Advanced Financial Statements Analysis by Investopedia PDF

Advanced Financial
Statements Analysis
By David Harper
http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/default.asp
Thank you for downloading the printable version of this tutorial.
As always, we welcome any feedback or suggestions.

http://www.investopedia.com/contact.aspx
Table of Contents
1) Financial Statements: Introduction
2) Financial Statements: Who's In Charge?
3) Financial Statements: The System
4) Financial Statements: Cash Flow
5) Financial Statements: Earnings
6) Financial Statements: Revenue
7) Financial Statements: Working Capital
8) Financial Statements: Long-Lived Assets
9) Financial Statements: Long-Term Liabilities
10) Financial Statements: Pension Plans
11) Financial Statements: Conclusion
Introduction
Whether you watch analysts on CNBC or read articles in The Wall Street Journal,
you'll hear experts insisting on the importance of "doing your homework" before
investing in a company. In other words, investors should dig deep into the
company's financial statements and analyze everything from the auditor's report
to the footnotes. But what does this advice really mean, and how does an
investor follow it?
The aim of this tutorial is to answer these questions by providing a succinct yet
advanced overview of financial statements analysis. If you already have a grasp
of the definition of the balance sheet and the structure of an income statement,
this tutorial will give you a deeper understanding of how to analyze these reports
and how to identify the "red flags" and "gold nuggets" of a company. In other
words, it will teach you the important factors that make or break an investment
decision.
(Page 1 of 74)
Copyright 2010, Investopedia.com - All rights reserved.
Investopedia.com the resource for investing and personal finance education.
If you are new to financial statements, don't despair - you can get the background
knowledge you need in the Intro To Fundamental Analysis tutorial.
Who's In Charge?
In the United States, a company that offers its common stock to the public
typically needs to file periodic financial reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). We will focus on the three important reports outlined in this
table:
Must be filed with

Filing Includes
SEC
Audited financial Within 90 days of
statements, fiscal year end
10-K Annual
management discussion (shortens to 60 days
Report
& analysis (MD&A) and for larger companies,
schedules as of Dec. 15, 2005)
Within 45 days of
10- fiscal quarter
Unaudited financial
Q Quarterly (shortens to 35 days
statement and MD&A.
Report for larger companies
as of Dec. 15, 2005.)
Proposed actions taken
to a shareholder vote, Ahead of the annual
14A Proxy company ownership, shareholders'
Statement executive compensation meeting, filed when
and performance versus sent to shareholders.
peers.
The SEC governs the content of these filings and monitors the accounting
profession. In turn, the SEC empowers the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) - an independent, nongovernmental organization - with the
authority to update U.S. accounting rules. When considering important rule
changes, FASB is impressively careful to solicit input from a wide range of
constituents and accounting professionals. But once FASB issues a final
standard, this standard becomes a mandatory part of the total set of accounting
standards known as Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

GAAP starts with a conceptual framework that anchors financial reports to a set
of principles such as materiality (the degree to which the transaction is big
enough to matter) and verifiability (the degree to which different people agree on
This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

(Page 2 of 74)
how to measure the transaction). The basic goal is to provide users - equity
investors, creditors, regulators and the public - with "relevant, reliable and useful"
information for making good decisions.
Because the framework is general, it requires interpretation, and often re-

interpretation, in light of new business transactions. Consequently, sitting on top
of the simple framework is a growing pile of literally hundreds of accounting
standards. But complexity in the rules is unavoidable for at least two reasons.
First, there is a natural tension between the two principles of relevance and
reliability. A transaction is relevant if a reasonable investor would care about it; a
reported transaction is reliable if the reported number is unbiased and accurate.
We want both, but we often cannot get both. For example, real estate is carried
on the balance sheet at historical cost because this historical cost is reliable.
That is, we can know with objective certainty how much was paid to acquire
property. However, even though historical cost is reliable, reporting the current
market value of the property would be more relevant - but also less reliable.
Consider also derivative instruments, an area where relevance trumps reliability.

Derivatives can be complicated and difficult to value, but some derivatives
(speculative not hedge derivatives) increase risk. Rules therefore require
companies to carry derivatives on the balance sheet at "fair value", which
requires an estimate, even if the estimate is not perfectly reliable. Again, the
imprecise fair value estimate is more relevant than historical cost. You can see
how some of the complexity in accounting is due to a gradual shift away from
"reliable" historical costs to "relevant" market values.
The second reason for the complexity in accounting rules is the unavoidable
restriction on the reporting period: financial statements try to capture operating
performance over the fixed period of a year. Accrual accounting is the practice of
matching expenses incurred during the year with revenue earned, irrespective of
cash flows. For example, say a company invests a huge sum of cash to purchase
a factory, which is then used over the following 20 years. Depreciation is just a
way of allocating the purchase price over each year of the factory's useful life so
that profits can be estimated each year. Cash flows are spent and received in a
lumpy pattern and, over the long run, total cash flows do tend to equal total
accruals. But in a single year, they are not equivalent. Even an easy reporting
question such as "how much did the company sell during the year?" requires
making estimates that distinguish cash received from revenue earned. For
example, did the company use rebates, attach financing terms or sell to
customers with doubtful credit?
(Please note: throughout this tutorial we refer to U.S. GAAP and U.S.-specific
securities regulations, unless otherwise noted. While the principles of GAAP are
generally the same across the world, there are significant differences in GAAP

(Page 3 of 74)
for each country. Please keep this in mind if you are performing analysis on non-
U.S. companies.)
The System
Financial statements paint a picture of the transactions that flow through a

business. Each transaction or exchange - for example, the sale of a product or
the use of a rented a building block - contributes to the whole picture.
Let's approach the financial statements by following a flow of cash-based

transactions. In the illustration below, we have numbered four major steps:
1. Shareholders and lenders supply capital (cash) to the company.

2. The capital suppliers have claims on the company. The balance sheet is
an updated record of the capital invested in the business. On the right-
hand side of the balance sheet, lenders hold liabilities and shareholders
hold equity. The equity claim is "residual", which means shareholders own
whatever assets remain after deducting liabilities.

(Page 4 of 74)
The capital is used to buy assets, which are itemized on the left-hand side
of the balance sheet. The assets are current, such as inventory, or long-
term, such as a manufacturing plant.
3. The assets are deployed to create cash flow in the current year (cash
inflows are shown in green, outflows shown in red). Selling equity and
issuing debt start the process by raising cash. The company then "puts the
cash to use" by purchasing assets in order to create (build or buy)
inventory. The inventory helps the company make sales (generate
revenue), and most of the revenue is used to pay operating costs, which
include salaries.
4. After paying costs (and taxes), the company can do three things with its
cash profits. One, it can (or probably must) pay interest on its debt. Two, it
can pay dividends to shareholders at its discretion. And three, it can retain
or re-invest the remaining profits. The retained profits increase the
shareholders' equity account (retained earnings). In theory, these
reinvested funds are held for the shareholders' benefit and reflected in a
higher share price.
This basic flow of cash through the business introduces two financial
statements: the balance sheet and the statement of cash flows. It is often
said that the balance sheet is a static financial snapshot taken at the end
of the year (To read more, see What is a Cash Flow Statement? and
Reading The Balance Sheet.)
Statement of Cash Flows

The statement of cash flows may be the most intuitive of all statements. We have
already shown that, in basic terms, a company raises capital in order to buy
assets that generate a profit. The statement of cash flows "follows the cash"
according to these three core activities: (1) cash is raised from the capital
suppliers - cash flow from financing, (CFF), (2) cash is used to buy assets - cash
flow from investing (CFI), and (3) cash is used to create a profit - cash flow from
operations (CFO).
However, for better or worse, the technical classifications of some cash flows are
not intuitive. Below we recast the "natural" order of cash flows into their technical
classifications:

(Page 5 of 74)
You can see the statement of cash flows breaks into three sections:
1. Cash flow from financing (CFF) includes cash received (inflow) for the
issuance of debt and equity. As expected, CFF is reduced by dividends
paid (outflow).
2. Cash flow from investing (CFI) is usually negative because the biggest
portion is the expenditure (outflow) for the purchase of long-term assets
such as plants or machinery. But it can include cash received from
separate (that is, not consolidated) investments or joint ventures. Finally, it
can include the one-time cash inflows/outflows due to acquisitions and
divestitures.
3. Cash flow from operations (CFO) naturally includes cash collected for
sales and cash spent to generate sales. This includes operating expenses
such as salaries, rent and taxes. But notice two additional items that
reduce CFO: cash paid for inventory and interest paid on debt.
The total of the three sections of the cash flow statement equals net cash flow:
CFF + CFI + CFO = net cash flow. We might be tempted to use net cash flow as
a performance measure, but the main problem is that it includes financing flows.
Specifically, it could be abnormally high simply because the company issued
debt to raise cash, or abnormally low because it spent cash in order to retire
debt.
CFO by itself is a good but imperfect performance measure. Consider just one of
the problems with CFO caused by the unnatural re-classification illustrated

(Page 6 of 74)
above. Notice that interest paid on debt (interest expense) is separated from
dividends paid: interest paid reduces CFO but dividends paid reduce CFF. Both
repay suppliers of capital, but the cash flow statement separates them. As such,
because dividends are not reflected in CFO, a company can boost CFO simply
by issuing new stock in order to retire old debt. If all other things are equal, this
equity-for-debt swap would boost CFO.
In the next installment of this series, we will discuss the adjustments you can
make to the statement of cash flows to achieve a more "normal" measure of cash
flow.
Cash Flow
In the previous section of this tutorial, we showed that cash flows through a
business in four generic stages. First, cash is raised from investors and/or
borrowed from lenders. Second, cash is used to buy assets and build inventory.
Third, the assets and inventory enable company operations to generate cash,
which pays for expenses and taxes before eventually arriving at the fourth stage.
At this final stage, cash is returned to the lenders and investors. Accounting rules
require companies to classify their natural cash flows into one of three buckets
(as required by SFAS 95); together these buckets constitute the statement of
cash flows. The diagram below shows how the natural cash flows fit into the
classifications of the statement of cash flows. Inflows are displayed in green and
outflows displayed in red:

(Page 7 of 74)
The sum of CFF, CFI and CFO is net cash flow. Although net cash flow is almost
impervious to manipulation by management, it is an inferior performance
measure because it includes financing cash flows (CFF), which, depending on a
company's financing activities, can affect net cash flow in a way that is
contradictory to actual operating performance. For example, a profitable
company may decide to use its extra cash to retire long-term debt. In this case, a
negative CFF for the cash outlay to retire debt could plunge net cash flow to zero
even though operating performance is strong. Conversely, a money-losing
company can artificially boost net cash flow by issuing a corporate bond or by
selling stock. In this case, a positive CFF could offset a negative operating cash
flow (CFO), even though the company's operations are not performing well.
Now that we have a firm grasp of the structure of natural cash flows and how
they are represented/classified, this section will examine which cash flow
measures are best used for a particular analysis. We will also focus on how you
can make adjustments to figures so that your analysis isn't distorted by reporting
manipulations.
Which Cash Flow Measure Is Best?

You have at least three valid cash flow measures to choose from. Which one is
suitable for you depends on your purpose and whether you are trying to value the
stock or the whole company.
The easiest choice is to pull cash flow from operations (CFO) directly from the
statement of cash flows. This is a popular measure, but it has weaknesses when
used in isolation: it excludes capital expenditures, which are typically required to
maintain the firm's productive capability. It can also be manipulated, as we show
below.
If we are trying to do a valuation or replace an accrual-based earnings measure,

the basic question is "which group/entity does cash flow to?" If we want cash flow
to shareholders, then we should use free cash flow to equity (FCFE), which
is analogous to net earnings and would be best for a price-to-cash flow ratio
(P/CF).
If we want cash flows to all capital investors, we should use free cash flow to the
firm (FCFF). FCFF is similar to the cash generating base used in economic value
added (EVA). In EVA, it's called net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT) or
sometimes net operating profit less adjusted taxes (NOPLAT), but both are
essentially FCFF where adjustments are made to the CFO component.

