P0 = +
r-g (r - gn )(1+r)n
• For a firm that does not pay what it can afford to in dividends, substitute
FCFE/Earnings for the payout ratio.
n Dividing both sides by the earnings per share:
(1+ g )n
Payout Ratio *(1 + g )* 1 −
P0 (1+ r) n Payout Ratio n * ( 1 + g )n *(1 + gn )
= +
EPS 0 r -g (r - g n )(1+ r) n
Aswath Damodaran 7
Expanding the Model
Aswath Damodaran 8
A Simple Example
n Assume that you have been asked to estimate the PE ratio for a firm
which has the following characteristics:
Variable High Growth Phase Stable Growth Phase
Expected Growth Rate 25% 8%
Payout Ratio 20% 50%
Beta 1.00 1.00
n Riskfree rate = T.Bond Rate = 6%
n Required rate of return = 6% + 1(5.5%)= 11.5%
(1.25)5
0 . 2 * (1.25) * 1− 5
(1.115) 5
0.5 * (1.25) *(1.08)
PE = + = 28.75
(.115 - .25) (.115-.08) (1.115) 5
Aswath Damodaran 9
PE and Growth: Firm grows at x% for 5 years, 8%
thereafter
180
160
140
120
100 r=4%
PE Ratio
r=6%
r=8%
80 r=10%
60
40
20
0
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Expected Growth Rate
Aswath Damodaran 10
PE Ratios and Length of High Growth: 25% growth
for n years; 8% thereafter
60
50
40
g=25%
PE Ratio
g=20%
30
g=15%
g=10%
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Length of High Growth Period
Aswath Damodaran 11
PE and Risk: Effects of Changing Betas on PE
Ratio:
Firm with x% growth for 5 years; 8% thereafter
50
45
40
35
30
g=25%
PE Ratio
g=20%
25
g=15%
g=8%
20
15
10
0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Beta
Aswath Damodaran 12
PE and Payout
35
30
25
20 g=25%
g=20%
PE
g=15%
15 g=10%
10
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Payout Ratio
Aswath Damodaran 13
PE: Emerging Markets
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Mexico Malaysia Singapore Taiwan Hong Kong Venezuela Brazil Argentina Chile
Aswath Damodaran 14
Comparisons across countries
Aswath Damodaran 15
A Comparison across countries: June 2000
Aswath Damodaran 16
Correlations and Regression of PE Ratios
n Correlations
• Correlation between PE ratio and long term interest rates = -0.733
• Correlation between PE ratio and yield spread = 0.706
n Regression Results
PE Ratio = 42.62 - 3.61 (10’yr rate) + 8.47 (10-yr - 2 yr rate) R2 = 59%
Input the interest rates as percent. For instance, the predicted PE ratio for
Japan with this regression would be:
PE: Japan = 42.62 - 3.61 (1.85) + 8.47 (1.27) = 46.70
At an actual PE ratio of 52.25, Japanese stocks are slightly overvalued.
Aswath Damodaran 17
Predicted PE Ratios
Aswath Damodaran 18
An Example with Emerging Markets: June 2000
Aswath Damodaran 19
Regression Results
Aswath Damodaran 20
Predicted PE Ratios
Aswath Damodaran 21
Comparisons of PE across time: PE Ratio for the
S&P 500
PE Ratio: 1960-2000
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
Aswath Damodaran 22
Is low (high) PE cheap (expensive)?
n A market strategist argues that stocks are over priced because the PE
ratio today is too high relative to the average PE ratio across time. Do
you agree?
q Yes
q No
n If you do not agree, what factors might explain the higer PE ratio
today?
Aswath Damodaran 23
E/P Ratios , T.Bond Rates and Term Structure
16.00%
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
Earnings Yield
T.Bond Rate
Bond-Bill
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
00
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
-2.00%
Aswath Damodaran 24
Regression Results
Aswath Damodaran 25
Estimate the E/P Ratio Today
n T. Bond Rate =
n T.Bond Rate - T.Bill Rate =
n Expected E/P Ratio =
n Expected PE Ratio =
Aswath Damodaran 26
Comparing PE ratios across firms
You are reading an equity research report on this sector, and the analyst
claims that Andres Wine and Hansen Natural are under valued because
they have low PE ratios. Would you agree?
o Yes
o No
n Why or why not?
Aswath Damodaran 28
Comparing PE Ratios across a Sector
Aswath Damodaran 29
PE, Growth and Risk
Aswath Damodaran 30
Is Telebras under valued?
