Fundamental Valuation Models

Why This Matters

Every valuation question on your finance exam ultimately asks the same thing: what is this asset worth today, and how do you prove it? These models aren't just formulas to memorize. They represent fundamentally different philosophies about where value comes from. Some focus on cash flows, others on dividends, and still others on economic profit above the cost of capital. Understanding which model fits which situation is what separates a passing answer from a top-scoring one.

You're being tested on your ability to select the right tool and defend that choice. An FRQ might give you a company profile and ask which valuation approach is most appropriate, and why alternatives fall short. Don't just memorize the formulas; know what assumptions each model makes, what inputs it requires, and when those assumptions break down. Master the logic behind each model, and the calculations will follow.

---

Cash Flow-Based Models

These models value an asset by projecting its future cash flows and discounting them to present value. The core principle: an asset is worth the sum of all future cash it will generate, adjusted for the time value of money and risk.

Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Model

The DCF is the foundational intrinsic valuation method. You project a company's future free cash flows, then discount them back to today using the weighted average cost of capital (WACC), which reflects the blended cost of both debt and equity financing.

• The general formula is: $V = \sum_{t=1}^{n} \frac{FCF_t}{(1 + WACC)^t} + \frac{TV}{(1 + WACC)^n}$, where $TV$ is the terminal value capturing all cash flows beyond the explicit forecast period
• Terminal value often accounts for a large share of total DCF value, so the assumptions you use there (perpetual growth rate or exit multiple) matter a lot
• Best for companies with predictable cash flows and enough operating history to make reliable projections. It struggles with early-stage or highly cyclical firms where forecasting is unreliable.

Free Cash Flow to Firm (FCFF) Model

FCFF captures cash available to all capital providers, both debt holders and equity shareholders, before any financing decisions are made.

• Calculated as: $FCFF = NOPAT + Depreciation - Capital\;Expenditures - \Delta Working\;Capital$, where $NOPAT$ is net operating profit after tax
• Because FCFF is measured before interest payments, it's capital structure neutral. That makes it ideal when comparing firms with different debt levels, since leverage doesn't distort the comparison.
• Discount FCFF at WACC to get enterprise value (the value of the whole firm, debt plus equity)

Free Cash Flow to Equity (FCFE) Model

FCFE isolates the cash flows available only to equity holders, after debt payments, interest, and reinvestment needs have been covered.

• Calculated as: $FCFE = FCFF - Interest(1 - Tax\;Rate) + Net\;Borrowing$
• Discounted at the cost of equity (not WACC), since it reflects shareholder-specific returns
• Ideal for highly leveraged firms where debt significantly impacts what's left for shareholders. If a company carries heavy debt, FCFF and FCFE can tell very different stories about value.

Adjusted Present Value (APV) Model

APV separates operating value from financing effects. You calculate the firm's value as if it had no debt (the unlevered value), then add back the present value of tax shields from interest deductibility.

• $APV = Unlevered\;Firm\;Value + PV(Tax\;Shields)$
• This explicit separation makes APV the best choice for complex or changing capital structures, such as a leveraged buyout where debt is paid down over time
• Unlike DCF with a single WACC, APV doesn't require you to assume a constant debt-to-equity ratio. Each financing effect gets its own discount rate.

---

Dividend-Based Models

These models value equity by projecting future dividend payments. The underlying assumption: a stock's value equals the present value of all dividends it will ever pay.

Dividend Discount Model (DDM)

The DDM values a stock as the present value of its expected future dividends. It's the purest expression of shareholder cash returns.

• The general form is: $P_0 = \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{D_t}{(1 + r)^t}$, where $D_t$ is the expected dividend in period $t$ and $r$ is the cost of equity
• Requires assumptions about dividend growth rates and an appropriate discount rate
• Limited to dividend-paying companies with stable payout policies. For firms that retain all earnings or have erratic payouts, DDM simply doesn't apply.
• A multi-stage DDM handles companies transitioning from high growth to stable growth by using different growth rates for different periods

Gordon Growth Model

The Gordon Growth Model is a special case of DDM that assumes dividends grow at a constant rate forever, collapsing the infinite series into one clean formula:

$P_0 = \frac{D_1}{r - g}$

where $D_1$ is next year's expected dividend, $r$ is the cost of equity, and $g$ is the constant growth rate.

