Economic Value Added (EVA)
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:
- Balance Sheet: Assets
- Common-Size Balance Sheet: Assets
- Common-Size Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
- DuPont Analysis: Disaggregation of ROE, ROA, and Net Profit Margin
- Price to FCFE (P/FCFE)
- Operating Profit Margin since 2005
- Return on Assets (ROA) since 2005
- Price to Earnings (P/E) since 2005
- Analysis of Revenues
- Aggregate Accruals
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 $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
Celgene Corp., economic profit calculation
US$ in millions
| 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
= – × =
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- The NOPAT demonstrated fluctuations over the five-year period. It initially declined slightly from 1,826 million USD in 2014 to 1,787 million USD in 2015, followed by a recovery and growth to 1,954 million USD in 2016. Thereafter, it slightly decreased to 1,913 million USD in 2017 before experiencing a significant increase to 4,676 million USD in 2018. This marked growth in the final year indicates a strong improvement in operating profitability after taxes.
- Cost of Capital
- The cost of capital showed a gradual and consistent downward trend over the period. Starting at 17.98% in 2014, it decreased to 16.5% in 2015, then marginally increased to 16.77% in 2016 before resuming a downward path to 15.97% in 2017 and further to 15.3% in 2018. The declining cost of capital suggests potentially lower financing costs or reduced risk perceptions over time.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital more than doubled from 9,844 million USD in 2014 to 18,136 million USD in 2015, indicating a major increase in the capital base. It then increased slightly over the next two years to 18,672 million USD in 2016 and 18,857 million USD in 2017, followed by another significant increase to 27,773 million USD in 2018. This pattern reflects substantial investment or asset growth, particularly in 2015 and 2018.
- Economic Profit
- The economic profit was positive but relatively low at 56 million USD in 2014. However, it turned negative in 2015 and remained significantly negative through 2016 and 2017, with values of -1,206 million USD, -1,178 million USD, and -1,098 million USD respectively. This indicates that the returns generated were not sufficient to cover the cost of capital during those years. In 2018, there was a notable positive reversal to 427 million USD, implying that the company started generating value added over its cost of capital again.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Celgene Corp., NOPAT calculation
US$ in millions
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 $4,676 million. This sharp rise contrasts with the relative stability of previous years and indicates a substantial improvement in operational efficiency or profitability in 2018. The disparity between net income and NOPAT values also suggests changes in tax impact or non-operating items affecting earnings.
- Overall Analysis
- Both net income and NOPAT reveal a period of relative stability or moderate variation from 2014 to 2017, followed by significant growth in 2018. The sharp increase in 2018 for both metrics represents a notable positive shift in financial performance. While net income shows some volatility, NOPAT is comparatively stable until the final year, indicating consistent operating profitability prior to the substantial improvement. The data suggests the company may have implemented effective strategies or benefited from market conditions that dramatically enhanced profitability and operational results in 2018.
Cash Operating Taxes
Celgene Corp., cash operating taxes calculation
US$ in millions
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 $903 million. This trend suggests a significant variation in the actual cash tax payments, with the highest cash outflow recorded in 2017.
- Comparative insights
- Both provisions for income taxes and cash operating taxes demonstrate notable volatility with peaks in 2017. The magnitude of cash operating taxes consistently exceeds the provision for taxes, particularly evident in 2017 when cash taxes were more than double the provision amount. This discrepancy might indicate timing differences or adjustments between accrued tax expenses and actual cash payments during these periods.
- Overall trend
- The data reveals inconsistent patterns in both tax provisions and cash taxes over the five years, with a significant spike in 2017 followed by a decrease in 2018. The spikes may be linked to underlying changes in earnings, tax planning strategies, or external tax regulations affecting the company’s tax liabilities and payments.
Invested Capital
Celgene Corp., invested capital calculation (financing approach)
US$ in millions
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
Celgene Corp., economic spread ratio calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| 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.
- Economic Profit
- The economic profit exhibited significant volatility over the analyzed period. It started with a positive value of $56 million at the end of 2014, followed by a sharp decline into negative territory in 2015, 2016, and 2017, with values of -$1,206 million, -$1,178 million, and -$1,098 million respectively. This indicates consistent economic losses during these years. However, there was a notable recovery in 2018, with economic profit returning to a positive figure of $427 million.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital demonstrated a steady upward trend throughout the entire period. Starting at $9,844 million in 2014, it nearly doubled by 2015 to $18,136 million. It slightly increased to $18,672 million in 2016 and continued a gradual rise to $18,857 million in 2017. A substantial increase occurred in 2018, with invested capital reaching $27,773 million. This suggests a notable expansion in the company's asset base or investment activities over the years.
- Economic Spread Ratio
- The economic spread ratio illustrates the company’s return relative to its cost of capital. It was positive but minimal in 2014, at 0.57%, indicating a small margin above capital cost. From 2015 through 2017, the ratio was persistently negative at -6.65%, -6.31%, and -5.82%, respectively, reflecting returns significantly below the cost of capital. In 2018, the spread ratio improved to 1.54%, signaling a return to creating economic value above the cost of capital.
Economic Profit Margin
Celgene Corp., economic profit margin calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ 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.
- Adjusted Net Product Sales
- The adjusted net product sales demonstrated a consistent upward trend throughout the five-year period. Starting at $7,569 million in 2014, sales increased steadily each year, reaching $15,302 million by the end of 2018. This represents more than a doubling of sales from the beginning to the end of the period, indicating robust growth in product revenue.
- Economic Profit
- The economic profit showed significant volatility over the period. In 2014, the company reported a positive economic profit of $56 million. However, this was followed by substantial negative economic profits in the subsequent three years: -$1,206 million in 2015, -$1,178 million in 2016, and -$1,098 million in 2017. The trend reversed in 2018, with economic profit returning to a positive value of $427 million. This pattern suggests challenges in achieving profitability during the middle years, followed by a recovery in the final year examined.
- Economic Profit Margin
- The economic profit margin mirrored the fluctuations observed in economic profit. It was marginally positive at 0.74% in 2014 before declining sharply into negative territory: -13.12% in 2015, -10.54% in 2016, and -8.45% in 2017. By 2018, the margin improved to a positive 2.79%. This indicates that despite sustained growth in net product sales, the company experienced periods of inefficiency or increased costs that negatively impacted profitability margins until a partial recovery occurred in the final year.
- Overall Insights
- While net product sales consistently expanded, economic profitability showed a lag, with significant negative results following the initial year. The return to positive economic profit and margin in 2018 suggests operational improvements or cost management efforts. The divergence between sales growth and profitability in earlier years indicates that increased revenue did not initially translate into economic profit, possibly due to higher expenses, investments, or other financial pressures. The positive shift in 2018 points toward better alignment of revenue and cost structures, enhancing value creation.