Aswath Damodaran 31
Using comparable firms- Pros and Cons
Aswath Damodaran 32
Using the entire crosssection: A regression approach
Aswath Damodaran 33
PE versus Growth
120
100
80
60
40
20
-20
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Aswath Damodaran 34
PE Ratio: Standard Regression
Model Summary
Coefficients a,b
Standar
Unstandardized dized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 13.090 1.164 11.242 .000
Beta -3.392 .908 -.089 -3.737 .000
PAYOUT1 4.938 1.190 .098 4.150 .000
Expected Growth
.880 .040 .527 22.115 .000
in EPS: next 5 y
a. Dependent Variable: Current PE
b. Weighted Least Squares Regression - Weighted by Market Cap
Aswath Damodaran 35
Second Thoughts?
Aswath Damodaran 36
PE Regression- No Intercept
Model Summary
Coefficients a,b,c
Standar
Unstandardized dized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 Beta 4.389 .609 .188 7.212 .000
PAYOUT1 13.299 .962 .189 13.823 .000
Expected Growth
1.014 .039 .608 25.786 .000
in EPS: next 5 y
a. Dependent Variable: Current PE
b. Linear Regression through the Origin
c. Weighted Least Squares Regression - Weighted by Market Cap
Aswath Damodaran 37
Problems with the regression methodology
Aswath Damodaran 38
The Multicollinearity Problem
Correlations
Expected
Growth in EPS:
Current PE next 5 y Beta Payout Ratio
Current PE Pearson Correlation 1.000 .342** .130** .009
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .594
N 3303 2085 3027 3290
Expected Growth Pearson Correlation .342** 1.000 .397** -.078**
in EPS: next 5 y Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000
N 2085 2675 2393 2143
Beta Pearson Correlation .130** .397** 1.000 -.213**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000
N 3027 2393 4534 3114
Payout Ratio Pearson Correlation .009 -.078** -.213** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .594 .000 .000 .
N 3290 2143 3114 3388
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Aswath Damodaran 39
Using the PE ratio regression
n Assume that you were given the following information for Dell. The
firm has an expected growth rate of 10%, a beta of 1.40 and pays no
dividends. Based upon the regression, estimate the predicted PE ratio
for Dell.
Predicted PE =
(Work with absolute values in regression - 10 for 10% etc.)
Aswath Damodaran 40
Investment Strategies that compare PE to the
expected growth rate
n If we assume that all firms within a sector have similar growth rates
and risk, a strategy of picking the lowest PE ratio stock in each sector
will yield undervalued stocks.
n Portfolio managers and analysts sometimes compare PE ratios to the
expected growth rate to identify under and overvalued stocks.
• In the simplest form of this approach, firms with PE ratios less than their
expected growth rate are viewed as undervalued.
• In its more general form, the ratio of PE ratio to growth is used as a
measure of relative value.
Aswath Damodaran 41
Problems with comparing PE ratios to expected
growth
Aswath Damodaran 42
PE Ratio versus Growth - The Effect of Interest
rates:
Average Risk firm with 25% growth for 5 years; 8% thereafter
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
T.Bond Rate
Aswath Damodaran 43
PE Ratios Less Than The Expected Growth Rate
n In September 2001,
• 33% of firms had PE ratios lower than the expected 5-year growth rate
• 67% of firms had PE ratios higher than the expected 5-year growth rate
n In comparison,
• 38.1% of firms had PE ratios less than the expected 5-year growth rate in
September 1991
• 65.3% of firm had PE ratios less than the expected 5-year growth rate in
1981.
Aswath Damodaran 44
PEG Ratio: Definition
Aswath Damodaran 45
PEG Ratio: Distribution
400
300
200
100
0 N = 2084.00
Aswath Damodaran 46
PEG Ratios: The Beverage Sector
Average
Aswath Damodaran 22.66 0.13 0.33 2.00 47
PEG Ratio: Reading the Numbers
n The average PEG ratio for the beverage sector is 2.00. The lowest
PEG ratio in the group belongs to Hansen Natural, which has a PEG
ratio of 0.57. Using this measure of value, Hansen Natural is
o the most under valued stock in the group
o the most over valued stock in the group
n What other explanation could there be for Hansen’s low PEG ratio?
Aswath Damodaran 48
PEG Ratio: Analysis
Aswath Damodaran 49
PEG Ratios and Fundamentals
n Risk and payout, which affect PE ratios, continue to affect PEG ratios
as well.
