What are the Common DCF Mistakes?
The DCF model relies significantly on forward-looking projections and discretionary assumptions, making it prone to bias and mistakes.
In the following post, we’ve compiled a list of the most common errors seen in DCF models, which should be a helpful guide for those learning about financial and valuation modeling.
The DCF model states that the value of a company is equal to the sum of all of a company’s projected free cash flows (FCFs), which are discounted to the present date using an appropriate discount rate.
However, the discretionary assumptions used to project a company’s future performance are its main drawback, as these decisions are subjective and prone to the biases of the individual performing the analysis.
For that reason, the valuations derived from a DCF can vary greatly from each other.
The checklist below summarizes a few common errors often found in DCF models:
The first mistake seen in DCF models is accidentally including the latest historical period as part of the Stage 1 cash flows.
The initial forecast period should consist of only projected free cash flows (FCFs) and never any historical cash flows.
The DCF is based on projected cash flows, not historical cash flows. While most understand this concept, many DCF models are linked from a separate tab, where the historical periods will also be carried over and may be erroneously linked into the DCF calculation.
As a result, make sure to discount and add only the company's future cash flows.
The next error is related to having an initial forecast period that is too short, i.e. Stage 1.
For a mature company, a standard five-year forecast horizon is sufficient, i.e. the company is established with predictable cash flows and profit margins.
The time necessary for a mature company to reach a long-term sustainable state is brief — in fact, it could be even shorter than five years, if appropriate.
On the other hand, certain DCF models performed on high-growth companies need to extend the initial forecast period to a ten or even fifteen-year horizon.
Ask yourself, “Can this company continue to grow at this growth rate perpetually?”
If not, the forecast should be extended until the company matures further.
However, note that the longer the initial forecast period, the less credible the implied valuation is — which is also why the DCF is most reliable for mature companies with established market positions.
Closely related to the prior mistake, a company’s depreciation as a percentage of its capital expenditures (Capex) should converge near a ratio of 1.0x, or 100%, by the end of the initial forecast period.
As a company matures, the opportunities for capital expenditures decline, resulting in less capex overall. More specifically, the majority of the company’s capex will be maintenance capex, as opposed to growth capex.
Given the reduced capex, having depreciation outpacing capex perpetually would be unrealistic as depreciation cannot reduce the value of a fixed asset (PP&E) below zero.
The most common DCF model is the unlevered DCF, where the free cash flow to firm (FCFF) is projected.
Since FCFF represents the cash flows that belong to all stakeholders, such as debt lenders and equity holders, the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is the appropriate discount rate to use.
In contrast, the levered DCF — which is used far less common in practice — projects the free cash flow to equity (FCFE) of a company, which belongs solely to common shareholders. In this case, the correct discount rate to use is the cost of equity.
Generating future growth requires spending, so it cannot just be reduced without reason.
Of course, reinvestments such as Capex and the change in net working capital (NWC) will gradually decrease as a company matures and revenue growth slows down.
Yet, the reinvestment rate must still be reasonable and in line with that of the company’s industry peers.
For example, a company can be assumed to grow at 2.5% perpetually, but rational assumptions must be made where the continued revenue growth is supported, as opposed to simply cutting reinvestments to zero.
After calculating the terminal value (TV), a crucial next step is to discount the terminal value to the present date.
An easy mistake to make is to neglect this step and add the undiscounted terminal value to the discounted sum of the free cash flows (FCFs).
The terminal value is calculated using either:
But regardless of which approach is used, the terminal value calculated represents the present value (PV) of the company’s cash flows in the final year of the explicit forecast period prior to entering the long-term perpetuity stage, not the value as of the present date.
Since the DCF estimates what a company is worth as of today, it is necessary to discount the terminal value (i.e. the future value) to the present date, i.e. Year 0.
The following formula is used to discount the terminal value.
Present Value of Terminal Value Formula
- Present Value of Terminal Value = Unadjusted TV / (1 + Discount Rate) ^ Years
The terminal growth rate assumption refers to the growth rate at which a company is expected to grow at into perpetuity.
One common error seen — particularly for high-growth companies — is an unrealistic terminal growth rate, such as 5%.
If a company is growing quickly far above its peers, extend the explicit forecast period until its growth rate normalizes.
A reasonable terminal growth rate assumption should generally be in line with the GDP growth rate, i.e. between 2% to 4%.
For a long-term growth rate in the upper part of that range (i.e. 4%), there should also be a valid reason supporting that assumption — e.g. a market leader such as Amazon (AMZN).
Otherwise, the terminal growth rate of most companies should be around 2% to 3%.
Learn how institutional investors identify high-potential undervalued stocks. Enrollment is open for the upcoming cohort.
In the exit multiple approach of calculating the terminal value, the exit multiple chosen should correspond to the cash flows projected.
For an unlevered DCF, the multiples used are typically EV/EBITDA or EV/EBIT.
Why? Enterprise value represents all stakeholders, just like unlevered free cash flows.
But in the case of a levered DCF, where levered free cash flows are projected, an equity value-based multiple must be used such as the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E).
One of the most common criticisms of the DCF model is the contribution of the terminal value to the total implied valuation.
