EVA is registered trademark of Stern Stewart.
Economic value added or economic profit is the difference between revenues and costs,where costs include not only expenses, but also cost of capital.
Paying user area
Try for free
Celgene Corp. pages available for free this week:
- Common-Size Income Statement
- Common-Size Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
- Analysis of Profitability Ratios
- Analysis of Liquidity Ratios
- Analysis of Long-term (Investment) Activity Ratios
- DuPont Analysis: Disaggregation of ROE, ROA, and Net Profit Margin
- Dividend Discount Model (DDM)
- Operating Profit Margin since 2005
- Current Ratio since 2005
- Price to Book Value (P/BV) since 2005
The data is hidden behind: . Unhide it.
Get full access to the entire website from $10.42/mo, or
get 1-month access to Celgene Corp. for $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
| 12 months ended: | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT)1 | ||||||
| Cost of capital2 | ||||||
| Invested capital3 | ||||||
| Economic profit4 | ||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 NOPAT. See details »
2 Cost of capital. See details »
3 Invested capital. See details »
4 2018 Calculation
Economic profit = NOPAT – Cost of capital × Invested capital
= – × =
The financial performance from 2014 to 2018 is characterized by a consistent failure to generate positive economic profit, although a significant recovery trend emerged in the final year of the period.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT remained relatively stagnant between 2014 and 2017, fluctuating within a narrow range between 1,787 million and 1,954 million US$. However, a substantial increase occurred in 2018, with NOPAT rising to 4,676 million US$, representing a growth of approximately 144% over the previous year.
- Invested Capital
- There was a significant expansion in the capital base during the observed period. Invested capital nearly doubled between 2014 and 2015, rising from 9,844 million US$ to 18,136 million US$. Following a period of relative stability from 2015 to 2017, another sharp increase was recorded in 2018, reaching 27,773 million US$.
- Cost of Capital
- A gradual downward trend in the cost of capital is observed, decreasing from 21.11% in 2014 to 17.87% in 2018. This reduction indicates a lowering of the hurdle rate required to achieve economic value creation over the five-year span.
- Economic Profit Trends
- Economic profit remained negative throughout the entire period, indicating that the returns on invested capital were insufficient to cover the cost of capital. The deficit deepened sharply in 2015, dropping from -253 million US$ to -1,721 million US$, coinciding with the rapid increase in invested capital. While the economic loss remained persistent through 2017, it narrowed significantly to -286 million US$ in 2018. This improvement was driven by the surge in NOPAT and the decline in the cost of capital, which offset the impact of the increased capital investment.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 Elimination of deferred tax expense. See details »
2 Addition of increase (decrease) in allowance for doubtful accounts.
3 Addition of increase (decrease) in deferred revenue.
4 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net income.
5 2018 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= × =
6 2018 Calculation
Tax benefit of interest expense = Adjusted interest expense × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
7 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net income.
8 2018 Calculation
Tax expense (benefit) of investment income = Investment income, before tax × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
9 Elimination of after taxes investment income.
- Net Income
- The net income demonstrates a fluctuating yet generally upward trend over the five-year period. Starting at $2,000 million in 2014, it experienced a notable decline to $1,602 million in 2015. This was followed by a recovery in 2016, reaching $1,999 million, subsequently increasing more substantially in 2017 to $2,940 million. The most significant growth occurred in 2018, with net income reaching $4,046 million, more than doubling the 2015 low point and exceeding the 2014 figure by a substantial margin. This trend suggests an overall improvement in profitability, with a particularly strong performance in the final year under review.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT shows a more consistent pattern over the period, with marginal fluctuations between 2014 and 2017. It started at $1,826 million in 2014, experienced a slight decrease to $1,787 million in 2015, then increased moderately to $1,954 million in 2016, before a small decrease to $1,913 million in 2017. A significant increase occurred in 2018, with NOPAT more than doubling to $4,676 million. This sharp rise contrasts with the relative stability of previous years and indicates a substantial improvement in operational efficiency or profitability in 2018. The disparity between net income and NOPAT values also suggests changes in tax impact or non-operating items affecting earnings.