• Implication: When comparing PEG ratios across companies, we are
making implicit or explicit assumptions about these variables.
n Dividing PE by expected growth does not neutralize the effects of
expected growth, since the relationship between growth and value is
not linear and fairly complex (even in a 2-stage model)
Aswath Damodaran 50
A Simple Example
n Assume that you have been asked to estimate the PEG ratio for a firm
which has the following characteristics:
Variable High Growth Phase Stable Growth Phase
Expected Growth Rate 25% 8%
Payout Ratio 20% 50%
Beta 1.00 1.00
n Riskfree rate = T.Bond Rate = 6%
n Required rate of return = 6% + 1(5.5%)= 11.5%
n The PEG ratio for this firm can be estimated as follows:
(1.25) 5
0.2 * (1.25) * 1 −
(1.115) 5 0.5 * (1.25)5 *(1.08)
PEG = + = .115 or 1.15
.25(.115 - .25) .25(.115-.08) (1.115)5
Aswath Damodaran 51
PEG Ratios and Risk
2.5
g =25%
PEG Ratio
g=20%
1.5
g=15%
g=8%
0.5
0
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Beta
Aswath Damodaran 52
PEG Ratios and Quality of Growth
1.4
1.2
0.8
PEG Ratio
PEG
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Retention Ratio
Aswath Damodaran 53
PE Ratios and Expected Growth
2.50
2.00
1.50
r=6%
PEG Ratio
r=8%
r=10%
1.00
0.50
0.00
5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Expected Growth Rate
Aswath Damodaran 54
PEG Ratios and Fundamentals: Propositions
Aswath Damodaran 55
PE, PEG Ratios and Risk
45 2.5
40
2
35
30
1.5
25
PE
PEG Ratio
20
1
15
10
0.5
0 0
Lowest 2 3 4 Highest
Aswath Damodaran 56
PEG Ratio: Returning to the Beverage Sector
Average
Aswath Damodaran 22.66 0.13 0.33 2.00 57
Analyzing PE/Growth
n Given that the PEG ratio is still determined by the expected growth
rates, risk and cash flow patterns, it is necessary that we control for
differences in these variables.
n Regressing PEG against risk and a measure of the growth dispersion,
we get:
PEG = 3.61 - 2.86 (Expected Growth) - 3.75 (Std Deviation in Prices)
R Squared = 44.75%
n In other words,
• PEG ratios will be lower for high growth companies
• PEG ratios will be lower for high risk companies
n We also ran the regression using the deviation of the actual growth rate
from the industry-average growth rate as the independent variable,
with mixed results.
Aswath Damodaran 58
Estimating the PEG Ratio for Hansen
n Applying this regression to Hansen, the predicted PEG ratio for the
firm can be estimated using Hansen’s measures for the independent
variables:
• Expected Growth Rate = 17.00%
• Standard Deviation in Stock Prices = 62.45%
n Plugging in,
Expected PEG Ratio for Hansen = 3.61 - 2.86 (.17) - 3.75 (.6245)
= 0.78
n With its actual PEG ratio of 0.57, Hansen looks undervalued,
notwithstanding its high risk.
Aswath Damodaran 59
Extending the Comparables
Aswath Damodaran 60
PEG versus Growth
-1
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
Aswath Damodaran 61
Analyzing the Relationship
n The relationship in not linear. In fact, the smallest firms seem to have
the highest PEG ratios and PEG ratios become relatively stable at
higher growth rates.
n To make the relationship more linear, we converted the expected
growth rates in ln(expected growth rate). The relationship between
PEG ratios and ln(expected growth rate) was then plotted.
Aswath Damodaran 62
PEG versus ln(Expected Growth)
-1
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Ln(Expected Growth)
Aswath Damodaran 63
Market PEG Ratio Regression
Model Summary
Coefficients a,b
Standar
Unstandardized dized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 3.935 .112 35.175 .000
Beta -7.249E-02 .064 -.025 -1.140 .255
PAYOUT1 .575 .084 .149 6.873 .000
LNGROWTH -.867 .037 -.509 -23.522 .000
a. Dependent Variable: PEG1
b. Weighted Least Squares Regression - Weighted by Market Cap
Aswath Damodaran 64
Applying the PEG ratio regression
n Consider Dell again. The stock has an expected growth rate of 10%, a
beta of 1.40 and pays out no dividends. What should its PEG ratio be?
n If the stock’s actual PE ratio is 18, what does this analysis tell you
about the stock?
Aswath Damodaran 65
A Variant on PEG Ratio: The PEGY ratio
n The PEG ratio is biased against low growth firms because the
relationship between value and growth is non-linear. One variant that
has been devised to consolidate the growth rate and the expected
dividend yield:
PEGY = PE / (Expected Growth Rate + Dividend Yield)
n As an example, Con Ed has a PE ratio of 16, an expected growth rate
of 5% in earnings and a dividend yield of 4.5%.
