Debt ratios

It is important to understand, that there is nothing inherently wrong with a debt.

Many, if not most, construction enterprises borrow money for many reasons, for example: to increase working capital, for equipment purchases, for business acquisition, to leverage equity or to accommodate seasonal or cyclical peaks. In fact, some debt in the capital structure of a company is preferred by some accountants to minimize owner risk or improve return on investment [30, p. 39]. In general and simply stated, debt is useful as long as its costs do not exceed costs of equity or in other words the weighted average cost of capital (see 4.1) is maintained at lowest levels.

Debt ratios (or sometimes referred to as “Solvency ratios”) show us the company’s overall debt load as well as its mix of equity and debt also known as capital structure. Unlike liquidity ratios from 3.4., debt ratios focus more on solvency i.e. long term ability of a company to finance its obligations.

The term “total debt” in the following ratios could be interpreted in some cases as a synonym to “total liabilities” but sometimes a better interpretation would be that it is any interest bearing obligation i.e. long-term debt plus interest-bearing short-term debt (without for example payables). It will be mentioned which is better in each ratio.

3.6.1 Total debt ratio

Also known as Debt-to-assets ratio represents relationship between what a company owns and how much resources were borrowed to purchase it. In case of formula (35), “total debt” represents total liabilities.

𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 (35)

36

Value of this ratio is usually between 0 and 1, while 0 means no debt and 1 meaning that all assets are covered by debt. It is an analogical value to the financial leverage which is described in 3.6.4.

3.6.2 Debt to capital ratio

The Debt to capital ratio (or debt to capitalization) refers to the ratio of long-term debt to the total of external and internal funds i.e. total debt + shareholders’ equity. It is computed as (36).

𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 + 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠^′𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 (36) To get a different result than from formula (34), in debt to capital ratio the “total debt” corresponds only to a sum of interest bearing liabilities. Unlike total debt ratio, this ratio ignores liabilities such as for example common receivables or tax liabilities and gives a better view of the capitalization according to a company’s financing while taking under consideration only resources which burden its performance with interest.

3.6.3 Debt-to-equity ratio

Debt-to-equity ratio (defined as (37)) provides an indication of a company’s capital structure and reveals the extent to which management of the company is willing to fund its operations with debt, rather than equity [26, p. 118]. Ideal value of this ratio differs from company to company and is affected not only by industry but also for example by company policy, credit availability, after-tax cost of financing etc.

[14, p. 504].

𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠^′𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 (37) In case of (37), “total debt” can be considered as sum of either exclusively interest bearing liabilities or total liabilities.

Debt-to-equity ratio should be watched especially together with ROE. Because management of a company can obtain more debt which is then used to buy back shares which leads to a decrease of equity hence increase of ROE without any change in incomes. In that scenario management should watch for after-tax interest

37

costs of the created debt in relation with EPS. This strategy works as long as these costs do not exceed the benefits of increased EPS [26, p. 119].

3.6.4 Financial leverage

Financial leverage in this context is very similar to the previously mentioned debt-to-equity ratio (sometimes also referred to as leverage ratio). It informs us about how many times company’s assets exceed its equity while capturing the impact of all obligations, both interest bearing and non-interest bearing” [5, p. 102]. It can be calculated as (38).

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠

𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑦 (38) As we have mentioned in 3.6.1, the total debt ratio is the same thing as leverage only from a different perspective. Practically reciprocal value of leverage corresponds with difference between total debt ratio and number one as can be seen in formula (39).

1

1 − 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜= 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 (39) Sometimes financial leverage is also referred to as a “financial leverage index”, defined by formula (40), which obviously gives us the same result as (38) at the end.

𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝑅𝑂𝐸

𝑅𝑂𝐴 (40)

From formula (40) we might see better some aspects of a financial structure of a business. If the rate of ROE is significantly higher than the ROA (i.e. higher leverage), then the equity base is comparatively small in relation to the base of assets, which inherently means that the difference between the two is composed of non-equity sources of funding [26, p. 135]. From that we can see that shifting away from debt to more equity, or vice versa, which is in other words changing leverage, has a great impact on return on equity (as was also shown in formulas (14) and (15)).

38 3.6.5 Interest coverage

The interest coverage ratio, calculated as (41), practically measures how many times over a company could pay its current interest payment with its available earnings [6].

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 = 𝐸𝐵𝐼𝑇

𝐼𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 (41)

The lower the interest coverage ratio is the worse for a company because it means that the costs of debts burden the company more. In general, value of this ratio around 1.5 or lower is considered as dangerous, meaning that 33% decreases of EBIT would automatically lead the company to a situation where it does not create any profit for shareholders respectively for further growth and all earnings are used exclusively for the debt expanses instead.

4 Economic value added

The EVA is becoming more popular lately because it eliminates two main problems of the profitability ratios. With profitability ratios, there is a possibility to greatly affect reported profit through legal accounting methods hence affect the ratios. Also, the profitability ratios do not consider value of money in time. This leads to not unusual low correlation between these ratios and prices of stocks on the capital markets [32]. The aim of EVA is to correlate with shareholder value. It can be calculated as can be seen in (42),

𝐸𝑉𝐴 = 𝑁𝑂𝑃𝐴𝑇 − 𝐶𝑎𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝑊𝐴𝐶𝐶 (42)

where: NOPAT = net operating profit after taxes

Capital = capital bound to assets which are used for operating activities WACC = weighted average cost of capital

Basically, we can see how managers can reach higher values of EVA as (42);

in general it can be done “…either by investing additional capital that produces returns above WACC, by reducing capital employed in a business, by improving returns by growing revenues or reducing expenses or by reducing the cost of capital”

[6].

39

Yet there is a problem with this formula of EVA defined as (42) as well. Since the EVA is an absolute indicator, it is affected by the size of the company [32, p.

291]. From there arises the question, how big EVA should be compared to the size of the company. That is why it is more practical to use “Value spread” defined as (43),

𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑑 = 𝐸𝑉𝐴 𝑁𝑂𝐴

= 𝑟 – 𝑊𝐴𝐶𝐶 (43) where: NOA = net operating assets (equivalent to “Capital” from formula (42))

r = profitability of net operating assets

Unlike ROE, value spread allows us to compare companies of different size, capital structure and mainly with a different level of risk. Unfortunately a typical construction business is dependable on plenty of work forces (human capital) and a lot of financial capital, which are not included in typical NOA. That leads to lowering the costs of capital, and that is why it is more practical to rather use “Relative EVA by London Business School”, which is defined as (44). Authors of the model EVA also described how to calculate NOA properly, which means 164 accounting adjustments [33, p. 65].

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐸𝑉𝐴 = 𝐸𝑉𝐴 / (𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠 + 𝑊𝐴𝐶𝐶 ∗ 𝑁𝑂𝐴) (44) Relative EVA allows us to compare companies with a different work and capital intensity [34, p. 80]. It describes what proportion of created value in a company is for shareholders.