(Page 8 of 74)
Cash Flow To: Measure: Calculation:

CFO or
Operations CFO
Adjusted CFO
Free Cash
Shareholders Flow to CFO - CFI *
Equity
Firm Free Cash
CFO + After-tax
(Shareholders Flow to Firm
interest - CFI*
and Lenders) (FCFF)
(*) Cash flow from investment (CFI) is used as an estimate of the level of net
capital expenditures required to maintain and grow the company. The goal is to
deduct expenditures needed to fund "ongoing" growth, and if a better estimate
than CFI is available, then it should be used.
Free cash flow to equity (FCFE) equals CFO minus cash flows from investments
(CFI). Why subtract CFI from CFO? Because shareholders care about the cash
available to them after all cash outflows, including long-term investments. CFO
can be boosted merely because the company purchased assets or even another
company. FCFE improves on CFO by counting the cash flows available to
shareholders net of all spending, including investments.
Free cash flow to the firm (FCFF) uses the same formula as FCFE but adds
after-tax interest, which equals interest paid multiplied by [1 tax rate]. After-tax
interest paid is added because, in the case of FCFF, we are capturing the total
net cash flows available to both shareholders and lenders. Interest paid (net of
the company's tax deduction) is a cash outflow that we add back to FCFE in
order to get a cash flow that is available to all suppliers of capital.
A Note Regarding Taxes

We do not need to subtract taxes separately from any of the three
measures above. CFO already includes (or, more precisely, is reduced by)
taxes paid. We usually do want after-tax cash flows since taxes are a real,
ongoing outflow. Of course, taxes paid in a year could be abnormal. So for
valuation purposes, adjusted CFO or EVA-type calculations adjust actual
taxes paid to produce a more "normal" level of taxes. For example, a firm
might sell a subsidiary for a taxable profit and thereby incur capital gains,
increasing taxes paid for the year. Because this portion of taxes paid is non-
recurring, it could be removed to calculate a normalized tax expense. But
this kind of precision is not always necessary. It is often acceptable to use
taxes paid as they appear in CFO.
Adjusting Cash Flow from Operations (CFO)

Each of the three cash flow measures includes CFO, but we want to capture
sustainable or recurring CFO, that is, the CFO generated by the ongoing

(Page 9 of 74)
business. For this reason, we often cannot accept CFO as reported in the
statement of cash flows, and generally need to calculate an adjusted CFO by
removing one-time cash flows or other cash flows that are not generated by
regular business operations. Below, we review four kinds of adjustments you
should make to reported CFO in order to capture sustainable cash flows. First,
consider a "clean" CFO statement from Amgen, a company with a reputation for
generating robust cash flows:
Amgen shows CFO in the indirect format. Under the indirect format, CFO is
derived from net income with two sets of 'add backs'. First, non-cash expenses,
such as depreciation, are added back because they reduce net income but do
not consume cash. Second, changes to operating (current) balance sheet
accounts are added or subtracted. In Amgen's case, there are five such
additions/subtractions that fall under the label "cash provided by (used in)
changes in operating assets and liabilities": three of these balance-sheet
changes subtract from CFO and two of them add to CFO.
For example, notice that trade receivables (also known as accounts receivable)
reduces CFO by about $255 million: trade receivables is a 'use of cash'. This is
because, as a current asset account, it increased by $255 million during the year.
This $255 million is included as revenue and therefore net income, but the
company hadn't received the cash as of the year's end, so the uncollected
revenues needed to be excluded from a cash calculation. Conversely, accounts
payable is a 'source of cash' in Amgen's case. This current-liability account
increased by $74 million during the year; Amgen owes the money and net
income reflects the expense, but the company temporarily held onto the cash, so
its CFO for the period is increased by $74 million.

(Page 10 of 74)
We will refer to Amgen's statement to explain the first adjustment you should
make to CFO:
1. Tax Benefits Related to Employee Stock Options (See #1 on Amgen CFO

statement)
Amgen's CFO was boosted by almost $269 million because a company gets a
tax deduction when employees exercise non-qualified stock options. As such,
almost 8% of Amgen's CFO is not due to operations and is not necessarily
recurring, so the amount of the 8% should be removed from CFO. Although
Amgen's cash flow statement is exceptionally legible, some companies bury this
tax benefit in a footnote.
To review the next two adjustments that must be made to reported CFO, we will
consider Verizon's statement of cash flows below.
2. Unusual Changes to Working Capital Accounts (receivables, inventories

and payables) (Refer to #2 on Verizon's CFO statement.)
Although Verizon's statement has many lines, notice that reported CFO is
derived from net income with the same two sets of add backs we explained
above: non-cash expenses are added back to net income and changes to
operating accounts are added to or subtracted from it:

(Page 11 of 74)
Notice that a change in accounts payable contributed more than $2.6 billion to
reported CFO. In other words, Verizon created more than $2.6 billion in
additional operating cash in 2003 by holding onto vendor bills rather than paying
them. It is not unusual for payables to increase as revenue increases, but if
payables increase at a faster rate than expenses, then the company effectively
creates cash flow by "stretching out" payables to vendors. If these cash inflows
are abnormally high, removing them from CFO is recommended because they
are probably temporary. Specifically, the company could pay the vendor bills in
January, immediately after the end of the fiscal year. If it does this, it artificially
boosts the current-period CFO by deferring ordinary cash outflows to a future
period.
Judgment should be applied when evaluating changes to working capital

accounts because there can be good or bad intentions behind cash flow created
by lower levels of working capital. Companies with good intentions can work to
minimize their working capital - they can try to collect receivables quickly, stretch
out payables and minimize their inventory. These good intentions show up as
incremental and therefore sustainable improvements to working capital.
Companies with bad intentions attempt to temporarily dress-up cash flow right
before the end of the reporting period. Such changes to working capital accounts
are temporary because they will be reversed in the subsequent fiscal year. These
include temporarily withholding vendor bills (which causes a temporary increase
in accounts payable and CFO), cutting deals to collect receivables before the
year's end (causing a temporary decrease in receivables and increase in CFO),
or drawing down inventory before the year's end (which causes a temporary
decrease in inventory and increase in CFO). In the case of receivables, some
companies sell their receivables to a third party in a factoring transaction, which
has the effect of temporarily boosting CFO.
3. Capitalized Expenditures That Should Be Expensed (outflows in CFI that

should be manually re-classified to CFO) (Refer to #3 on the Verizon CFO
statement.)
Under cash flow from investing (CFI), you can see that Verizon invested almost
$11.9 billion in cash. This cash outflow was classified under CFI rather than CFO
because the money was spent to acquire long-term assets rather than pay for
inventory or current operating expenses. However, on occasion this is a
judgment call. WorldCom notoriously exploited this discretion by reclassifying
current expenses into investments and, in a single stroke, artificially boosting
both CFO and earnings.
Verizon chose to include 'capitalized software' in capital expenditures. This refers

to roughly $1 billion in cash spent (based on footnotes) to develop internal
software systems. Companies can choose to classify software developed for
internal use as an expense (reducing CFO) or an investment (reducing CFI).

(Page 12 of 74)
Microsoft, for example, responsibly classifies all such development costs as

expenses rather than capitalizing them into CFI, which improves the quality of its
reported CFO. In Verizon's case, it's advisable to reclassify the cash outflow into
CFO, reducing it by $1 billion.
The main idea here is that if you are going to rely solely on CFO, you should
check CFI for cash outflows that ought to be reclassified to CFO.
4. One-Time (Nonrecurring) Gains Due to Dividends Received or Trading

Gains
CFO technically includes two cash flow items that analysts often re-classify into
cash flow from financing (CFF): (1) dividends received from investments and (2)
gains/losses from trading securities (investments that are bought and sold for
short-term profits). If you find that CFO is boosted significantly by one or both of
these items, they are worth examination. Perhaps the inflows are sustainable. On
the other hand, dividends received are often not due to the company's core
operating business and may not be predictable. Gains from trading securities are
even less sustainable: they are notoriously volatile and should generally be
removed from CFO unless, of course, they are core to operations, as with an
investment firm. Further, trading gains can be manipulated: management can
easily sell tradable securities for a gain prior to the year's end, boosting CFO.
Summary
Cash flow from operations (CFO) should be examined for distortions in the
following ways:
Remove gains from tax benefits due to stock option exercises.

Check for temporary CFO blips due to working capital actions. For
example, withholding payables, or "stuffing the channel", to temporarily
reduce inventory.
Check for cash outflows classified under CFI that should be reclassified to
CFO.
Check for other one-time CFO blips due to nonrecurring dividends or
trading gains.
Aside from being vulnerable to distortions, the major weakness of CFO is that it
excludes capital investment dollars. We can generally overcome this problem by
using free cash flow to equity (FCFE), which includes (or, more precisely, is
reduced by) capital expenditures (CFI). Finally, the weakness of FCFE is that it
will change if the capital structure changes. That is, FCFE will go up if the
company replaces debt with equity (an action that reduces interest paid and
therefore increases CFO) and vice versa. This problem can be overcome by
using free cash flow to firm (FCFF), which is not distorted by the ratio of debt to
equity.

(Page 13 of 74)
Earnings
In this section, we try to answer the question, "what earnings number should be
used to evaluate company performance?" We start by considering the
relationship between the cash flow statement and the income statement. In the
preceding section, we explained that companies must classify cash flows into
one of three categories: operations, investing, or financing. The diagram below
traces selected cash flows from operations and investing to their counterparts on
the income statement (cash flow from financing (CFF) does not generally map to
the income statement):
Many cash flow items have a direct counterpart, that is, an accrual item on the
income statement. During a reporting period like a fiscal year or a fiscal quarter,
the cash flow typically will not match its accrual counterpart. For example, cash
spent during the year to acquire new inventory will not match cost of goods sold
(COGS). This is because accrual accounting gives rise to timing differences in
the short run: on the income statement, revenues count when they are earned
and they're matched against expenses as the expenses are incurred.
Expenses on the income statement are meant to represent costs incurred during
the period that can be tracked either (1) to cash already spent in a prior period or
(2) to cash that probably will be spent in a future period. Similarly, revenues are
meant to recognize cash that is earned in the current period but either (1) has

(Page 14 of 74)
already been received or (2) probably will be received in the future. Although
cash flows and accruals will disagree in the short run, they should converge in
the long run, at least in theory.
Consider two examples:
Depreciation - Say a company invests $10 million to buy a manufacturing

plant, triggering a $10 million cash outflow in the year of purchase. If the
life of the plant is 10 years, the $10 million is divided over each of the
subsequent 10 years, producing a non-cash depreciation expense each
year in order to recognize the cost of the asset over its useful life. But
cumulatively, the sum of the depreciation expense ($1 million per year x
10 years) equals the initial cash outlay.
Interest Expense - Say a company issues a zero-coupon corporate bond,
raising $7 million with the obligation to repay $10 million in five years.
During each of the five interim years, there will be an annual interest
expense but no corresponding cash outlay. However, by the end of the
fifth year, the cumulative interest expense will equal $3 million ($10 million
- $7 million), and the cumulative net financing cash outflow will also be $3
million.
In theory, accrual accounting ought to be superior to cash flows in gauging

operating performance over a reporting period. However, accruals must make
estimations and assumptions, which introduce the possibility of flaws.
The primary goal when analyzing an income statement is to capture normalized

earnings, that is, earnings that are both recurring and operational in nature.
Trying to capture normalized earnings presents two major kinds of challenges:
timing issues and classification choices. Timing issues cause temporary
distortions in reported profits. Classification choices require us to remove one-
time items or earnings not generated by ongoing operations, such as gains from
pension plan investments.

(Page 15 of 74)
Timing Issues
Most timing issues fall into four major categories:
Major Category: For Example: Specific Implications:

Selling with extended
Revenue recognized in
financing terms. For
1. Recognizing current period but could
example, the customer
Revenue Too be "reversed" in the
doesn't pay for 18
Early next year.
months.
Only part of the

expenditure is
expensed in the current
Capitalizing expenditures year - the rest is added
that could be expensed to future depreciation
2. Delaying, or Slowing down expense
"front loading" depreciation rate of long- Depreciation expense is
expenses to term assets reduced in current year
save them in Taking big write-offs because total
future years (also know as "big depreciation expense
baths") allocated over a greater
number of years
Saves expenses in
future years
As obsolete (low-cost)
inventory is liquidated,
COGS is lowered and
Underestimating gross profit margins are
obsolete inventory increased
3. Overvaluing
Failing to write down or Keeping overvalued
Assets
write off impaired assets assets on the balance
sheet overstates profits
until losses are finally
recognized.