• PEG = 16/ 5 = 3.2
• PEGY = 16/(5+4.5) = 1.7
Aswath Damodaran 66
Relative PE: Definition
n The relative PE ratio of a firm is the ratio of the PE of the firm to the
PE of the market.
Relative PE = PE of Firm / PE of Market
n While the PE can be defined in terms of current earnings, trailing
earnings or forward earnings, consistency requires that it be estimated
using the same measure of earnings for both the firm and the market.
n Relative PE ratios are usually compared over time. Thus, a firm or
sector which has historically traded at half the market PE (Relative PE
= 0.5) is considered over valued if it is trading at a relative PE of 0.7.
Aswath Damodaran 67
Relative PE: Cross Sectional Distribution
1000
800
600
400
200
Std. Dev = .77
Mean = 1.00
0 N = 3303.00
Relative PE
Aswath Damodaran 68
Relative PE: Distributional Statistics
Aswath Damodaran 69
Relative PE: Determinants
Payout Ratio j * ( 1+ g j ) * 1 −
n n
( 1 +r j ) Payout Ratio j,n * ( 1+ g j ) * ( 1+ g j,n )
+ n
rj - g j (rj - g j,n )(1 + rj )
Relative PE j =
( 1 +g m ) n
Payout Ratio m * ( 1 +g m ) * 1 −
( 1 +rm )
n
Payout Ratio m,n * ( 1 +g m )n * ( 1+ gm,n )
+ n
rm - gm (rm - gm,n ) ( 1 +rm )
Aswath Damodaran 71
Estimating Relative PE
n The relative PE ratio for this firm can be estimated in two steps. First,
we compute the PE ratio for the firm and the market separately:
(1.20)
5
0 . 3 * (1.20) * 1−
(1.115) 5 0.5 * (1.20)5 * (1.06)
PE firm = + 5 = 15.79
(.115 - .20) (.115 -.06) (1.115)
(1.10)
5
0 . 3 * (1.10) * 1−
(1.115)5 0.5 * (1.10) 5 *(1.06)
PE market = + 5 = 10.45
(.115 - .10) (.115-.06) (1.115)
Aswath Damodaran 72
Relative PE and Relative Growth
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Relative PE
Market g=5%
Market g=10%
Market g=15%
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
Firm's Growth Rate/Market Growth Rate
Aswath Damodaran 73
Relative PE: Another Example
n In this example, consider a firm with twice the risk as the market,
while having the same growth and payout characteristics as the firm:
Firm Market
Expected growth rate 10% 10%
Length of Growth Period 5 years 5 years
Payout Ratio: first 5 yrs 30% 30%
Growth Rate after yr 5 6% 6%
Payout Ratio after yr 5 50% 50%
Beta in first 5 years 2.00 1.00
Beta after year 5 1.00 1.00
Riskfree Rate = 6%
Aswath Damodaran 74
Estimating Relative PE
n The relative PE ratio for this firm can be estimated in two steps. First,
we compute the PE ratio for the firm and the market separately:
(1.10) 5
0.3 * (1.10)* 1 −
(1.17) 5 0 . 5 * (1.10)5 * (1.06)
PE firm = + = 8.33
(.17 - . 1 0 ) (.115-.06) (1.17)5
(1.10)
5
0 . 3 * (1.10) * 1−
(1.115)5 0.5 * (1.10) 5 *(1.06)
PE market = + 5 = 10.45
(.115 - .10) (.115-.06) (1.115)
Aswath Damodaran 75
Relative PE and Relative Risk
4.5
3.5
2.5
Beta stays at current level
Beta drops to 1 in stable phase
2
1.5
0.5
0
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Aswath Damodaran 76
Relative PE: Summary of Determinants
Aswath Damodaran 77
Relative PE Ratios: The Auto Sector
1.20
1.00
0.80
Ford
0.60 Chrysler
GM
0.40
0.20
0.00
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Aswath Damodaran 78
Using Relative PE ratios
Aswath Damodaran 79
Relative PEs: Why do they change?