While a terminal value that is 60% to 75% of the total DCF value is ordinary, a terminal value that exceeds 85% of the total DCF value is a red flag that suggests that the initial forecast period should be extended and/or other assumptions likely require adjusting.
The perpetuity growth approach can also be used to cross-check the exit multiple approach’s terminal value (and vice versa).
The solution to this issue is to first prolong the explicit forecast period, as it might not be long enough for the company to have reached a normalized, stable growth state in the final year.
If that does not fix the problem, the terminal value assumptions such as the long-term growth rate could be too aggressive and not reflect stable growth.
The DCF suffers from many drawbacks, with the most notable one being the overall sensitivity of the model to the assumptions used.
Hence, it is important to perform scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis to any complete DCF valuation model.
The independence of the DCF from the market is considered one of its benefits, but entirely neglecting the market price can often be a mistake.
Intentionally not performing any comps analysis as a “sanity check” under the reasoning that the market is the wrong approach.
The DCF and comps analysis should be used together, which is why institutional investors and investment banks never rely solely on one valuation method — albeit, there are times when certain approaches are weighted more heavily than others, such as if there are no comps.
Therefore, the intrinsic value and market value approaches should be used in conjunction to determine a valuation range, rather than attempting to pinpoint a single, precise valuation.
The DCF model is used by investment bankers to present a framework to their clients that guides their decision-making process, rather than to precisely determine if a company is overvalued or undervalued.
Virtually every new investment banking analyst has experienced some version of this: You’re staffed on a pitch or a live deal; You spend several sleepless nights trying to determine a company’s value so your analysis can be included in the pitch; You methodically build a DCF model, LBO model, trading and deal comps; You calculate the 52 week trading highs and lows; You present a beautiful print out of your work (called a football field) to your senior banker.
Your senior banker leans back in his chair, pulls out a red pen, and starts modifying your work.
What’s happened is that the senior banker has “tightened up” the football field to narrow the valuation range you just submitted and nudge it closer to the negotiated deal price.
You head back to your cubicle and wonder “is that really how valuation is supposed to be done? Is the senior banker’s goal to reach a preconceived notion of price?”
To answer these questions, let’s look at how the DCF is used in investment banking:
A frequent criticism of investment banking valuation is that the tail wags the dog — that instead of the valuation being driven by the DCF, the valuation is a foregone conclusion based on market price, and the DCF is built to support that conclusion.
There’s truth to this criticism. But is there anything wrong with how the investment banks do it? After all, an investment banker’s job is to maximize value for clients. It’s not (gasp) to get the valuation “right.” A simple example will illustrate why it would be absurd for the DCF to drive the investment banker’s pricing recommendation to clients.
Our example: “We can get you $300 million but you’re only worth $150 million”
A healthcare company retains an investment bank to advise on a potential sale. There are many willing buyers at a price of $300 million, but the investment banker’s DCF outputs a price of $150 million. It would be absurd for the banker to advise the healthcare company to ask for only $150 million. After all, the investment bank’s job is to maximize value for its client. Instead, what happens in this (very common) scenario is that the banker will modify the DCF model’s assumptions to align the output with what the market price will bear (something around $300 million in this case ).
It doesn’t mean the investment banking DCF is worthless–as some, such as Damodaran, suggest. To understand why there’s value in the analysis, it’s helpful to understand why a difference between the company’s DCF value and the market price exists in the first place.
DCF value diverges from market price when the DCF model’s assumptions are different from those implicit in the market’s pricing.
Thinking about the difference between price and value in this way helps illuminate the purpose and importance of the DCF in the investment banking context: The DCF framework enables the investment banker to show clients what a business must do intrinsically to justify the current market price.
When does the DCF diverge from market price?
The market may be right; The market may be wrong. The reality is that the investment banker isn’t an investor. His or her job isn’t to make a call on whether a business is overvalued or undervalued — it’s to present a framework that helps the client make that decision. After all, they’re the ones with skin in the game. While this may strike some as cynical, an investment banker is paid for getting the deal done, not for making the right call.
On the other hand, if you’re in equity research or if you’re an investor, you do have skin in the game, and it’s a whole ‘nother ballgame. Your job is to make the right call. If you invest in Apple because your DCF shows that it’s undervalued and you’re proven correct, you’ll get paid handsomely.
So what does all this mean? It means that the DCF is a framework that investment bankers use to reconcile a company’s market price with how the company must perform in the future to justify that price. Meanwhile, investors use it as a framework for identifying investment opportunities.
And everyone involved in the process understands this.
That said, banks can and should be clearer about the purpose of the DCF in the IB context. Clarification of the valuation’s purpose would be especially helpful when the valuation is presented to the public (either directly or indirectly). An example of this is a valuation included in a fairness opinion, a document presented to the seller’s shareholders and written by an investment bank hired by the selling company’s board.
DCF models built by investment bankers (or, for that matter, by investors or corporate managers) are not flawless. While most DCF models do a great job of adding bells and whistles, many finance professionals lack a complete understanding of the core concepts of the DCF model.
Some of the most common conceptual errors are:
No comments yet.