• This formula only works when $g < r$. If the growth rate equals or exceeds the discount rate, the denominator hits zero or goes negative, producing nonsensical results.
• Best for mature, stable companies in low-growth industries with consistent dividend histories (think utilities or large consumer staples firms)
• The model is highly sensitive to small changes in $g$ and $r$. A 0.5% shift in either input can swing the valuation significantly.

---

Economic Profit Models

These models focus on value creation above the cost of capital. The key insight: generating profits isn't enough. A company creates value only when its returns exceed what investors could earn elsewhere at similar risk.

Residual Income Model

Residual income measures earnings above the required return on equity. If a firm earns exactly its cost of equity, residual income is zero, meaning no value is being created beyond what investors demand.

• Calculated as: $RI_t = Net\;Income_t - (Equity_{t-1} \times Cost\;of\;Equity)$
• The firm's value equals book value of equity plus the present value of all future residual income: $V_0 = BV_0 + \sum_{t=1}^{\infty} \frac{RI_t}{(1 + r)^t}$
• Works for non-dividend payers since it relies on accounting earnings rather than cash distributions. Also useful when cash flows are irregular but earnings are more stable.

Economic Value Added (EVA) Model

EVA measures whether a firm's operations generate returns above the total cost of capital (debt and equity combined), not just the cost of equity.

• $EVA = NOPAT - (Invested\;Capital \times WACC)$
• A positive EVA means the firm is earning more than its investors require; a negative EVA means it's destroying value
• Widely used for performance evaluation and executive compensation, since it ties managerial decisions directly to value creation. It's also used for valuation, but its strength is as an internal management metric.

---

Market-Based and Asset-Based Models

These models derive value from external benchmarks or tangible assets rather than projected cash flows. The logic: comparable transactions and asset values provide market-validated reference points.

Comparable Company Analysis (Multiples)

Rather than building a cash flow forecast, you value a firm by applying pricing multiples from similar publicly traded companies to the target's own financials.

• Common multiples include $P/E$ (price-to-earnings), $EV/EBITDA$ (enterprise value to EBITDA), and $P/B$ (price-to-book)
• Reflects current market sentiment and provides a reality check against intrinsic models
• The approach is quick but assumption-heavy. You need truly comparable peers (similar size, growth, risk, and industry), and you're implicitly assuming the market prices those peers correctly. If the whole sector is overvalued, your multiple-based estimate will be too.

Asset-Based Valuation

This approach sums the fair market value of all assets minus liabilities, arriving at a net asset value.

• Provides a liquidation or floor value: the minimum the company should be worth if it stopped operating and sold everything
• Most relevant for asset-heavy industries like real estate, natural resources, banking, or insurance
• Ignores going-concern value from ongoing operations, brand, and growth potential. For a profitable, growing company, asset-based valuation will almost always understate true value.

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. A company pays no dividends and has unpredictable cash flows but consistent accounting earnings. Which two models would be most appropriate, and why do DCF and DDM fall short?

2. Compare and contrast FCFF and FCFE: when would using FCFF give you a different perspective than FCFE, and which discount rate applies to each?

3. If an FRQ describes a mature utility company with 40 years of steady 3% dividend growth, which model offers the simplest appropriate valuation? What assumption must hold for the formula to work?

4. Why might an analyst use both DCF and Comparable Company Analysis on the same target? What does each approach reveal that the other might miss?

5. A private equity firm is evaluating a target with significant debt and plans to restructure its capital over five years. Which model best handles changing financing effects, and how does it separate operating value from tax benefits?