(Page 16 of 74)
A lower net pension

Lowering net pension
obligation reduces the
obligation by increasing
current pension cost.
the assumed return on
4. Undervaluing Avoids recognizing a
pension assets
Liabilities future transfer of wealth
Excluding stock option
from shareholders to
expense
employees
Premature revenue recognition and delayed expenses are more intuitive than the
distortions caused by the balance sheet, such as overvalued assets. Overvalued
assets are considered a timing issue here because, in most (but not all) cases,
"the bill eventually comes due." For example, in the case of overvalued assets, a
company might keep depreciation expense low by carrying a long-term asset at
an inflated net book value (where net book value equals gross asset minus
accumulated depreciation), but eventually the company will be required to
"impair" or write-down the asset, which creates an earnings charge. In this case,
the company has managed to keep early period expenses low by effectively
pushing them into future periods.
It is important to be alert to earnings that are temporarily too high or even too low
due to timing issues.
Classification Choices
Once the income statement is adjusted or corrected for timing differences, the
other major issue is classification. In other words, which profit number do we care
about? The question is further complicated because GAAP does not currently
dictate a specific format for the income statement. As of May 2004, FASB has
already spent over two years on a project that will impact the presentation of the
income statement, and they are not expected to issue a public discussion
document until the second quarter of 2005.
We will use Sprint's latest income statement to answer the question concerning
the issue of classification.

(Page 17 of 74)
We identified five key lines from Sprint's income statement. (The generic label for
the same line is in parentheses):
1. Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)

Sprint does not show EBITDA directly, so we must add depreciation and
amortization to operating income (EBIT). Some people use EBITDA as a
proxy for cash flow because depreciation and amortization are non-cash
charges, but EBITDA does not equal cash flow because it does not include
changes to working capital accounts. For example, EBITDA would not
capture the increase in cash if accounts receivable were to be collected.
The virtue of EBITDA is that it tries to capture operating performance, that

is, profits after cost of goods sold (COGS) and operating expenses, but
before non operating items and financing items such as interest expense.
However, there are two potential problems. First, not necessarily everything
in EBITDA is operating and recurring. Notice that Sprint's EBITDA includes
an expense of $1.951 billion for "restructuring and asset impairments."
Sprint surely includes the expense item here to be conservative, but if we

(Page 18 of 74)
look at the footnote, we can see that much of this expense is related to
employee terminations. Since we do not expect massive terminations to
recur on a regular basis, we could safely exclude this expense.
Second, EBITDA has the same flaw as operating cash flow (OCF), which
we discussed in this tutorial's section on cash flow: there is no subtraction
for long-term investments, including the purchase of companies (because
goodwill is a charge for capital employed to make an acquisition). Put
another way, OCF totally omits the company's use of investment capital. A
company, for example, can boost EBITDA merely by purchasing another
company.
2. Operating Income After Depreciation and Amortization (EBIT)

In theory, this is a good measure of operating profit. By including
depreciation and amortization, EBIT counts the cost of making long-term
investments. However, we should trust EBIT only if depreciation expense
(also called accounting or book depreciation) approximates the company's
actual cost to maintain and replace its long-term assets. (Economic
depreciation is the term used to describe the actual cost of maintaining
long-term assets). For example, in the case of a REIT, where real estate
actually appreciates rather than depreciates - where accounting
depreciation is far greater than economic depreciation - EBIT is useless.
Furthermore, EBIT does not include interest expense and, therefore, is not
distorted by capital structure changes. In other words, it will not be affected
merely because a company substitutes debt for equity or vice versa. By the
same token, however, EBIT does not reflect the earnings that accrue to
shareholders since it must first fund the lenders and the government.
As with EBITDA, the key task is to check that recurring, operating items are
included and that items that are either non-operating or non-recurring are
excluded.
3. Income From Continuing Operations Before Taxes (Pre-Tax

Earnings)
Pre-tax earnings subtracts (includes) interest expense. Further, it includes
other items that technically fall within "income from continuing operations,"
which is an important technical concept.
Sprint's presentation conforms to accounting rules: items that fall within

income from continuing operations are presented on a pre-tax basis (above
the income tax line), whereas items not deemed part of continuing
operations are shown below the tax expense and on a net tax basis.
The thing to keep in mind is that you want to double-check these

(Page 19 of 74)
classifications. We really want to capture recurring, operating income, so

income from continuing operations is a good start. In Sprint's case, the
company sold an entire publishing division for an after-tax gain of $1.324
billion (see line "discontinued operations, net"). Amazingly, this sale turned
a $623 million loss under income from continuing operations before taxes
into a $1.2+ billion gain under net income. Since this gain will not recur, it is
correctly classified.
On the other hand, notice that income from continuing operations includes a
line for the "discount (premium) on the early retirement of debt." This is a
common item, and it occurs here because Sprint refinanced some debt and
recorded a loss. But in substance, it is not expected to recur and therefore it
should be excluded.
4. Income From Continuing Operations (Net Income From Continuing

Operations)
This is the same as above, but taxes are subtracted. From a shareholder
perspective, this is a key line, and it's also a good place to start since it is
net of both interest and taxes. Furthermore, it excludes the non-recurring
items discussed above, which instead fall into net income but can make net
income an inferior gauge of operating performance.
5. Net Income
Compared to income from continuing operations, net income has three
additional items that contribute to it: extraordinary items, discontinued
operations, and accounting changes. They are all presented net of tax. You
can see two of these on Sprint's income statement: "discontinued
operations" and the "cumulative effect of accounting changes" are both
shown net of taxes - after the income tax expense (benefit) line.
You should check to see if you disagree with the company's classification,
particularly concerning extraordinary items. Extraordinary items are deemed
to be both "unusual and infrequent" in nature. However, if the item is
deemed to be either "unusual" or "infrequent," it will instead be classified
under income from continuing operations.
Summary
In theory, the idea behind accrual accounting should make reported profits
superior to cash flow as a gauge of operating performance. But in practice, timing
issues and classification choices can paint a profit picture that is not sustainable.
Our goal is to capture normalized earnings generated by ongoing operations.
To do that, we must be alert to timing issues that temporarily inflate (or deflate)
reported profits. Furthermore, we should exclude items that are not recurring,
resulting from either one-time events or some activity other than business

(Page 20 of 74)
operations. Income from continuing operations - either pre-tax or after-tax - is a

good place to start. For gauging operating performance, it is a better starting
place than net income, because net income often includes several non-recurring
items such as discontinued operations, accounting changes and extraordinary
items (which are both unusual and infrequent).
We should be alert to items that are technically classified under income from
continuing operations but perhaps should be manually excluded. This may
include investment gains and losses, items deemed either "unusual" or
"infrequent" and other one-time transactions such as the early retirement of debt.
Revenue
Revenue recognition refers to a set of accounting rules that governs how a

company accounts for its sales. Many corporate accounting scandals have
started with companies admitting they have reported "irregular" revenues. This
kind of dishonesty is a critical accounting issue. In several high-profile cases,
management misled investors - and its own auditors - by deliberately reporting
inflated revenues in order to buoy its company's stock price. As of June 2004, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has begun working to consolidate
and streamline the various accounting rules into a single authoritative
pronouncement.
But this series is not concerned with detecting fraud: there are several books that
catalog fraudulent accounting practices and the high-profile corporate meltdowns
that have resulted from them. The problem is that most of these scams went
undetected, even by professional investors, until it was too late. In practice,
individual investors can rarely detect bogus revenue schemes; to a large extent,
we must trust the financial statements as they are reported. However, when it
comes to revenue recognition, there are a few things we can do.
1. Identify Risky Revenues

If only cash counted, revenue reporting would not pose any risk of misleading
investors. But the accrual concept allows companies to book revenue before
receiving cash. Basically, two conditions must be met: (1) the critical earnings
event must be completed (for example, service must be provided or product
delivered) and (2) the payment must be measurable in its amount, agreed upon
with the buyer, and its ultimate receipt must be reasonably assured (SFAC 5,
SEC Bulletin 101).
For some companies, recording revenue is simple; but for others, the application
of the above standards allows for, and even requires, the discretion of
management. The first thing an investor can do is identify whether the company
poses a high degree of accounting risk due to this discretion. Certain companies
are less likely to suffer revenue restatements simply because they operate with

(Page 21 of 74)
more basic, transparent business models. (We could call these "simple revenue"
companies.) Below, we list four aspects of a company and outline the degree of
accounting risk associated with each aspect:
Type
Type Associated
Aspects of Associated Examples of "Difficult"
with Difficult
Companies with Simple Revenue
Revenue
Revenue
Extended service warranty
1. Revenue
Product Service contract is sold with
Type
consumer electronics
Auction site sells airline
Company is an
tickets (should it report
Company is agent, distributor or
Ownership "gross" revenue or "net" fee
the franchisor (or
Type received?) Or a restaurant
owner/seller products are sold on
boosts revenue by
consignment)
collecting franchise fees
Sales are made via
Sales are
long-term service, Fitness facility operator
Type of Sales made at
subscription or sells long-term gym
Cycle delivery or
membership memberships
"point of sale"
contracts
Bundled producst
Degree of and services (that is, Software publisher bundles
Stand-alone
Product multiple deliverable installation and technical
products
Complexity arrangements support with product
(MDAs))
Many of the companies that have restated their revenues sold products or
services in some combination of the modes listed above under "difficult
revenues." In other words, the sales of these companies tended to involve long-
term service contracts, making it difficult to determine how much revenue should
be counted in the current period when the service is not yet fully performed.
These companies also engaged in complex franchise arrangements, pre-sold
memberships or subscriptions and/or the bundling of multiple products and/or
services.
We're not suggesting that you should avoid these companies - to do so would be
almost impossible! Rather, the idea is to identify the business model; if you
determine that any risky factors are present, then you should scrutinize the
revenue recognition policies carefully.
For example, Robert Mondavi (ticker: MOND) sells most of its wines in the U.S.

(Page 22 of 74)
to distributors under terms called FOB Shipping Point. This means that, once the
wines are shipped, the buyers assume most of the risk, which means they
generally cannot return the product. Mondavi collects simple revenue: it owns its
product, gets paid fairly quickly after delivery and the product is not subject to
overly complex bundling arrangements. Therefore, when it comes to trusting the
reported revenues "as reported," a company such as Robert Mondavi poses low
risk. If you were analyzing Mondavi, you could spend your time focusing on other
aspects of its financial statements.
On the other hand, enterprise software companies such as Oracle or PeopleSoft

naturally pose above-average accounting risk. Their products are often bundled
with intangible services that are tied to long-term contracts and sold through
third-party resellers. Even the most honest companies in this business cannot
avoid making revenue-reporting judgments and must therefore be scrutinized.
2. Check Against Cash Collected

The second thing you can do is to check reported revenues against the actual
cash received from customers. In the section on cash flow, we see that
companies can show cash from operations (CFO) in either the direct or indirect
format; unfortunately, almost all companies use the indirect method. A rare
exception is Collins Industries:
The virtue of the direct method is that it displays a separate line for "cash
received from customers." Such a line is not shown under the indirect method,
but we only need three items to calculate the cash received from customers:
(1) Net sales

(2) Plus the decrease in accounts receivable (or minus the increase)
(3) Plus the increase in cash advances from customers
(or minus the decrease)
____________________________________________________________
= Cash received from customers

(Page 23 of 74)
We add the decrease in accounts receivable because it signifies cash received to

pay down receivables. 'Cash advances from customers' represents cash
received for services not yet rendered; this is also known as unearned or
deferred revenue and is classified as a current liability on the balance sheet.
Below, we do this calculation for Collins Industries. You can see that our
calculated number (shown under "How to Calculate 'Cash Received from
Customers'") equals the reported cash collected from customers (circled in green
above):
We calculate 'cash received from customers' to compare the growth in cash

received to the growth in reported revenues. If the growth in reported revenues
jumps far ahead of cash received, we need to ask why. For example, a company
may induce revenue growth by offering favorable financing terms - like the ads
you often see for consumer electronics that offer "0% financing for 18 months." A
new promotion such as this will create booked revenue in the current period, but
cash won't be collected until future periods. And of course, some of the
customers will default and their cash won't be collected. So the initial revenue
growth may or may not be good growth, in which case, we should pay careful
attention to the allowance for doubtful accounts.

(Page 24 of 74)
Allowance for Doubtful Accounts

Of course, many sales are offered with credit terms: the product is sold and an
accounts receivable is created. Because the product has been delivered (or
service has been rendered) and payment is agreed upon, known and reasonably
assured, the seller can book revenue.
However, the company must estimate how much of the receivables will not be
collected. For example, it may book $100 in gross receivables but, because the
sales were on credit, the company might estimate that $7 will ultimately not be
collected. Therefore, a $7 allowance is created and only $93 is booked as
revenue. As you can see, a company can report higher revenues by lowering this
allowance.
Therefore, it is important to check that sufficient allowances are made. If the

company is growing rapidly and funding this growth with greater accounts
receivables, then the allowance for doubtful accounts should be growing too.
3. Parse Organic Growth from Other Revenue Sources

The third thing investors can do is scrutinize the sources of revenues. This
involves identifying and then parsing different sources of growth. The goal is to
identify the sources of temporary growth and separate them from organic,
sustainable growth.
Let's consider the two dimensions of revenue sources. The first dimension is
cash versus accrual: we call this "cash" versus "maybe cash" (represented on the
left side of the box below). "Maybe cash" refers to any booked revenue that is not
collected as cash in the current period. The second dimension is sustainable
versus temporary revenue (represented on the top row of the box below):

(Page 25 of 74)
To illustrate the parsing of revenues, we will use the latest annual report from
Office Depot (ticker: ODP), a global retail supplier of office products and services.
For fiscal 2003, reported sales of $12.358 billion represented an 8.8% increase
over the prior year.
First, we will parse the accrual (the "maybe cash") from the cash. We can do this
by looking at the receivables. You will see that, from 2002 to 2003, receivables
jumped from $777.632 million to $1.112 billion, and the allowance for doubtful
accounts increased from $29.149 million in 2002 to $34.173 million in 2003.

(Page 26 of 74)
Office Depot's receivables jumped more than its allowance. If we divide the
allowance into the receivables (see bottom of exhibit above), you see that the
allowance (as a percentage of receivables) decreased from 3.8% to 3.1%.
Perhaps this is reasonable, but the decrease helped to increase the booked
revenues. Furthermore, we can perform the calculation reviewed above (in #2) to
determine the cash received from customers:

(Page 27 of 74)
Cash received did not increase as much as reported sales. This is not a bad
thing by itself. It just means that we should take a closer look to determine
whether we have a quality issue (upper left-hand quadrant of the box above) or a
timing issue (upper right-hand quadrant of the box). A quality issue is a "red flag"
and refers to the upper left-hand quadrant: temporary accruals. We want to look
for any one-time revenue gains that are not cash.
When we read Office Depot's footnotes, we will not find any glaring red flags,
although we will see that same store sales (sales at stores open for at least a
year) actually decreased in the United States. The difference between cash and
accrual appears to be largely due to timing. Office Depot did appear to factor
some of its receivables, that is, sell receivables to a third party in exchange for
cash, but factoring by itself is not a red flag. In Office Depot's case, the company
converted receivables to cash and transferred some (or most) of the credit risk to
a third party. Factoring affects cash flows (and we need to be careful with it to the
extent that it boosts cash from operations) but, in terms of revenue, factoring
should raise a red flag only when (i) the company retains the entire risk of
collections, and/or (ii) the company factors with an affiliated party that is not at
arm's length.
Cash-Based but Temporary Revenue

When it comes to analyzing the sources of sustainable revenues, it helps to
parse the "technical" factors (lower left-hand quadrant). These are often
strangely neglected by investors.

(Page 28 of 74)
The first technical factor is acquisitions. Take a look at this excerpt from a
footnote in Office Depot's annual report:
impacting sales in our International Division during 2003 was our acquisition of
Guilbert in June which contributed additional sales of $808.8 million. (Item 7)
Therefore, almost all of Office Depot's $1 billion in sales growth can be attributed
to an acquisition. Acquisitions are not bad in and of themselves, but they are not
organic growth. Here are some key follow-up questions you should ask about an
acquisition: How much is the acquired company growing? How will it contribute to
the parent company's growth going forward? What was the purchase price? In
Office Depot's case, this acquisition should alert us to the fact that the core
business (before acquisition) is flat or worse.
The second technical factor is revenue gains due to currency translation. Here is
another footnote from Office Depot:
As noted above, sales in local currencies have substantially increased in recent

years. For U.S. reporting, these sales are translated into U.S. dollars at average
exchange rates experienced during the year. International Division sales were
positively impacted by foreign exchange rates in 2003 by $253.2 million and
$67.0 million in 2002 (International Division).
Here we see one of the benefits of a weaker U.S. dollar: it boosts the
international sales numbers of U.S. companies! In Office Depot's case,
international sales were boosted by $253 million because the dollar weakened
over the year. Why? A weaker dollar means more dollars are required to buy a
foreign currency, but conversely, a foreign currency is translated into more
dollars. So, even though a product may maintain its price in foreign currency
terms, it will translate into a greater number of dollars as the dollar weakens.
We call this a technical factor because it is a double-edged sword: if the U.S.

dollar strengthens, it will hurt international sales. Unless you are a currency
expert and mean to bet on the direction of the dollar, you probably want to treat
this as a random variable. The follow-up question to the currency factor is this:
Does the company hedge its foreign currency? (Office Depot generally does not,
so it is exposed to currency risk.)
Summary
Revenue recognition is a hot topic and the subject of much post-mortem analysis
in the wake of multiple high-profile restatements. We don't think you can directly
guard against fraud; that is a job for a company's auditor and the audit committee
of the board of directors. But you can do the following:
Determine the degree of accounting risk posed by the company's business

(Page 29 of 74)
model.
Compare growth in reported revenues to cash received from customers.
Parse organic growth from the other sources and be skeptical of any one-time
revenue gains not tied directly to cash (quality of revenues). Scrutinize any
material gains due to acquisitions. And finally, omit currency gains.
Working Capital
A recurring theme in this series is the importance of investors shaping their

analytical focus according to companies' business models. Especially when time
is limited, it's smart to tailor your emphasis so it's in line with the economic
drivers that preoccupy the company's industry. It's tough to get ahead of the
"investing pack" if you are reacting to generic financial results - such as earnings
per share (EPS) or revenue growth - after they've already been reported. For any
given business, there are usually some key economic drivers, or leading
indicators, that capture and reflect operational performance and eventually
translate into lagging indicators such as EPS. For certain businesses, trends in
the working capital accounts can be among these key leading indicators of
financial performance.
Where is Working Capital Analysis Most Critical?

On the one hand, working capital is always significant. This is especially true
from the lender's or creditor's perspective, where the main concern is
defensiveness: can the company meet its short-term obligations, such as paying
vendor bills?
But from the perspective of equity valuation and the company's growth prospects,
working capital is more critical to some businesses than to others. At the risk of
oversimplifying, we could say that the models of these businesses are asset
or capital intensive rather than service or people intensive. Examples of service
intensive companies include H&R Block, which provides personal tax services,
and Manpower, which provides employment services. In asset intensive sectors,
firms such as telecom and pharmaceutical companies invest heavily in fixed
assets for the long term, whereas others invest capital primarily to build and/or
buy inventory. It is the latter type of business - the type that is capital intensive
with a focus on inventory rather than fixed assets - that deserves the greatest
attention when it comes to working capital analysis. These businesses tend to
involve retail, consumer goods and technology hardware, especially if they are
low-cost producers or distributors.
Working capital is the difference between current assets and current liabilities:

(Page 30 of 74)
Inventory
Inventory balances are significant because inventory cost accounting impacts
reported gross profit margins. (For an explanation of how this happens, see
Inventory Valuation For Investors: FIFO and LIFO.) Investors tend to monitor
gross profit margins, which are often considered a measure of the value provided
to consumers and/or the company's pricing power in the industry. However, we
should be alert to how much gross profit margins depend on the inventory
costing method.

(Page 31 of 74)
Below we compare three accounts used by three prominent retailers: net sales,
cost of goods sold (COGS) and the LIFO reserve.
Walgreen's represents our normal case and arguably shows the best practice in
this regard: the company uses LIFO inventory costing, and its LIFO reserve
increases year over year. In a period of rising prices, LIFO will assign higher
prices to the consumed inventory (cost of goods sold) and is therefore more
conservative. Just as COGS on the income statement tends to be higher under
LIFO than under FIFO, the inventory account on the balance sheet tends to be
understated. For this reason, companies using LIFO must disclose (usually in a
footnote) a LIFO reserve, which when added to the inventory balance as
reported, gives the FIFO-equivalent inventory balance.
Because GAP Incorporated uses FIFO inventory costing, there is no need for a
"LIFO reserve." However, GAP's and Walgreen's gross profit margins are not
commensurable. In other words, comparing FIFO to LIFO is not like comparing

(Page 32 of 74)
apples to apples. GAP will get a slight upward bump to its gross profit margin
because its inventory method will tend to undercount the cost of goods. There is
no automatic solution for this. Rather, we can revise GAP's COGS (in dollar
terms) if we make an assumption about the inflation rate during the year.
Specifically, if we assume that the inflation rate for the inventory was R% during
the year, and if "Inventory Beginning" in the equation below equals the inventory
balance under FIFO, we can re-estimate COGS under LIFO with the following
equation:
Kohl's Corporation uses LIFO, but its LIFO reserve declined year over year - from
$4.98 million to zero. This is known as LIFO liquidation or liquidation of LIFO
layers, and indicates that during the fiscal year, Kohl's sold or liquidated inventory
that was held at the beginning of the year. When prices are rising, we know that
inventory held at the beginning of the year carries a lower cost (because it was
purchased in prior years). Cost of goods sold is therefore reduced, sometimes
significantly. Generally, in the case of a sharply declining LIFO reserve, we can
assume that reported profit margins are upwardly biased to the point of distortion.
Cash Conversion Cycle

The cash conversion cycle is a measure of working capital efficiency, often giving
valuable clues about the underlying health of a business. The cycle measures
the average number of days that working capital is invested in the operating
cycle. It starts by adding days inventory outstanding (DIO) to days sales
outstanding (DSO). This is because a company "invests" its cash to acquire/build
inventory, but does not collect cash until the inventory is sold and the accounts
receivable are finally collected.
Receivables are essentially loans extended to customers that consume working

capital; therefore, greater levels of DIO and DSO consume more working capital.
However, days payable outstanding (DPO), which essentially represent loans
from vendors to the company, are subtracted to help offset working capital
needs. In summary, the cash conversion cycle is measured in days and equals
DIO + DSO DPO:

(Page 33 of 74)
Here we extracted two lines from Kohl's (a retail department store) most recent
income statement and a few lines from their working capital accounts.
Circled in green are the accounts needed to calculate the cash conversion cycle.
From the income statement, you need net sales and COGS. From the balance
sheet, you need receivables, inventories and payables. Below, we show the two-
step calculation. First, we calculate the three turnover ratios: receivables turnover
(sales/average receivables), inventory turnover (COGS/average inventory) and
payables turnover (purchases/average payables). The turnover ratios divide into
an average balance because the numerators (such as sales in the receivables

(Page 34 of 74)
turnover) are flow measures over the entire year.
Also, for payables turnover, some use COGS/average payables. That's okay, but
it's slightly more accurate to divide average payables into purchases, which
equals COGS plus the increase in inventory over the year (inventory at end of
year minus inventory at beginning of the year). This is better because payables
finance all of the operating dollars spent during the period (that is, they are credit
extended to the company). And operating dollars, in addition to COGS, may be
spent to increase inventory levels.
The turnover ratios do not mean much in isolation; they are used to compare one
company to another. But if you divide the turnover ratios into 365 (for example,
365/receivables turnover), you get the "days outstanding" numbers. Below, for
example, a receivable turnover of 9.6 becomes 38 days sales outstanding
(DSO). This number has more meaning; it means that, on average, Kohl's
collects its receivables in 38 days.
Here is a graphic summary of Kohl's cash conversion cycle for 2003. On

average, working capital spent 92 days in Kohl's operating cycle:

(Page 35 of 74)
Let's contrast Kohl's with Limited Brands. Below we perform the same
calculations in order to determine the cash conversion cycle for Limited Brands:

