Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis is the backbone of intrinsic valuation—it's how you determine what a company is actually worth based on its ability to generate cash, not just what the market says it's worth today. You're being tested on your ability to connect forecasting assumptions, risk assessment, and time value of money into a coherent valuation framework. Every investment banking interview, every M&A deal, and every corporate finance exam will expect you to walk through this process fluently.
Don't just memorize the steps in order—understand why each step exists and what happens to your valuation if you get it wrong. A flawed discount rate assumption can swing your valuation by billions. A terminal value built on unrealistic growth destroys your credibility. Know the mechanics, but more importantly, know the judgment calls that separate a rigorous DCF from a garbage-in-garbage-out exercise.
The entire DCF rests on your ability to forecast what a business will actually generate. This is where financial modeling meets business judgment—you're translating strategic assumptions into numbers.
The discount rate is your mechanism for adjusting future cash flows for risk and the time value of money. Getting this wrong is the fastest way to produce a meaningless valuation.
Compare: WACC vs. Cost of Equity—WACC discounts cash flows to all capital providers (debt + equity), while cost of equity applies only when valuing equity cash flows directly. If an exam asks you to value a levered firm's total operations, WACC is your answer.
This is where the math happens. You're converting future dollars into today's dollars using the discount rate you've established. Every dollar received later is worth less than a dollar today.
Compare: Gordon Growth Model vs. Exit Multiple—Gordon Growth is theoretically pure but highly sensitive to the growth rate assumption; Exit Multiples are more market-grounded but introduce circular logic. Strong analysts run both and reconcile differences.
Once you've calculated what the business operations are worth, you need to bridge to what shareholders actually own. This is where capital structure enters the picture.
Compare: Operating vs. Non-Operating Items—excess cash sitting on the balance sheet generates returns outside normal operations and should be added separately. If an FRQ asks why two companies with identical DCFs have different enterprise values, non-operating adjustments are likely the answer.
Compare: Enterprise Value vs. Equity Value—EV values the whole firm (debt + equity claims), while Equity Value isolates shareholder value. Confusing these is a common exam mistake; remember that EV is always adjusted by net debt to reach equity value.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Cash Flow Forecasting | Unlevered FCF, scenario analysis, 5-10 year horizon |
| Discount Rate Selection | WACC, cost of equity, risk-adjusted rates |
| Present Value Mechanics | Discounting formula, time value of money |
| Terminal Value Methods | Gordon Growth Model, Exit Multiple Method |
| Enterprise Value Components | PV of cash flows, PV of terminal value |
| Bridge to Equity | Net debt subtraction, non-operating adjustments |
| Per-Share Valuation | Diluted shares, intrinsic vs. market price |
Why must you use unlevered free cash flows when building a DCF that uses WACC as the discount rate?
Compare and contrast the Gordon Growth Model and Exit Multiple Method for terminal value—when would you prefer one over the other?
If two companies have identical enterprise values but different equity values, what's the most likely explanation?
A company has , excess cash of , and net debt of . Walk through how you'd calculate equity value, identifying where the excess cash adjustment occurs.
Your DCF produces an intrinsic value of per share, but the stock trades at . What are three possible explanations—and which DCF inputs would you revisit first?