- Overall Analysis
- Both net income and NOPAT reveal a period of relative stability or moderate variation from 2014 to 2017, followed by significant growth in 2018. The sharp increase in 2018 for both metrics represents a notable positive shift in financial performance. While net income shows some volatility, NOPAT is comparatively stable until the final year, indicating consistent operating profitability prior to the substantial improvement. The data suggests the company may have implemented effective strategies or benefited from market conditions that dramatically enhanced profitability and operational results in 2018.
Cash Operating Taxes
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
- Provision for taxes on income
- The provision for taxes on income exhibited fluctuations over the observed period. Starting at $328 million in 2014, it increased to $422 million in 2015, then decreased to $373 million in 2016. A significant rise occurred in 2017, reaching $1,374 million, followed by a notable decline to $786 million in 2018. This pattern indicates volatility in the tax obligations estimated for income taxes, with a pronounced peak in 2017.
- Cash operating taxes
- Cash operating taxes showed a similar volatile pattern. Beginning at $654 million in 2014, the value fell to $555 million in 2015, then rose substantially to $884 million in 2016. A dramatic increase was observed in 2017, peaking at $2,853 million. The following year, 2018, saw a sharp decrease to $903 million. This trend suggests a significant variation in the actual cash tax payments, with the highest cash outflow recorded in 2017.
- Comparative insights
- Both provisions for income taxes and cash operating taxes demonstrate notable volatility with peaks in 2017. The magnitude of cash operating taxes consistently exceeds the provision for taxes, particularly evident in 2017 when cash taxes were more than double the provision amount. This discrepancy might indicate timing differences or adjustments between accrued tax expenses and actual cash payments during these periods.
- Overall trend
- The data reveals inconsistent patterns in both tax provisions and cash taxes over the five years, with a significant spike in 2017 followed by a decrease in 2018. The spikes may be linked to underlying changes in earnings, tax planning strategies, or external tax regulations affecting the company’s tax liabilities and payments.
Invested Capital
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 Addition of capitalized operating leases.
2 Elimination of deferred taxes from assets and liabilities. See details »
3 Addition of allowance for doubtful accounts receivable.
4 Addition of deferred revenue.
5 Addition of equity equivalents to stockholders’ equity.
6 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
7 Subtraction of construction in progress.
8 Subtraction of debt securities available-for-sale and equity investments with readily determinable fair values.
- Total reported debt & leases
- The total reported debt and leases exhibited a significant upward trend over the five-year period. Starting at $7,068 million in 2014, the figure more than doubled by 2015 to $14,456 million. It then remained relatively stable in 2016 around $14,480 million before increasing consistently to reach $20,645 million by 2018. This indicates a growing reliance on debt and lease obligations to finance operations or investments during this timeframe.
- Stockholders’ equity
- Stockholders’ equity showed some fluctuations with no clear positive trend. The equity started at $6,525 million in 2014, decreased to $5,919 million in 2015, then increased gradually in 2016 and 2017 to reach $6,921 million. However, in 2018, equity declined again to $6,161 million. This pattern may suggest variability in retained earnings, issuance or repurchase of shares, or other equity-related activities affecting the net book value of shareholders' investment.
- Invested capital
- Invested capital expanded substantially over the period assessed. It nearly doubled from $9,844 million in 2014 to $18,136 million in 2015 and then continued to grow steadily to $18,672 million in 2016 and $18,857 million in 2017. A marked increase occurred in 2018, with invested capital soaring to $27,773 million. This substantial growth points to increased capital deployment into long-term assets or working capital, possibly reflecting strategic expansion or acquisition initiatives supported partially by rising debt levels.
