Financial modeling to use GAAP or Pro-Forma Earnings
Published on Feb 2, 2017
In this lesson, you’ll learn about pro-forma vs. GAAP earnings in merger models, what the difference between both types of EPS is, and the arguments in favor of and against these “pro-forma” metrics.
“Financial Modeling Training And Career Resources For Aspiring Investment Bankers”
Table of Contents:
3:48 When Pro-Forma Figures Make a Difference, and How Bankers Use Them
7:01 Arguments For and Against Pro-Forma Metrics
“What is the significance of the ‘Pro-Forma Earnings’ and ‘Pro-Forma EPS’ and ‘Pro-Forma Accretion/Dilution’ you calculate in merger models?”
“What do they mean, and how do bankers use these metrics to advise clients?”
Pro-Forma Earnings always make a company’s results look better by removing certain expenses, and they let bankers argue in favor of marginal-to-poor deals.
Typically, to calculate Pro-Forma Earnings, you remove restructuring costs, amortization of intangibles, legal settlement costs, asset impairments, gains/losses, and sometimes even stock-based compensation!
In an M&A scenario, you usually remove new depreciation & amortization on asset-writeups and sometimes also restructuring / integration costs (if they appear on the Income Statement) and deferred revenue write-downs.
These changes can make a massive difference for some companies (Merck, Alcoa, etc.), but tend not to make a huge difference in most “normal” M&A deals for companies with clean financial statements (e.g., Starbucks / Krispy Kreme).
When Does It Matter?
“Pro-Forma” or “Non-GAAP” or “Adjusted” or “Operating” earnings in M&A deals make the biggest difference when:
Condition #1: The deal is “borderline” accretive/dilutive, and removing a few expenses could flip it.
Condition #2: The normal acquisition-related expenses, such as amortization of intangibles, are significant portions of pre-tax income (e.g., more than a few percentage points).
Condition #3: OR there are other significant expenses, such as restructuring or integration costs on the Income Statement, that you’re also removing.
As an example, if amortization of intangibles were much bigger in a deal – let’s say that 30% of the purchase premium, rather than 5%, were allocated to Definite-Lived Intangibles, then Pro-Forma figures might “flip” the deal to accretive.
A banker could then approach the company and argue in favor of the deal on the basis of those Pro-Forma numbers.
Arguments FOR Pro-Forma Numbers
Argument #1: Pro-Forma metrics give a clearer picture of ongoing business performance since they remove one-time expenses.
Argument #2: Pro-Forma metrics better represent a company’s future earnings potential, which investors use to evaluate it
Argument #3: Items like the Amortization of Intangibles in M&A deals are not “real” expenses because they’re non-cash and shouldn’t reduce a company’s earnings like Interest Expense does.
Arguments AGAINST Pro-Forma Numbers
Argument #1: Companies abuse these metrics and label many recurring items, like Restructuring, “non-recurring” (See: Alcoa).
Argument #2: There’s little-to-no consistency in the calculations; companies remove wildly different items, so you can’t even use Pro-Forma metrics to compare firms.
Argument #3: Some M&A-related items may be non-cash, but they still reflect the cost of doing a deal – and that acquired company will become a part of the core business in the future!
We are skeptical of these “Pro-Forma” metrics. If you use them, keep in mind the following:
Point #1: Always include the GAAP or IFRS-compliant metrics as well.
Point #2: You shouldn’t base a deal or investment recommendation entirely on these metrics, but they can be part of your argument.
Point #3: Always explain or footnote what you’re doing so that other people understand which expenses have been removed.
Pro-Forma Earnings – RESOURCES: