Английский язык. Практический курс для решения бизнес-задач
Шрифт:
Measuring Value Creation
The metrics that measure «value» or «value creation» were originally based on DCF techniques and these are most commonly applied to individual project evaluations. The first step in measuring the value created from any investment project is to calculate the net present value (NPV). The NPV represents:
– The sum of the «present values» of future cash flows resulting from an investment that is discounted at a given rate of interest, the «cost of capital». This gives a sum for the future receipts from the investment expressed in today’s monetary values.
– Less the cost of the investment. This determines whether, again in today’s money, there is a surplus or deficit from the investment.
The NPV that results simply represents the
In reality there are many complications to this simple scenario. Companies represent a composite portfolio of numerous investment projects that have been made at different points of time and they do not convey all the information investors need to adjust values accordingly. Complex investment project scenarios can be extremely difficult to analyze and there are many arguments about the correct discount rates to use.
In spite of the difficulties, and although investors cannot always delve into the results of individual projects, it is possible for them to study the accounts of companies and to infer from them whether value has been added or destroyed. Investors can also extend this approach further by analyzing the forecast for companies to determine whether they are likely to add value in the future. This can help with their investment decisions and will, in turn, affect share prices.
Strictly speaking, companies wishing to deliver and maximize shareholder value creation need to focus on two things:
– Maximizing the stream of future cash flows;
– Minimizing the interest charged against that stream by reducing the «cost of capital».
Some would argue that influencing the cost of capital charge significantly is almost impossible and that the sole focus therefore should be on cash flow maximization. At its most basic level, then, a successful VBM approach means achieving a positive stream of future cash flows to give shareholders a return on capital in excess of its cost.
There are many ways of measuring this value but two are the most well known. The first is total shareholder returnand the second is economic profit.
From an investor’s perspective, when measuring the value that has been created the most important measure to use is total shareholder return. It is the sum of two components, which represent the benefits to the shareholder from owning the share:
– The percentage share price appreciation over the period being measured;
– The dividend yield during the period, expressed as a percentage of the share price.
Internally, companies that adopted VBM often use the second most popular measure of value. This is known as «economic profit». It measures the return earned by the company in a period after deducting a charge for the cost of capital employed within the business. Economic profit is often considered as the internal VBM measure that acts as a proxy for the shareholder value measured externally by the total shareholder return.
A Case Study in Delivering Shareholder Value – BP
BP is one of the few companies that regularly receives awards for its delivery of shareholder value. Peter Hall, the Director of Investor Relations at BP, highlights a number of key factors that keep BP near the top of the shareholder value league tables:
– The concept of shareholder value is very important within the business culture. The group actively attempts to manage and integrate the shareholder value perceived externally within the stock markets with the value created internally by the managers of the business. There is a very close link between the investor relations team and the Group CEO and CFO, who continually take a strong interest in the company’s share price. The group’s investor relations department is eight strong and has dedicated experts both in London and New York.
– The company has adopted total shareholder return as its main way of measuring shareholder value. Absolute growth in TSR is not sufficient. BP must also improve relatively against its peer group. BP has also used TSR in a sophisticated way by:
Calculating total shareholder return over a three-year period to smooth out short-term fluctuations in the stock markets;
Using a comparative peer group of companies (against whom they measure their relative TSR performance). This group includes the major six key players within the oil industry – ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, TOTAL, ENI and Repsol YPF.
– TSR has been adopted internally as a way of driving business performance. This has been achieved through the use of two additional performance measures, earnings growth coupled with return on capital employed. By setting business unit targets based on both of these measures, managers need to deliver growth in earnings and an increasingly effective utilization of the assets within their business. Success with these parameters should translate into improved TSR.
– The organizational structure is deliberately flat and is geared towards effective management and delivery against these key targets. There are approximately 150 business units in BP, each on average with around $0.5 billion in capital employed. This is small enough to enable the CEO, if he wants to communicate an important message, to bring together all the managers of the business units into one room if necessary.
– The business units within BP also compete against each other for capital allocation. Peer group results are regularly reported through BP’s financial systems. This internal competition also drives selective investment into business projects that generate the best shareholder value in the medium to long term.
– The remuneration of the management team is heavily dependent on their relative performance against demanding three-year TSR, earnings growth and return on capital employed targets. It is not enough for managers to deliver TSR, earnings growth or ROCE in isolation. To earn the maximum award they have to deliver all three and they have to outperform their peer group. Performance below the peer group median results in no award. The remuneration contract of BP’s executive directors ties as much as 70% of their earnings to these factors so they really do bear similar risks to the shareholders for whom they act. The contracts of all other senior managers are similarly structured to reflect both their own targets and the company’s results relative to its peers.