Competitive Strategy: Five forces of Michael Porter

In 1979, Michael Eugene Porter, the Bishop William Lawrence University Professor, Harvard Business School, submitted an article on “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy” that revolutionized the strategy field. In his article, Porter highlighted how the five forces of competition affect the profitability of organizations and hence, the industry. In this article, I present his thoughts in an easy-to-comprehend manner such that readers can understand and apply the concept while formulating their corporate strategy. Read about Michael E. Porter here.

(1) Customers: The customers who are relatively large, the buyers who purchase in large volumes and the buyers who are few, enjoy more bargaining/negotiating leverage as compared to the industry participants, especially when the industry is price sensitive. These customers can derive more value by forcing down prices, demanding better quality, thereby driving up the costs, at the expense of industry’s profitability. Bargaining power increases because of the following:

  • Buyers are few: They tend to play one vendor against another for its own benefit.
  • Large volume buyers: Buyers who purchase in large volumes find such advantage in high fixed costs and low margin industries like telecommunications equipments, chemicals, etc.
  • Standardized products: When the industry products are standardized, the customers can find an equivalent product, thus giving them more negotiating leverage.
  • Low switching cost.
  • Backward integration, if customers find their vendors too profitable.

(2) SuPorterppliers: Similar to customers, powerful suppliers can derive more value by charging higher prices, limiting their quality of services or shifting their costs to industry participants. Microsoft is one such example. It dictates the PC market, and eroded the profitability of the PC makers by raising the prices of the Operating System (OS). It is near monopoly in the OS market because of its concentration than the industry in which it operates. Fragmented PC market is another reason. Suppliers enjoy such bargaining powers when:

  • the switching cost is high
  • they do not depend heavily/entirely on one industry
  • there is no substitute for them
  • they can threaten forward integration

(3) Competitors: Rivalry among the players impacts the industry’s profitability through price discounting, new product launches, services offerings and advertisements. The degree to which it drives down the profitability depends on the intensity of the competition. The intensity is highest when:

  • There are too many players, approximately equal in size, supplying almost same kind of offerings.
  • Industry growth is slow.
  • Exit barriers are high.

Rivalry solely on price is destructive to the profit margins.

(4) New Entrants: New bees bring new capacity and ideas to the industry. They can pose a threat when they aim to gain market share. They affect the industry players’ price, cost and rate of investment. This especially holds good for entrants diversifying from other markets. These new entrants can shake up the competition by leveraging their existing capabilities and cash flows. Very good examples are Apple (iTunes in the music industry), Pepsi (bottled industry) and Microsoft (internet browser industry). The threat of new entry limits the industry’s potential profitability.

Barriers to entry are the key to new entrants. These barriers can be supply and demand side of the game, capital requirements, switching cost, access to distribution channels, government regulations, to name a few.

(5) Substitutes perform same/similar function that an existing industry product does, but by different means. For example, e-mail is a substitute of express mail. Substitutes are always present, but they can easily be overlooked. They can impact the profitability by putting a cap on it and increase the threat to a great extent when:

  • the price-performance trade-off of the substitute is better and attractive, and
  • the switching cost to a substitute is low.

What percentage of valuation is usually in the terminal value?

It depends on how many years we are projecting. In a 5-years DCF, the terminal value (TV) would account for 70 – 80% of the business valuation, and in a 10-years DCF, about 50%.

Let’s take an example. Consider a firm that generates an after-tax operating profit of $100 million. With 25% return on capital (ROC), it reinvests 40% of its earnings back into the business, thereby generating an expected growth rate of 10% for the next 5 years:

Expected growth rate = 25% * 40% = 10%

After Year5, the growth rate is expected to drop to 5%, but ROC to stay at 10%. Terminal value is calculated as follows:

Expected operating income in Year6 = $100 million * (1.10)5 * (1.05) = $169.10 million

Expected reinvestment rate from Year5 = 5% / 25% = 20%

Terminal value in Year5

[$169.10 million * (1 – 0.2)] / (0.10 – 0.05) = $2,705.6 million

Present Value of firm

 (44 / 1.10) + (48.4 / 1.102) + (53.24 / 1.103) + (58.56 / 1.104) + (64.42 / 1.105) + ($2,705.6/1.105) = $1,900 million

Now,

$1,900 M / $2,705 M = 70.24%

You may also refer my article on Valuation: Asset Approach, Income Approach and Market Approach here.


If you wish to gain any privilege to this blog, please write your message to the author through the page “CONTACT ME” by filling in the required details in the form, OR by writing an e-mail to him at nitin@gargfinanceblog.com

Copyright Nitin Garg | All Rights Reserved

What is cross-sectional analysis?