(Page 36 of 74)
While Kohl's cycle is 92 days, Limited Brand's cycle is only 37. Why does this
matter? Because working capital must be financed somehow, with either debt or
equity, and both companies use debt. Kohl's cost of sales (COGS) is about
$6.887 billion per year, or almost $18.9 million per day ($6.887 billion/365 days).
Because Kohl's cycle is 92 days, it must finance--that is, fund its working capital
needs--to the tune of about $1.7+ billion per year ($18.9 million x 92 days). If
interest on its debt is 5%, then the cost of this financing is about $86.8 million
($1.7 billion x 5%) per year. However, if, hypothetically, Kohl's were able to
reduce its cash conversion cycle to 37 days--the length of Limited Brands' cycle--
its cost of financing would drop to about $35 million ($18.9 million per day x 37
days x 5%) per year. In this way, a reduction in the cash conversion cycle drops
directly to the bottom line.
But even better, the year over year trend in the cash conversion cycle often
serves as a sign of business health or deterioration. Declining DSO means
customers are paying sooner; conversely, increasing DSO could mean the
company is using credit to push product. A declining DIO signifies that inventory
is moving out rather than "piling up." Finally, some analysts believe that an
increasing DPO is a signal of increasing economic leverage in the marketplace.
The textbook examples here are Walmart and Dell: these companies can
basically dictate the terms of their relationships to their vendors and, in the
process, extend their days payable (DPO).
Looking "Under the Hood" for Other Items

Most of the other working capital accounts are straightforward, especially the
current liabilities side of the balance sheet. But you do want to be on the alert for
the following:

(Page 37 of 74)
Off-balance-sheet financing
Derivatives
For examples of these two items, consider the current assets section of Delta
Airlines' fiscal year 2003 balance sheet:
Notice that Delta's receivables more than doubled from 2002 to 2003. Is this a
dangerous sign of collections problems? Let's take a look at the footnote:
We were party to an agreement, as amended, under which we sold a defined

pool of our accounts receivable, on a revolving basis, through a special-purpose,
wholly owned subsidiary, which then sold an undivided interest in the receivables
to a third party.... This agreement terminated on its scheduled expiration date of
March 31, 2003. As a result, on April 2, 2003, we paid $250 million, which
represented the total amount owed to the third party by the subsidiary, and
subsequently collected the related receivables. (Note 8, Delta 10-K FY 2003)
Here's the translation: during 2002, most of Delta's receivables were factored in
an off-balance sheet transaction. By factored, we mean Delta sold some of its
accounts receivables to another company (via a subsidiary) in exchange for
cash. In brief, Delta gets paid quickly rather than having to wait for customers to
pay. However, the seller (Delta in this case) typically retains some or all of the
credit risk - the risk that customers will not pay. For example, they may
collateralize the receivables.
We see that during 2003, the factored receivables were put back onto the
balance sheet. In economic terms, they never really left but sort of disappeared
in 2002. So the 2003 number is generally okay, but there was not a dramatic
jump. More importantly, if we were to analyze year 2002, we'd have to be sure to
manually "add-back" the off-balance sheet receivables, which would otherwise

(Page 38 of 74)
look artificially favorable for that year.
We also highlighted Delta's increase in "prepaid expenses and other" because

this innocent-looking account contains the fair value of Delta's fuel hedge
derivatives. Here's what the footnote says:
Prepaid expenses and other current assets increased by 34%, or $120 million,
primarily due to an increase in prepaid aircraft fuel as well as an increase in the
fair value of our fuel hedge derivative contracts.... Approximately 65%, 56% and
58% of our aircraft fuel requirements were hedged during 2003, 2002 and 2001,
respectively. In February 2004, we settled all of our fuel hedge contracts prior to
their scheduled settlement dates and none of our projected aircraft fuel
requirements for 2005 or thereafter.
The rules concerning derivatives are complex, but the idea is this: it is entirely
likely that working capital accounts contain embedded derivative instruments. In
fact, the basic rule is that, if a derivative is a hedge whose purpose is to mitigate
risk (as opposed to a hedge whose purpose is to speculate), then the value of
the hedge will impact the carrying value of the hedged asset. For example, if fuel
oil is an inventory item for Delta, then derivatives contracts meant to lock-in
future fuel oil costs will directly impact the inventory balance. Most derivatives, in
fact, are not used to speculate but rather to mitigate risks that the company
cannot control.
Delta's footnote above has good news and bad news. The good news is that as
fuel prices rose, the company made some money on its fuel hedges, which in
turn offset the increase in fuel prices - the whole point of their design! But this is
overshadowed by news which is entirely bad: Delta settled "all of [their] fuel
hedge contracts" and has no hedges in place for 2005 and thereafter! Delta is
thus exposed in the case of high fuel prices, which is a serious risk factor for the
stock.
Summary
Traditional analysis of working capital is defensive; it asks, "Can the company
meet its short-term cash obligations?" But working capital accounts also tell you
about the operational efficiency of the company. The length of the cash
conversion cycle (DSO+DIO-DPO) tells you how much working capital is tied up
in ongoing operations. And trends in each of the days-outstanding numbers may
foretell improvements or declines in the health of the business.
Investors should check the inventory costing method, and LIFO is generally
preferred to FIFO. However, if the LIFO reserve drops precipitously year over
year, then the implied inventory liquidation distorts COGS and probably renders
the reported profit margin unusable.

(Page 39 of 74)
Finally, it's wise to check the current accounts for derivatives (or the lack of them,
when key risks exist) and off-balance sheet financing.
Long-Lived Assets
In the preceding section, we examined working capital, which refers to the
current assets and liabilities of a company. In this section, we take a closer look
at the long-lived assets (a.k.a. non-current assets) carried on the balance sheet.
Long-lived assets are those that provide the company with a future economic
benefit beyond the current year or operating period. It may be helpful to
remember that most (but not all) long-lived assets start as some sort of purchase
by the company.
In fact, whenever a company purchases an asset, it will either expense or

capitalize the purchase. Consider a simple example of a company that generates
$150 in sales and, in the same year, spends $100 on research and development
(R&D). In scenario A below, the entire $100 is expensed and, as a result, the
profit is simply $50 ($100 $50). In scenario B, the company capitalizes the
$100, which means a long-lived asset is created on the balance sheet and the
cost is allocated (charged) as an expense over future periods. If we assume the
asset has a five-year life, only one-fifth of the investment is allocated in the first
year. The other $80 remains on the balance sheet, to be allocated as an expense
over the subsequent four years. Therefore, the profits are higher under scenario
B, although the cash flows in the two scenarios are exactly the same:

(Page 40 of 74)
There are various technical terms for the allocation of capitalized assets, but
each refers to the pattern in which the assets' prices are allocated to future
period expenses: depreciation is the allocation of plant, property and equipment;
amortization is the allocation of goodwill; depletion is the allocation of natural
resource assets, such as oil wells.
The typical long-lived area of the balance sheet includes the following accounts:
Allocated to
Long-lived Usually created
income statement
asset because the company
expense (or
account: purchased:
income) via:
depreciation or
Property, plant
tangible property impairment (i.e.
& equipment
abrupt loss in value)
the securities of another gain/Loss or
Investments
company impairment
another company, but
paid more than fair amortization or
Goodwill
value (The excess over impairment
fair value is goodwill)
Depreciation
Depreciation is tricky because it is the allocation of a prior capital expenditure to
an annual expense. Reported profits are directly impacted by the depreciation
method. And because depreciation is a non-cash expense charge, some
analysts prefer cash flow measures or EBITDA, which is a measure of earnings
before the subtraction of depreciation. However, depreciation typically cannot be
ignored because it serves a valuable purpose: it sets aside an annual amount (a
sinking fund, if you will) for the maintenance and replacement of fixed assets.
Because depreciation is an accounting convention, you sometimes see an

alternative label: "economic depreciation." This is an adjusted depreciation that
represents the "true" amount that a company needs to allocate annually in order
to maintain and replace its fixed asset base. In theory, economic depreciation
corrects for errors in both directions. Consider the depreciation of real estate,
which is usually an over-charge, reducing the real estate's book value, which is
calculated by the original investment minus accumulated depreciation, to
something far below its fair market value. On the other hand, consider a key
piece of equipment that is subject to rapid inflation. Its eventual replacement will
cost more than the original, in which case depreciation actually under-charges
the expense. If depreciation expense is large relative to other expenses, it often
helps to ask whether the charge approximates the replacement value of the

(Page 41 of 74)
assets. Determining this can be difficult, but sometimes the footnotes in a

company's financial documents give explicit clues about future expenditures.
It is also helpful to look at the underlying trend in the fixed asset base. This will
tell you whether the company is increasing or decreasing its investment in its
fixed asset base. An interesting side effect of decreasing investments in the fixed
asset is that it can temporarily boost reported profits. Consider the non-current
portion of Motorola's balance sheet:
You can see that the book value of Motorola's plant, property and equipment
(PP&E) fell roughly a billion dollars to $5.164 billion in 2003. We can understand
this better by examining two footnotes, which are collected below:

(Page 42 of 74)
The book value is the gross investment (that is, the original or historical purchase
price) minus the accumulated depreciation expense. Book value is also called
net value, meaning net of depreciation. In Motorola's case, the gross asset value
is dropping (which indicates asset dispositions) and so is the book value.
Motorola has disposed of assets without a commensurate investment in new
assets. Put another way, Motorola's asset base is aging.
Notice the effect on depreciation expense: it drops significantly, from $2 billion to

$1.5 billion in 2003. In Motorola's case, depreciation is buried in cost of goods
sold (COGS), but the temporary impact is a direct boost in pre-tax profits of half a
billion dollars. To summarize, an aging asset base - the result of the company
disposing of some old assets but not buying new ones - can temporarily boost
profits. When assets are aged to inflate reported profits, it is sometimes called
"harvesting the assets."
We can directly estimate the age of the fixed asset base with two measures:
average age in percentage terms and average age in years. Average age in
percentage equals accumulated depreciation divided by the gross investment. It
represents the proportion of the assets that have been depreciated: the closer to
100%, the older the asset base. Average age in years equals accumulated
depreciation divided by the annual depreciation expense. It is a rough estimate of

(Page 43 of 74)
the age of the in-place asset base. Below, we calculated each for Motorola. As
you can see, these measures show that the asset base is aging.
Investments
There are various methods to account for corporate investments, and often
management has some discretion in selecting a method. When one company (a
parent company) controls more than 50% of the shares of another company (a
subsidiary), the subsidiary's accounts are consolidated into the parent's. When
the control is less than 50%, there are three basic methods for carrying the value
of an investment: these are the cost, market and equity methods. We show each
method below. But first, keep in mind that there are three sorts of investment
returns:
1. The investment can appreciate (or depreciate) in market value: we call

these holding gains or losses.
2. The investment can generate earnings that are not currently distributed to
the parent and are instead retained. We call this investment income.
3. The investment can distribute some of its income as cash dividends to the
parent.

(Page 44 of 74)
The table below explains the three methods of accounting for corporate
investments that are less than 50% owned by the parent:
Value of Investment Cash Dividends

Method on the Balance and Investment When Used
Sheet Income
The investment is
carried at its Only actual (cash) The "ready market
historical cost; dividends are price" is available or the
Cost holding gains/losses recognized by the company intends to hold
are recognized only parent. Income is the investment until
when the asset is not recognized sale.
sold.
The investment is
The market value of
Cash dividends marketable (has a
the asset is updated
are recognized; readily available price)
each period, which
Market income may or and is either used for
creates holding
may not be trading purposes and is
period gains and
recognized. "available for sale" by
losses.
the trading company.
The investment is The parent company
carried at its The parent's share has a "significant
historical cost; of income - influence" over the
Equity Method holding gains/losses including any cash investment. This
are recognized only dividends received generally applies when
when the asset is - is recognized. the parent owns 20-50%
sold. of the investment.
When an investment pays cash dividends, the rules are straightforward: they will
be recognized on the parent company's income statement. But the rules are not
straightforward for undistributed earnings and gains/losses in the investment's
holding value. In both cases, the parent may or may not recognize the
earnings/gains/losses.
We have at least three goals when examining the investment accounts. First, we
want to see if the accounting treatment has hidden some underlying economic
gain or loss. For example, if a company uses the cost method on a superior
investment that doesn't pay dividends, the investment gains will eventually pay
off in a future period. Our second goal is to ask whether investment gains/losses
are recurring. Because they are usually not operating assets of the business, we
may want to consider them separately from a valuation of the business. The third
goal is to gain valuable clues about the company's business strategy by looking
at its investments. More often than not, such investments are not solely
motivated by financial returns. They are often strategic investments made in