Cost of Capital
Celgene Corp., cost of capital calculations
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
| Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | ||||||
| Invested capital2 | ||||||
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic spread ratio3 | ||||||
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Spread Ratio, Competitors4 | ||||||
| AbbVie Inc. | ||||||
| Amgen Inc. | ||||||
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | ||||||
| Danaher Corp. | ||||||
| Eli Lilly & Co. | ||||||
| Gilead Sciences Inc. | ||||||
| Johnson & Johnson | ||||||
| Merck & Co. Inc. | ||||||
| Pfizer Inc. | ||||||
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. | ||||||
| Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. | ||||||
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. | ||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 Invested capital. See details »
3 2018 Calculation
Economic spread ratio = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Invested capital
= 100 × ÷ =
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The analysis of economic value metrics from 2014 to 2018 reveals a period of significant value destruction followed by a notable recovery in the final year. Throughout the observed timeframe, economic profit remained negative, indicating that the returns generated on invested capital were insufficient to cover the company's cost of capital.
- Economic Spread Ratio Trends
- The economic spread ratio experienced a sharp decline from -2.57% in 2014 to a low of -9.49% in 2015. This negative spread remained relatively stagnant through 2016 and 2017, recording values of -9.20% and -8.55%, respectively. A significant reversal occurred in 2018, where the ratio improved to -1.03%, bringing the company closer to a break-even point regarding its cost of capital.
- Invested Capital Expansion
- There was a consistent and substantial increase in invested capital over the five-year period. Capital grew from 9,844 million USD in 2014 to 27,773 million USD by 2018. Notable surges occurred in 2015, where capital nearly doubled to 18,136 million USD, and again in 2018, showing a sharp increase of approximately 47% over the previous year.
- Economic Profit Performance
- Economic profit followed a volatile trajectory, mirroring the trends seen in the spread ratio. After a relatively modest loss of 253 million USD in 2014, the deficit expanded drastically to 1,721 million USD in 2015. This level of economic loss persisted through 2016 and 2017. However, by 2018, economic profit improved significantly, narrowing the loss to 286 million USD despite the substantial increase in total invested capital.
The convergence of these metrics suggests that while the company aggressively expanded its capital base, it struggled to generate adequate returns between 2015 and 2017. The recovery observed in 2018 indicates a substantial improvement in operational efficiency or asset productivity, as the economic spread ratio narrowed significantly even as the total capital employed reached its highest point in the analyzed period.
Economic Profit Margin
| Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | ||||||
| Net product sales | ||||||
| Add: Increase (decrease) in deferred revenue | ||||||
| Adjusted net product sales | ||||||
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic profit margin2 | ||||||
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Profit Margin, Competitors3 | ||||||
| AbbVie Inc. | ||||||
| Amgen Inc. | ||||||
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. | ||||||
| Danaher Corp. | ||||||
| Eli Lilly & Co. | ||||||
| Gilead Sciences Inc. | ||||||
| Johnson & Johnson | ||||||
| Merck & Co. Inc. | ||||||
| Pfizer Inc. | ||||||
| Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. | ||||||
| Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. | ||||||
| Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. | ||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 2018 Calculation
Economic profit margin = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Adjusted net product sales
= 100 × ÷ =
3 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The analysis of economic value added metrics indicates a period of significant volatility in economic profit despite a consistent and strong upward trajectory in adjusted net product sales. Throughout the period from 2014 to 2018, the entity consistently reported negative economic profit, suggesting that the returns generated were insufficient to cover the cost of capital employed.
- Adjusted Net Product Sales Trend
- A sustained increase in adjusted net product sales is observed, with values rising from US$ 7,569 million in 2014 to US$ 15,302 million in 2018. This indicates a consistent expansion of the top-line revenue base throughout the analyzed timeframe.
- Economic Profit Performance
- Economic profit experienced a sharp deterioration between 2014 and 2015, falling from -US$ 253 million to -US$ 1,721 million. This negative performance persisted at high levels through 2017 before a substantial recovery was recorded in 2018, where the economic loss narrowed significantly to -US$ 286 million.
- Economic Profit Margin Analysis
- The economic profit margin mirrored the volatility of the absolute economic profit. Following an initial margin of -3.34% in 2014, a steep decline to -18.72% occurred in 2015. Subsequently, a steady trend of recovery is evident, as the margin improved to -15.37% in 2016 and -12.40% in 2017, eventually reaching -1.87% by the end of 2018, signaling a movement toward a break-even point in economic value creation.