Cross-sectional analysis (also known as relative analysis) is a comparison of a particular metric (available in any of the financial statements) of one company with the corresponding metric of another company within the same industry, or against the industry in which it operates in. The objective of such a study is to understand and derive the relationship between the two despite being different significantly in size, or operating in two different currencies. This type of analysis is generally used to measure a company’s performance, efficiency and effectiveness against its competitors and industry benchmarks.

For example, Company A has 15% of its total assets as cash, whereas Company B has 40% of its total assets as cash. Even though the size of both the companies are different (and also assume they are operating in two different countries with different currencies), they are similar companies operating within the same industry, but Company B is more liquid. The reasons for such liquidity can be to acquire a target or to make an investment in property, plant and equipment for operational efficiency.

Generally, analysts and investors (individual and institutional) take into account various financial ratios to compare companies. Leverage ratio, profitability ratio, liquidity ratio and solvency ratio are the most frequently used ones to judge a company’s performance.

What is FCF? How do you calculate it?

Free Cash Flow (FCF) is the cash flow generated by the core operations of the company after deducting the investments in new capital. Mathematically,

FCF = NOPLAT – Net Investment

Where,

NOPLAT = Net Operating Profit Less Adjusted Tax, represents the profits generated by the core operations, minus the taxes. It excludes non-operating income and interest expense.

Net Investment = Increase in the invested capital from Year 1 to Year 2. Net Investment in non-operating assets, and gains/losses/income related to these non-operating assets are not considered.

Calculating FCF

FCF = NOPLAT + Non-cash Operating Expenses – Investments in Invested Capital

Where,

Non-cash Operating Expenses are those expenses that are deducted from the revenue to generate NOPLAT. Depreciation and non-cash employee compensation are two most common ones. We do not add back the amortization and impairment of intangibles to NOPLAT.

Investments in Invested Capital: To grow the business, companies consistently invest a portion of the gross cash flow back into the business. Four categories form gross investment:

  • Operating Working Capital: Investments primarily in operating cash and inventory. Non-operating assets (excess cash) and financing (dividends payable, short-term debt) are excluded from Operation working capital.
  • Net Capital Expenditures equals investment in Property, Plant and Equipment (PP&E), minus the book value of any sold PP&E. It is determined by adding the increase in net PP&E to depreciation. Do not estimate the capital expenditures by the change in the gross PP&E since it can understate the actual amount.
  • Include investment in capitalized in the gross investment.,
  • Goodwill and acquired intangibles: For acquired ones, where cumulative amortization has been added back, we can calculate the investment by the change in the net goodwill and intangibles. For intangibles that are been amortized, add the increase in net intangible to amortization.

What is WACC? How do you calculate it?

While valuing an organization using Discounted Cash Flow (DCF), forecasted Free Cash Flow (FCF) is discounted by the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). WACC represents the opportunity cost of capital for investors when they allocate their funds towards a business.

WACC can be calculated using the following formula:

WACC = D/V x Kd (1 – T) + E/V x Ke

Where,

D/V = Debt to Enterprise Value (EV) based on market value

E/V = Equity to EV based on market value

Kd = Cost of debt

Ke = Cost of equity

T = Company’s tax rate

None of the above components are readily available. Hence, we use various models, assumptions and approximations to arrive at each of the values. There are 3 important factors that need further attention.

  • Cost of equity is depended on (1) Risk-free rate (2) Market risk premium and (3) Beta. We employ CAPM to estimate the cost of equity.
  • After-tax cost of debt depends on (1) Risk-free rate (2) Default spread and (3) Marginal tax rate. For an investment grade company, we employ yield to maturity (YTM) on its long-term debt, and for a public company, we use YTM on bonds’ cash flows and price.
  • Capital Structure (proportion of debt and equity to the EV). The target capital structure is derived by the company’s current debt-to-value ratio. We always use the market values (and not the book values).

Couple of points noteworthy:

  1. WACC based models works well when a company maintains a relatively stable debt-to-value ratio. But for a LBO, it can understate or overstate the impact of the tax shield. In such a situation, we should discount the FCF at unlevered cost of equity and value tax shields separately.
  2. If a company’s debt-to-value ratio changes, we use Adjusted Present Value (APV).

Let’s take an example. Consider a startup wants to raise a capital of $1 million so that it can buy office space and equipments needed to run its business. The company issues 6,000 shares at $100 each to raise $600,000. The shareholders expect a return of 10% on their investment. So, the cost of equity is 10%.

The company then issues 400 bonds of $1,000 each to raise $400,000. The bondholders expect a return of 8%. So, the cost of debt is 8%.

Now, the startup’s total market value ($600,000 equity + $400,000 debt) = $1 million. Let’s assume its tax rate is 35%. So, the company’s WACC is 6%

(($600,000/$1,000,000) x 0.1) + [(($400,000/$1,000,000) x .08) x (1 – 0.35))] = 0.0598 ~6%

This means that for every $1 the start-up raises from its investors, it must return $0.06 to them.

You may also want to read about Enterprise Value here.


Valuation: Asset Approach, Income Approach and Market Approach

ValueThere are three approaches to valuing a business. I’ll discuss them in detail.

1. Asset Approach

Asset approach looks at a business from a set of assets and liabilities of the company for business valuation. It’s based on the economic principle of substitution and tries to answer the question:

What would cost me to recreate a similar business that generates the same economic benefits for its owners?

Every operating business holds assets and liabilities. So, valuing these assets and liabilities and taking the difference between the two values would give us the value of the company. While it sounds simple, valuing a business can be a daunting task since most of the components do not find a place in the balance sheet. Internally developed products (unless patented) are such an example. But the market value of these assets can be far greater than the combined value of all the assets that resides in the financial statement.

Few points noteworthy

  • An asset-based valuation approach is usually adopted when a business has a very low or negative value as an ongoing business. Consider the case of an airline company that has few routes, high labor and operating costs, and is losing money every year. Using the other valuation methodologies, one can derive a negative valuation for the company. But to its competitors, the assets (routes, landing rights, leases, equipment and airplanes) can have a significant value. In this case, this approach will value the company’s assets separately and will set them aside from the money losing business. The asset-based valuation approach will typically yield the lowest valuation of the 3 approaches for a profitable company, but it may result in an appropriate value depending on the situation.
  • Asset approach may be used in conjunction with the other valuation methods. For example, let’s consider a retail business which has only one location. It owns the property and the building in which the business operates. If the company has EBIT of $200,000 and a buyer is willing to pay 3x EBIT for a similar retail business which leases its operating facilities, the buyer will value it by adjusting EBIT for the cost the buyer would have to incur, if it were to lease comparable facilities, and adjusting the company’s valuation for the value of the property and building assets. If the buyer has to pay $20,000 a year for leasing similar property, and can sell the property and building for $600,000, the buyer might value this company at 3x adjusted EBIT, plus the value of the property and building.

3x ($200,000 – $20,000) = $540,000 + $600,000 = $1,140,000

[Click to continue reading]

Startup Valuation: Pre-money and Post-money

StartupValuePre-money and post-money are measures of valuing a company. Pre-money valuation refers to the company’s value before the investor makes an investment in the company and post-money valuation refers to the value of the company after the fund is infused into the company. Let’s take an example to understand the concept.

Let’s assume that an Investor agrees to invest $300,000 in a start-up which is valued at $1 million. The following table explains how the ownership changes in both the situation for the same amount of investment. Let’s ignore the option pool for now to keep it simple.

Individual

Pre-Money Valuation Post-Money Valuation

Value

Ownership Value

Ownership

Entrepreneur

1,000,000

77% 700,000

70%

Investor

300,000

23% 300,000

30%

Total

1,300,000

100% 1,000,000 100%

As we can see above, the ownership percentage depends on the value placed on the company – pre-money or post-money. In pre-money valuation, the company is valued at $1 million before the investment. So, after the investor’s funding, the total value of the company increases, thereby decreasing the investor’s share of ownership. In post-money valuation, the company is valued at $1 million after the investment. So, the investor share increases by 7%. This percentage difference looks small, but can reflect millions when the company goes public.

Investors like Venture Capitalists and Angel Investors generally use the pre-money valuation to determine the “ask” – percentage ownership in the company against the funding – and is calculated on a fully diluted basis. Usually, a fund raising company receives a series of funds (Series A, Series B, Series C, etc.) so that investors minimize the risk of their investment. It’s also a way to motivate the Entrepreneur to achieve the agreed upon milestones. The pre-money and post-money concepts apply to each subsequent series of funding.

Determining pre-money and post-money valuation through formula

Post-money valuation = New funding x (post investment shares outstanding /
shares issued for new investment)

Pre-money valuation = Post-money valuation – new funding

For example, Company A owns 100% stake with 1,000 shares. Investor A infuses $1 million capital into the company against 200 shares (20% ownership), the post-money valuation will be:

$1,000,000 x (1,200/200) = $6 million

Pre-money valuation = $6 million – $1 million = $5 million

The same approach to calculation applies to subsequent series of funding as well.

You may also refer my article on Valuation: Asset Approach, Income Approach and Market Approach here.