(Page 45 of 74)
current/future business partners. Interesting examples include investments

essentially made to outsource research and development or to tap into different
markets.
Let's consider a specific example with the recent long-lived accounts for Texas
Instruments:
What immediately stands out is that equity investments dropped from $800
million to $265 million in 2003. This should encourage us to examine the
footnotes to understand why.
The footnotes in the same annual report include the following:
During the third and fourth quarters of 2003, TI sold its remaining 57 million
shares of Micron common stock, which were received in connection with TI's sale
of its memory business unit to Micron in 1998. TI recognized pretax gains of
$203 million from these sales, which were recorded in other income (expense)
net.The combined effect of the after-tax gains and the tax benefit was an
increase of $355 million to TI's 2003 net income.
We learn two things from this footnote: 1) TI sold its significant stake in Micron,
and 2) that sale created a one-time (nonrecurring) boost in current profits of $355
million.
Goodwill
Goodwill is created when one company (the buyer) purchases another company

(Page 46 of 74)
(the target). At the time of purchase, all of the assets and liabilities of the target
company are re-appraised to their estimated fair value. This includes even
intangible assets that were not formerly carried on the target's balance sheet,
such as trademarks, licenses, in-process research & development, and maybe
even key relationships. Basically, accountants try to estimate the value of the
entire target company, including both tangible and intangible assets. If the buyer
happens to pay more than this amount, every extra dollar falls into goodwill.
Goodwill is a catch-all account, because there is nowhere else to put it. From the
accountant's perspective, it is the amount the buyer "overpays" for the target.
To illustrate, we show a target company below that carries $100 of assets when it
is purchased. The assets are marked-to-market (that is, appraised to their fair
market value) and they include $40 in intangibles. Further, the target has $20 in
liabilities, so the equity is worth $80 ($100 $20). But the buyer pays $110,
which results in a purchase premium of $30. Since we do not know where to
assign this excess, a goodwill account of $30 is created. The bottom exhibit
shows the target company's accounts, but they will be consolidated into the
buyer's accounts so that the buyer carries the goodwill.
At one time, goodwill was amortized like depreciation. But as of 2002, goodwill

(Page 47 of 74)
amortization is no longer permitted. Now, companies must perform an annual

test of their goodwill. If the test reveals that the acquisition's value has
decreased, then the company must impair, or write-down, the value of the
goodwill. This will create an expense, which is often buried in a one-time
restructuring cost, and an equivalent decrease in the goodwill account.
The idea behind this change was the assumption that as an unidentified
intangible, goodwill does not necessarily depreciate automatically like plants or
machinery. This is arguably an improvement in accounting methods because we
can watch for goodwill impairments, which are sometimes significant red flags.
Because the value of the acquisition is typically based on a discounted cash flow
analysis, the company is basically telling you "we took another look at the
projections for the acquired business, and they are not as good as we thought
last year."
Consider Novell's latest balance sheet:
We see that intangible assets decreased from $36.351 million to $10.8 million.
Because purchases and dispositions impact the accounts, it is not enough to
check increases or decreases. For example, Novell's goodwill increased, but that
could be due to a purchase. Similarly, it is possible that the decrease in
intangible assets could be the result of a disposition, but this is unlikely as it is
difficult to sell an intangible by itself.
A careful look at the footnote explains that most of this intangible asset decline
was due to impairment. That is, a previously acquired technology has not
generated the revenues that were originally expected:
During the third quarter of fiscal 2003, we determined that impairment indicators
existed related to the developed technology and trade names we acquired from
SilverStream as a result of unexpected revenue declines and the evident failure
to achieve revenue growth targets for the exteNd products. Based on an

(Page 48 of 74)
independent valuation of these assets, we recorded a $23.6 million charge to

cost of revenue to write down these assets to estimated fair value, which was
determined by the net present value of future estimated revenue streams
attributed to these assets.
Summary
You have to be careful when you examine the long-lived assets. It is hard to
make isolated judgments about the quality of investments solely by looking at
measures such as R&D as a percentage or capital expenditures as a percentage
of sales. Even useful ratios such as ROE and ROA are highly dependent on the
particular accounting methods employed. For example, both of these ratios count
assets at book value, so they depend on the depreciation method.
You can, however, look for trends and clues such as the following:
The method of depreciation and the pattern of investment - Is the

company maintaining investment(s)? If investments are declining and
assets are aging, are profits distorted?
The specific nature and performance of investments - Have investment
sales created one-time gains?
Goodwill impairments - Has goodwill been impaired, and what is the
business implication going forward?
Long-Term Liabilities
Long-term liabilities are company obligations that extend beyond the current year, or alternately,
beyond the current operating cycle. Most commonly, these include long-term
debt such as company-issued bonds. Here we look at how debt compares to
equity as a part of a company's capital structure, and how to examine the way in
which a company uses debt.
The following long-term liabilities are typically found on the balance sheet:

(Page 49 of 74)
You can see that we describe long-term liabilities as either operating or financing.
Operating liabilities are obligations created in the course of ordinary business
operations, but they are not created by the company raising cash from investors.
Financing liabilities are debt instruments that are the result of the company
raising cash. In other words, the company issued debt - often in a prior period -
in exchange for cash and must repay the principal plus interest.
Operating and financing liabilities are similar in that they both will require future
cash outlays by the company. It is useful to keep them separate in your mind,
however, because financing liabilities are triggered by a company's deliberate
funding decisions and, therefore, will often offer clues about a company's future
prospects.
Debt is Cheaper than Equity

Capital structure refers to the relative proportions of a company's different
funding sources, which include debt, equity and hybrid instruments such as
convertible bonds (discussed below). A simple measure of capital structure is the
ratio of long-term debt to total capital.
Because the cost of equity is not explicitly displayed on the income statement,
whereas the cost of debt (interest expense) is itemized, it is easy to forget that
debt is a cheaper source of funding for the company than equity. Debt is cheaper
for two reasons. First, because debtors have a prior claim if the company goes
bankrupt, debt is safer than equity and therefore warrants investors a lower
return; for the company, this translates into an interest rate that is lower than the

(Page 50 of 74)
expected total shareholder return (TSR) on equity. Second, interest paid is tax
deductible, and a lower tax bill effectively creates cash for the company.
To illustrate this idea, let's consider a company that generates $200 of earnings
before interest and taxes (EBIT). If the company carries no debt, owes tax at a
rate of 50% and has issued 100 common shares, the company will produce
earnings per share (EPS) of $1.00 (see left-hand column below).
Say on the right-hand side we perform a simple debt-for-equity swap. In other

words, say we introduce modest leverage into the capital structure, increasing
the debt-to-total capital ratio from 0 to 0.2. In order to do this, we must have the
company issue (borrow) $200 of debt and use the cash to repurchase 20 shares
($200/$10 per share = 20 shares). What changes for shareholders? The number
of shares drops to 80 and now the company must pay interest annually ($20 per
year if 10% is charged on the borrowed $200). Notice that after-tax earnings
decrease, but so does the number of shares. Our debt-for-equity swap actually
causes EPS to increase!
What Is the Optimal Capital Structure?

The example above shows why some debt is often better than no debt. In
technical terms, it lowers the weighted average cost of capital. Of course, at

(Page 51 of 74)
some point, additional debt becomes too risky. The optimal capital structure, the
ideal ratio of long-term debt to total capital, is hard to estimate. It depends on at
least two factors, but keep in mind that the following are general principles:
First, optimal capital structure varies by industry, mainly because some

industries are more asset-intensive than others. In very general terms, the
greater the investment in fixed assets (plant, property & equipment), the
greater the average use of debt. This is because banks prefer to make
loans against fixed assets rather than intangibles. Industries that require a
great deal of plant investment, such as telecommunications, generally
utilize more long-term debt.
Second, capital structure tends to track with the company's growth cycle.
Rapidly growing startups and early stage companies, for instance, often
favor equity over debt because their shareholders will forgo dividend
payments in favor of future price returns because these companies are
growth stocks. High-growth companies do not need to give these
shareholders cash today, whereas lenders would expect semi-annual or
quarterly interest payments.
Examining Long-Term Liability

Below, we look at some important areas investors should focus on when
analyzing a company's long-term liability accounts.
Ask Why the Company Issued New Debt

When a company issues new long-term debt, it's important for investors to

(Page 52 of 74)
understand the reason. Companies should give explanations of new debt's

specific purpose rather than vague boilerplate such as "it will be used to fund
general business needs." The most common purposes of new debt include the
following:
1. To Fund Growth - The cash raised by the debt issuance is used for
specific investment(s). This is normally a good sign.
2. To Refinance "Old" Debt - Old debt is retired and new debt is issued,
presumably at a lower interest rate. This is also a good sign, but it often
changes the company's interest rate exposure.
3. To Change the Capital Structure - Cash raised by the debt issuance is
used to repurchase stock, issue a dividend,or buyout a big equity investor.
Depending on the specifics, this may be a positive indicator.
4. To Fund Operating Needs - Debt is issued to pay operating expenses
because operating cash flow is negative. Depending on certain factors,
this motive may be a red flag. Below, we look at how you can determine
whether a company is issuing new debt to fund operating needs.
Be Careful of Debt that Funds Operating Needs

Unless the company is in the early growth stage, new debt that funds investment
is preferable to debt that funds operating needs. To understand this thoroughly,
recall from the cash flow installment that changes in operating accounts (that is,
current assets and current liabilities) either provide or consume cash. Increases
in current assets - except for cash - are "uses of cash". Increases in current
liabilities are "sources of cash." Consider an abridged version of RealNetworks'
balance sheet for the year ending Dec 31, 2003:

(Page 53 of 74)
From Dec. 2002 to Dec. 2003, accounts receivable (a current asset) increased
dramatically and accounts payable (a current liability) decreased. Both
occurrences are uses of cash. In other words, RealNetworks consumed working
capital in 2003. At the same time, the company issued a $100 million convertible
bond. The company's consumption of operating cash and its issue of new debt to
fund that need is not a good sign. Using debt to fund operating cash may be okay
in the short run but because this is an action undertaken as a result of negative
operating cash flow, it cannot be sustained forever.
Examine Convertible Debt

You should take a look at the conversion features attached to convertible bonds
(convertibles), which the company will detail in a footnote to its financial
statements. Companies issue convertibles in order to pay a lower interest rate;
investors purchase convertibles because they receive an option to participate in
upside stock gains.
Usually, convertibles are perfectly sensible instruments, but the conversion

feature (or attached warrants) introduces potential dilution for shareholders. If
convertibles are a large part of the debt, be sure to estimate the number of
common shares that could be issued on conversion. Be alert for convertibles that
have the potential to trigger the issuance of a massive number of common
shares (as a percentage of the common outstanding), and thereby could
excessively dilute existing shareholders.

(Page 54 of 74)
An extreme example of this is the so-called death spiral PIPE, a dangerous flavor
of the private investment, public equity (PIPE) instrument. Companies in distress
issue PIPES, which are usually convertible bonds with a generous number of
warrants attached. (For more information, see What Are Warrants?) If company
performance deteriorates, the warrants are exercised and the PIPE holders end
up with so many new shares that they effectively own the company. Existing
shareholders get hit with a double-whammy of bad performance and dilution; a
PIPE has preferred claims over common shareholders. Therefore, it's advisable
not to invest in the common stock of a company with PIPE holders unless you
have carefully examined the company and the PIPE.
Look at the Covenants

Covenants are provisions that banks attach to long-term debt that trigger
technical default when violated by the borrowing company. Such a default will
lower the credit rating, increase the interest (cost of borrowing) and often send
the stock lower. Bond covenants include but are not limited to the following:
Limits on further issuance of new debt.

Limits, restrictions or conditions on new capital investments or
acquisitions.
Limits on payment of dividends. For example, it is common for a bond
covenant to require that no dividends are paid.
Maintenance of certain ratios. For example, the most common bond
covenant is probably a requirement that the company maintain a minimum
'fixed charge coverage ratio'. This ratio is some measure of operating (or
free) cash flow divided by the recurring interest charges
Assess Interest Rate Exposure

Two things complicate the attempt to estimate a company's interest rate
exposure. One, companies are increasingly using hedge instruments, which are
difficult to analyze.
Second, many companies are operationally sensitive to interest rates. In other

words, their operating profits may be indirectly sensitive to interest rate changes.
Obvious sectors here include housing and banks. But consider an oil/energy
company that carries a lot of variable-rate debt. Financially, this kind of company
is exposed to higher interest rates. But at the same time, the company may tend
to outperform in higher-rate environments by benefiting from the inflation and
economic strength that tends to accompany higher rates. In this case, the
variable-rate exposure is effectively hedged by the operational exposure. Unless
interest rate exposure is deliberately sought, such natural hedges are beneficial
because they reduce risk.
Despite these complications, it helps to know how to get a rough idea of a

(Page 55 of 74)
company's interest rate exposure. Consider a footnote from the 2003 annual
report of Mandalay Resort Group, a casino operator in Las Vegas, Nevada:
Fixed-rate debt is typically presented separately from variable-rate debt. In the

prior year (2002), less than 20% of the company's long-term debt was held in
variable-rate bonds. In the current year, Mandalay carried almost $1.5 billion of
variable-rate debt ($995 million of variable-rate long-term debt and $500 million
of a pay floating interest rate swap) out of $3.5 billion in total, leaving $2 billion in
fixed-rate debt.
Don't be confused by the interest rate swap: it simply means that the company
has a fixed-rate bond and "swaps" it for a variable-rate bond with a third party by
means of an agreement. The term 'pay floating' means the company ends up
paying a variable rate; a 'pay fixed interest rate' swap is one in which the
company trades a variable-rate bond for a fixed-rate bond.
Therefore, the proportion of Mandalay's debt that was exposed to interest rate
hikes in 2003 increased from 18% to more than 40%.
Operating Versus Capital Lease

It is important to be aware of operating lease agreements because economically
they are long-term liabilities. Whereas capital leases create liabilities on the
balance sheet, operating leases are a type of off-balance sheet financing. Many
companies tweak their lease terms precisely to make these terms meet the
definition of an operating lease so that leases can be kept off the balance sheet,
improving certain ratios like long term debt-to-total capital.
Most analysts consider operating leases as debt, and manually add operating

(Page 56 of 74)
leases back onto the balance sheet. Pier 1 Imports is an operator of retail
furniture stores. Here is the long-term liability section of its balance sheet:
Long-term debt is a very tiny 2% of total assets ($19 million out of $1 billion).
However, as described by a footnote, most of the company's stores utilize
operating leases rather than capital leases:
The present value of the combined lease commitments is almost $1 billion. If

these operating leases are recognized as obligations and are manually put back
onto the balance sheet, both an asset and a liability of $1 billion would be
created, and the effective long term debt-to-total capital ratio would go from 2%
to about 50% ($1 billion in capitalized leases divided by $2 billion).

(Page 57 of 74)
Summary
It has become more difficult to analyze long-term liabilities because innovative
financing instruments are blurring the line between debt and equity. Some
companies employ such complicated capital structures that investors must simply
add "lack of transparency" to the list of its risk factors. Here is a summary of what
to keep in mind:
Debt is not bad. Some companies with no debt are actually running a sub-
optimal capital structure.
If a company raises a significant issue of new debt, the company should
specifically explain the purpose. Be skeptical of boilerplate explanations; if
the bond issuance is going to cover operating cash shortfalls, you have a
red flag.
If debt is a large portion of the capital structure, take the time to look at
conversion features and bond covenants.
Try to get a rough gauge of the company's exposure to interest rate
changes.
Consider treating operating leases as balance sheet liabilities.
Pension Plans
Following from the preceding section focusing on long-term liabilities, this section
focuses on a special long-term liability, the pension fund. For many companies,
this is a very large liability and, for the most part, it is not captured on the balance
sheet. We could say that pensions are a type of off-balance-sheet financing.
Pension fund accounting is complicated and the footnotes are often torturous in
length, but the good news is that you need to understand only a few basics in
order to know the most important questions to ask about a company with a large
pension fund.
There are various sorts of pension plans, but here we review only a certain type:
the defined benefit pension plan. With a defined benefit plan, an employee knows
the terms of the benefit that he or she will receive upon retirement. The company
is responsible for investing in a fund in order to meet its obligations to the
employee, so the company bears the investment risk. On the other hand, in a
defined contribution plan, a 401(k), for example, the company probably makes
contributions or matching contributions, but does not promise the future benefit to
the employee. As such, the employee bears the investment risk.
Among defined benefit plans, the most popular type bears a promise to pay
retirees based on two factors: 1) the length of their service and 2) their salary
history at the time of retirement. This is called a career average or final pay
pension plan. Such a plan might pay retirees, say, 1.5% of their "final pay," their
average pay during the last five years of employment, for each year of service for
a maximum number of years. Under this plan, an employee with 20 years of

(Page 58 of 74)
service would receive a retirement benefit equal to 30% (20 years x 1.5%) of
their final average pay. But formulas and provisions vary widely; for example,
some will reduce or offset the benefit by the amount of social security the retiree
receives.
Funded Status = Plan Assets - Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO)

A pension plan has two primary elements:
The future liabilities, or benefit obligations, created by employee service.

The pension fund, or plan assets,that are used to pay for retiree benefits.
At this primary level, a pension plan is simple. The company, called the plan
sponsor in this context, contributes to its pension fund, which is invested into
bonds, equities and other asset classes in order to meet its long-term obligations.
Retirees are then eventually paid their benefits from the fund.
Three things make pension fund accounting complicated. First, the benefit
obligation is a series of payments that must be made to retirees far into the
future. Actuaries do their best to make estimates about the retiree population,
salary increases and other factors in order to discount the future stream of
estimated payments into a single present value. This first complication is
unavoidable.
Second, the application of accrual accounting means that actual cash flows are
not counted each year. Rather, the computation of the annual pension expense
is based on rules that attempt to capture changing assumptions about the future.
Third, the rules require companies to smooth the year-to-year fluctuations in

investment returns and actuarial assumptions so that pension fund accounts are
not dramatically over- (or under-) stated when their investments produce a single
year of above- (or below-) average performance. Although well-intentioned,
smoothing makes it even harder for us to see the true economic position of a
pension fund at any given point in time.
Let's take a closer look at the two basic elements of a pension fund:

(Page 59 of 74)
On the left, we show the fair value of the plan assets. This is the investment fund.
During the year, wise investments will hopefully increase the size of the fund.
This is the return on plan assets. Also, employer contributions, cash the company
simply gives from its own bank account, will increase the fund. Finally, benefits
paid (or disbursements) to current retirees will reduce the plan assets.
On the right, we show the basic calculation of the projected benefit obligation
(PBO), which is an estimate of the future stream of benefit obligations discounted
to the present value into a single number. For clarity's sake, we omitted a few
items.
In the annual report, you will see two other measures of estimated future
obligations: the vested benefit obligation (VBO) and the accumulated benefit
obligation (ABO). You do not need either of these for the purposes we discuss
here, but ABO is less than PBO because it assumes that salaries will not rise into
the future, while PBO assumes salary increases. VBO is less than ABO because
it counts only service already performed, but PBO counts the future service
(minus turnover assumptions). PBO is the number that matters because it's the
best guess as to the present value of the discounted liabilities assuming the
employees keep working and salaries keep rising.
By subtracting the PBO from the fair value of the plan assets, you get the funded
status of the plan. This is an important number that will be buried somewhere in
the footnotes, but it must be disclosed.

(Page 60 of 74)
Breaking Down the Funded Status of the Plan

Let's look at an actual example. We will use data from the annual report 10-K for
PepsiCo (ticker: PEP) for the year ended Dec 31, 2003. Although its pension
plan happened to be under-funded at that time, it can be considered relatively
healthy, especially compared to other companies. We picked PepsiCo because
the company's plan is well-disclosed and its 10-K contains helpful commentary.
Below is the part of the footnote that calculates the fair value of the plan assets.
You can see that the pension fund produced an actual return of 7.9% in the year
2003 ($281 / $3,537). Other than the investment returns, the largest changes are
due to employer contributions and benefit payouts:
Now take a look at the calculation of the PBO (see below). Whereas the fair
value of plan assets (how much the fund was worth) is a somewhat objective
measure, the PBO requires several assumptions which make it more subjective:

(Page 61 of 74)
You can see that PepsiCo started 2003 with an estimated liability of $4,324, but
the liability is increased by service and interest cost. Service cost is the additional
liability created because another year has elapsed, for which all current
employees get another year's credit for their service. Interest cost is the
additional liability created because these employees are one year nearer to their
benefit payouts.
The reason for and effect of the additional interest cost is easier to understand
with an example. Let's assume that today is 2005 and the company owes $100 in
five years, the year 2010. If the discount rate is 10%, then the present value of
this obligation is $62 ($100 1.1^5 = $62). (For a review of this calculation, see
Understanding the Time Value of Money.) Now let one year elapse. At the start
of 2006 the funds now have four years instead of five years to earn interest
before 2010, the present value of the obligation as of 2006 increases to $68.3
($100 1.1^4 = $68.3). You can see how interest cost depends on the discount

(Page 62 of 74)
rate assumption.
Now, let's continue with PepsiCo's footnote above. Plan amendments refer to
changes to the pension plan and they could have a positive or negative impact
on cost. Experience loss is more commonly labeled actuarial loss/gain, and it too
can be positive or negative. It refers to additional costs created because the
changes in actuarial estimates changes made during the year. For example, we
don't know the cause in PepsiCo's case, but perhaps it increased its estimate of
the average rate of future salary increases or the average age of retirement.
Either of these changes would increase the PBO and the additional cost would
show up as an actuarial loss.
We see that PepsiCo's liability at the end of the year 2003 was $5,214. That is
the PBO. We also see a lesser amount "for service to date." That is the VBO and
we can ignore it.
The fair value of the plan assets ($4,245) subtracted by the PBO ($5,214) results
in the funded status at the end of 2003 of -$969 million. The bottom line:
PespiCo's pension plan at that time was under-funded by almost one billion
dollars.
Pension Plans and the Balance Sheet

Now remember we said that pension plans are off-balance-sheet financing, and
in PepsiCo's case, the $4.245 billion in assets and $5.214 billion in liabilities are
not recognized on the balance sheet. Therefore, typical debt ratios like long-term
debt to equity probably do not count the pension liability of $5+ billion. But it's
even worse than that. You might think the net deficit of -$969 million would be
carried as a liability, but it is not. Again, from the footnotes:

(Page 63 of 74)
Due to the smoothing rules of pension plan accounting, PepsiCo carried $1,288
in pension plan assets on the balance sheet, at the end of 2003. You can see
how the two "unrecognized" lines on the footnote above boost the negative into a
positive: the losses for the current year, and prior years, for that matter, are not
recognized in full; they are amortized or deferred into the future. Although the
current position is negative almost one billion, smoothing captures only part of
the loss in the current year--it's not hard to see why smoothing is controversial.
Cash Contributed to the Pension Is Not Pension Cost

Now we have enough understanding to take a look at why cash contributed to
the pension plan bears little, if any, resemblance to the pension expense (also
known as "pension cost") that is reported on the income statement and reduces
reported earnings. We can find actual cash contributed in the statement of cash
flows:

(Page 64 of 74)
Now compare these cash contributions to the pension expense. In each of the
three years reported, cash spent was significantly higher than pension expense:

(Page 65 of 74)
The first two components of pension expense - service and interest cost - are
identical to those found in the calculation of PBO. The next component is
"expected return on plan assets." Recall that the "fair value of plan assets"
includes actual return on plan assets. Expected return on plan assets is similar,
except the company gets to substitute an estimate of the future return on plan
assets. It is important to keep in mind that this estimate is an assumption the
company can tweak to change the pension expense. Finally, the two
"amortization" items are again due to the effects of smoothing. Some people
have gone so far as to say the pension expense is a bogus number due to the
assumptions and smoothing.
Critical Questions
We have just scratched the surface of pension plan accounting, but we have
reviewed enough to identify the four or five critical questions you need to ask
when evaluating a company's pension fund.
We have two primary concerns in regard to analysis of the pension fund:
What is the economic status of the liability? A dramatically under-funded

plan will require increased cash contributions in the future and
foreshadows future increases in income statement expenses.
How aggressive/conservative is the pension expense? An aggressive
accounting policy is a red flag because it will usually have to be unraveled
by the company in future periods. Conservative policies contribute to
earnings that are higher in quality.
Take a look at key assumptions disclosed by PepsiCo:
In regard to our first concern - the economic status of the liability - we want to
look at the funded status that equals the fair value of plan assets minus the PBO.

(Page 66 of 74)
The two key assumptions that impact the PBO are the discount rate and
projected rate of salary increases. A company can decrease its PBO (and
therefore, increase its funded status) by either increasing the discount rate or
lowering the projected rate of salary increases. You can see that PepsiCo's rate
of salary increase is fairly stable at 4.4% but the discount rate dropped to 6.1%.
This steady drop in the discount rate contributes significantly to the increased
PBO and the resultant under-funded status.
In regard to our second concern - the quality of the pension expense - there are
three key assumptions:

(Page 67 of 74)
The discount rate is a little bit mixed because it has opposite effects on the
service and interest cost, but in most cases, it behaves as before: a lower
discount rate implies an increase in pension expense. Regarding expected return
on plan assets, notice that PepsiCo's assumption here has steadily decreased
over the two years to finish at 8.2%. Soft equity markets are a double-whammy
for pension funds; they not only lower the discount rate (which increases the
PBO) but they lower the expected return on the plan assets!
So we can now summarize the effect of accounting practices:
Aggressive (dubious) accounting includes one or more of the following: a

high discount rate, an expected return on plan assets that is overly
optimistic by being quite higher than the discount rate and a low rate of
salary increase.
Conservative (good) accounting includes all of the following: low discount
rate, an expected return on plan assets that is near the discount rate and
a high rate of salary increase
Finally, companies are now required to disclose how the pension plan is
invested. For example, PepsiCo's footnote explains the target asset allocation of
its pension (60% stock and 40% bonds) and then breaks down its actual
allocation. Furthermore, you can check to see how much of the pension fund is
invested in the company stock.
You should definitely look at these allocations if you have a view about the equity
or bond markets. There has been much academic discussion about companies'
allocation mismatching. The argument goes that they are funding liabilities with
too much equity when liabilities should be funded with bonds. Of course,
companies fund with equities to boost their actual and expected returns.
Conclusion
For evaluating stocks that have a pension plan, you can do the following:
1. Locate the funded status, or the fair value of plan assets minus projected
benefit obligation.
2. Check the trend and level of the following key assumptions:
Discount rate: make sure it is conservative (low) enough. If it's going up,
ask why.
Expected return on plan assets: is it conservative (low) enough? If it's
significantly higher than the discount rate, be skeptical of the pension
expense.
Rate of salary increase: is it high enough?

(Page 68 of 74)

3. Check the target and actual allocation of the pension plan. Is the
company making sufficient use of bonds to fund the pension liability and,
conversely, are they overly exposed to equities?
Conclusion
Let's summarize the ideas discussed throughout this tutorial according to a few
major themes:
Let the Business Model Shape Your Focus Areas

The average 10-K annual report is stuffed with dozens of dense footnotes and
adjusted numbers offered as alternatives to the recognized numbers contained in
the body of the income statement and balance sheet. For example, companies
often disclose six or eight versions of earnings per share, such as the "as
reported," "adjusted," and "pro forma" versions for both basic and diluted EPS.
But the average individual investor probably does not have the time to fully
assimilate these documents.
Therefore, it may be wise to first look at industry dynamics and the corresponding
company business model and let these guide your investigation. While all
investors care about generic figures, such as revenue and EPS, each industry
tends to emphasize certain metrics. And these metrics often lead or foreshadow
the generic performance results.
The table below illustrates this idea by showing some of the focus areas of a few
specific industries. For each industry, please keep in mind that the list of focus
areas is only a "starter set"--it is hardly exhaustive. Also, in a few cases, the table
gives key factors not found in the financial statements in order to highlight their
shortcomings:
Selected Industries: Nature of Business Model: Selected Focus Areas:

Revenue
recognition.
People are key Recurring sources
assets. of revenue (for
Business Services (for
Much of the company example, long-term
example, temporary
value is likely to be contracts).
help, advertising and
intangible (not on the Gross margin (1
consulting.)
balance sheet). cost of goods as %
of revenue) since it
tells you about
"pricing power" with

(Page 69 of 74)
customers.
Revenue
breakdown into no.
of units x avg. price
Rapid price deflation per unit (how many
(decrease in price-to- units are selling?).
performance). Cash conversion
Rapid inventory cycle (days
Computer Hardware turnover. inventory + days
Rapid innovation and receivable days
product payable).
obsolescence. Quality of research
and development
(R&D) spending
and joint ventures.
Cash conversion
cycle and inventory
Brand value is turnover.
critical. Gross margin.
Companies require Operating margin
efficient inventory (for example, EBIT
because it is often or EBITDA margin).
Consumer Goods
perishable. Key factors not in
Industry sees statements: new
relatively low product
margins. development and
investment in the
brand.
Long-term assets
and depreciation
methods.
Cyclical. Asset turnover
If commodities, then (sales/assets) and
Industrial Goods market sets price. asset utilization (for
(materials, heavy Heavy investment in example, return on
equipment) long-term assets. capital).
High fixed costs. Key factors not in
financial
statements: market
pricing trends and
point in business

(Page 70 of 74)
cycle.
Revenue
recognition,
especially for
subscriptions and
advertising.
Economies of scale Free cash flow,
are typically especially for cable
important. and publishing.
Requires significant Pension plans as
Media investment. many companies
Convergence is are "old economy."
"blurring the line" Key factors not in
between industries. financial
statements:
regulatory
environment and
joint/ventures
alliances.
Revenue
breakdown in
product lines and
Intense competition trends--one product
against fickle fashion can "make or
trends. break."
Retail (for example, Inventory Cash conversion
apparel or footwear) management, which cycle.
is critical. Gross margin.
Low margins. Operating margin -
low employee
turnover will keep
this down.
Revenue
High "up front"
recognition, which
investment but high
is absolutely
margins and high
essential in
cash flow.
Software software industry.
Complicated selling
Gross margin
schemes (channels,
trends.
product bundling,
Stock option
license
cost/dilution

(Page 71 of 74)
arrangements). because, of all

industries, software
grants the most
options.
Long-term assets
High fixed investment and depreciation.
(capital intensive). Long-term debt (for
Telecommunications Changing regulatory instance, many
environment. companies are
highly leveraged).
Cash Flows Help to Determine the Quality of Earnings

While some academic theories say that cash flows set stock prices, and some
investors appear to be shifting their attention toward cash flows, can anyone
deny that earnings (and EPS) move stocks? Some have cleverly resolved the
cash flow-versus-earnings debate with the following argument: in the short run,
earnings move stocks because they modify expectations about the long-term
cash flows. Nevertheless, as long as other investors buy and sell stocks based
on earnings, you should care about earnings. To put it another way, even if they
are not a fundamental factor that determines the intrinsic value of a stock,
earnings matter as a behavioral or phenomenal factor in impacting supply and
demand.
Throughout this tutorial, we explore several examples of how current cash flows
can say something about future earnings. These examples include the following:
Cash Flows That May Impact Future Why the Cash Flows May Be
Earnings Predictive
Changes in operating accounts, which
are found in the statement of cash
flows, sometimes hint at future
operational deterioration:
Unless company is stocking up
Increase in inventory as
ahead of anticipated demand, the
percentage of COGS/sales (or
increase in inventory could
decrease in inventory turnover).
indicate a slackening demand.

(Page 72 of 74)
Customers may be taking longer

Increase in receivables as
percentage of sales (or decrease to pay; there may be an increase
in receivables turnover). in collection problems.
Decrease in payables as
Company may be losing leverage
percentage of COGS/sales (or
with vendors.
decrease in payables turnover).
If "cash collected from customers" Reported revenue may be getting a

grows less than revenues, there may be temporary (current) boost by end-of-
future revenue problems. year incentives.
If free cash flow to equity (FCFE) (which
In the long-run, it is unlikely that
equals cash flow from operations minus
divergence between the two can be
cash flow from investments) is growing
sustained--eventually, earnings will
more than earnings, it may be a good
probably converge with the cash flow
sign. (Conversely, a FCFE that grows
trend.
less than earnings may be a bad sign.)
The funded status of a pension plan,
Unless trends reverse, under-funded
which equals the fair value of plan
(over-funded) pension plans will require
assets minus the projected benefit
greater (fewer) contributions in the
obligation (PBO), tends to impact future
future.
earnings.
Red Flags Theme

The red flags emphasized in this tutorial stem from this single principle: the aim
in analyzing financial statements is to isolate the fundamental operating
performance of the business. In order to do this, you must remove two types of
gains that may not be sustainable:
1. Non-Recurring Gains - These include gains due to the sale of a business,

one-time gains due to acquisitions, gains due to liquidation of older
inventory (that is, liquidation of the LIFO layer), and temporary gains due
to harvesting old fixed assets, where lack of new investment saves
depreciation expense.
2. Gains Due to Financing - These are important because, while they are
real gains, they are often random variables that depend on market
conditions and they may be reversed in future years.
The sources of financing gains include special one-time dividends or returns on

investments, early retirement of debt, hedge or derivative investments,

(Page 73 of 74)
abnormally high pension plan returns (including an upward revision to expected

return on plan assets, which automatically reduces pension cost) and increases
to earnings or EPS simply due to a change in the capital structure. For example,
an increase in EPS due to an equity-for-debt swap.
Green Flags Theme

In regard to green flags, the key principle as far as financial statements are
concerned is that it is important to see conservative reporting practices. In regard
to the two most popular financial statements, conservatism is implied by the
following:
1. In the Income Statement: Conservative revenue recognition is shown by

things like no barter arrangements, no front-loaded recognition for long-
term contracts, a sufficient allowance for doubtful accounts (that is, it is
growing with sales), the choice of LIFO rather than FIFO inventory costing
method and the expensing of rather than capitalizing of R&D
expenditures.
2. In the Balance Sheet: Conservative reporting practices include sufficient
cash balances; modest use of derivative instruments that are deployed
only to hedge specific risks such as interest rate or foreign currency
exchange; a capital structure that is clean and understandable so those
analyzing the statements don't have to sort through multiple layers of
common stock, preferred stock and several complex debt instruments;
and a debt burden that is manageable in size, not overly exposed to
interest rate changes, and not overly burdened with covenants that
jeopardize the common shareholders.
Final Note
This series is designed to help you spot red and green flags in your potential
stock investments. Keep in mind the limitations of financial statements: they are
backward-looking by definition, and you almost never want to dwell on a single
statistic or metric.
Finally, U.S. accounting rules are always in flux. At any given time, the Financial
Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is working on several accounting projects.
You can see the status of the projects at their website. But even as rules change
and tighten in their application, companies will continue to have plenty of choices
in their accounting. So, if there is a single point to this tutorial, it is that you
should not accept a single number, such as basic or diluted earnings per share
(EPS), without looking "under the hood" at its constituent elements.

(Page 74 of 74)

Advanced Financial Statements Analysis by Investopedia PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Financial Statements Analysis by Investopedia PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Financial Statements Analysis by Investopedia PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Financial

As always, we welcome any feedback or suggestions.

Must be filed with

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Because the framework is general, it requires interpretation, and often re-

Consider also derivative instruments, an area where relevance trumps reliability.

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Financial statements paint a picture of the transactions that flow through a

Let's approach the financial statements by following a flow of cash-based

1. Shareholders and lenders supply capital (cash) to the company.

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Statement of Cash Flows

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Which Cash Flow Measure Is Best?

If we are trying to do a valuation or replace an accrual-based earnings measure,

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Cash Flow To: Measure: Calculation:

A Note Regarding Taxes

Adjusting Cash Flow from Operations (CFO)

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

1. Tax Benefits Related to Employee Stock Options (See #1 on Amgen CFO

2. Unusual Changes to Working Capital Accounts (receivables, inventories

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Judgment should be applied when evaluating changes to working capital

3. Capitalized Expenditures That Should Be Expensed (outflows in CFI that

Verizon chose to include 'capitalized software' in capital expenditures. This refers

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Microsoft, for example, responsibly classifies all such development costs as

4. One-Time (Nonrecurring) Gains Due to Dividends Received or Trading

Remove gains from tax benefits due to stock option exercises.

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Consider two examples:

Depreciation - Say a company invests $10 million to buy a manufacturing

In theory, accrual accounting ought to be superior to cash flows in gauging

The primary goal when analyzing an income statement is to capture normalized

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

Major Category: For Example: Specific Implications:

Only part of the

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

A lower net pension

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

1. Operating Income Before Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)

The virtue of EBITDA is that it tries to capture operating performance, that

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

2. Operating Income After Depreciation and Amortization (EBIT)

3. Income From Continuing Operations Before Taxes (Pre-Tax

Sprint's presentation conforms to accounting rules: items that fall within

The thing to keep in mind is that you want to double-check these

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

classifications. We really want to capture recurring, operating income, so

4. Income From Continuing Operations (Net Income From Continuing

This tutorial can be found at: http://www.investopedia.com/university/financialstatements/

operations. Income from continuing operations - either pre-tax or after-tax - is a

Revenue recognition refers to a set of accounting rules that governs how a