Aswath Damodaran 80
Relative PE Ratios: Market Analysis
Model Summary
Coefficients a,b
Standar
Unstandardized dized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .674 .060 11.242 .000
RELGR .835 .038 .527 22.115 .000
RELPYT 4.431E-02 .011 .098 4.150 .000
Beta -.175 .047 -.089 -3.737 .000
a. Dependent Variable: RELPE
b. Weighted Least Squares Regression - Weighted by Market Cap
Aswath Damodaran 81
Value/Earnings and Value/Cashflow Ratios
n While Price earnings ratios look at the market value of equity relative to
earnings to equity investors, Value earnings ratios look at the market value of
the firm relative to operating earnings. Value to cash flow ratios modify the
earnings number to make it a cash flow number.
n The form of value to cash flow ratios that has the closest parallels in DCF
valuation is the value to Free Cash Flow to the Firm, which is defined as:
Value/FCFF = (Market Value of Equity + Market Value of Debt-Cash)
EBIT (1-t) - (Cap Ex - Deprecn) - Chg in WC
n Consistency Tests:
• If the numerator is net of cash (or if net debt is used, then the interest income from
the cash should not be in denominator
• The interest expenses added back to get to EBIT should correspond to the debt in
the numerator. If only long term debt is considered, only long term interest should
be added back.
Aswath Damodaran 82
Value/FCFF Distribution
800
600
400
200
0 N = 3063.00
Enterprise Value/FCFF
Aswath Damodaran 83
Value of Firm/FCFF: Determinants
Aswath Damodaran 84
Value Multiples
Aswath Damodaran 85
Alternatives to FCFF - EBIT and EBITDA
Aswath Damodaran 86
Value/FCFF Multiples and the Alternatives
n Assume that you have computed the value of a firm, using discounted
cash flow models. Rank the following multiples in the order of
magnitude from lowest to highest?
o Value/EBIT
o Value/EBIT(1-t)
o Value/FCFF
o Value/EBITDA
n What assumption(s) would you need to make for the Value/EBIT(1-t)
ratio to be equal to the Value/FCFF multiple?
Aswath Damodaran 87
Illustration: Using Value/FCFF Approaches to value
a firm: MCI Communications
Aswath Damodaran 88
Multiple Magic
n In this case of MCI there is a big difference between the FCFF and
short cut measures. For instance the following table illustrates the
appropriate multiple using short cut measures, and the amount you
would overpay by if you used the FCFF multiple.
Free Cash Flow to the Firm
= EBIT (1-t) - Net Cap Ex - Change in Working Capital
= 3356 (1 - 0.36) + 1100 - 2500 - 250 = $ 498 million
$ Value Correct Multiple
FCFF $498 31.28382355
EBIT (1-t) $2,148 7.251163362
EBIT $ 3,356 4.640744552
EBITDA $4,456 3.49513885
Aswath Damodaran 89
Reasons for Increased Use of Value/EBITDA
1. The multiple can be computed even for firms that are reporting net
losses, since earnings before interest, taxes and depreciation are
usually positive.
2. For firms in certain industries, such as cellular, which require a
substantial investment in infrastructure and long gestation periods, this
multiple seems to be more appropriate than the price/earnings ratio.
3. In leveraged buyouts, where the key factor is cash generated by the firm
prior to all discretionary expenditures, the EBITDA is the measure of
cash flows from operations that can be used to support debt payment at
least in the short term.
4. By looking at cashflows prior to capital expenditures, it may provide a
better estimate of “optimal value”, especially if the capital
expenditures are unwise or earn substandard returns.
5. By looking at the value of the firm and cashflows to the firm it allows
for comparisons across firms with different financial leverage.
Aswath Damodaran 90
Value/EBITDA Multiple
n When cash and marketable securities are netted out of value, none of
the income from the cash and securities should be reflected in the
denominator.
Aswath Damodaran 91
Value/EBITDA Distribution
1200
1000
800
600
400
0 N = 3630.00
EV/EBITDA
Aswath Damodaran 92
The Determinants of Value/EBITDA Multiples:
Linkage to DCF Valuation
Aswath Damodaran 93
From Firm Value to EBITDA Multiples
Aswath Damodaran 94
A Simple Example
Aswath Damodaran 95
Calculating Value/EBITDA Multiple
n In this case, the Value/EBITDA multiple for this firm can be estimated
as follows:
Value ( 1 -.36) (0.2)(.36) 0.3 0
= + - - = 8.24
EBITDA .10 - . 0 5 .10 - . 0 5 .10 - .05 .10 - .05
Aswath Damodaran 96
Value/EBITDA Multiples and Taxes
16
14
12
10
Value/EBITDA
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Tax Rate
Aswath Damodaran 97
Value/EBITDA and Net Cap Ex
12
10
8
Value/EBITDA
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Net Cap Ex/EBITDA
Aswath Damodaran 98
Value/EBITDA Multiples and Return on Capital
12
10
8
Value/EBITDA
WACC=10%
6 WACC=9%
WACC=8%
0
6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15%
Return on Capital
Aswath Damodaran 99
Value/EBITDA Multiple: Trucking Companies