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:
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 persistent inability to generate positive economic value, although the trajectory shifted toward recovery in the final year. While the organization experienced a consistent deficit in economic profit throughout the period, the scale of this loss fluctuated in correlation with aggressive capital expansion and subsequent gains in operating profitability.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- Operating profitability remained relatively flat from 2014 through 2017, ranging between 1.787 billion and 1.954 billion US dollars. A significant inflection point occurred in 2018, when NOPAT increased to 4.676 billion US dollars, signaling a substantial improvement in the entity's ability to generate profit from its core operations.
- Invested Capital and Cost of Capital
- Invested capital grew aggressively, nearly doubling from 9.844 billion US dollars in 2014 to 18.136 billion US dollars in 2015, and reaching 27.773 billion US dollars by 2018. Simultaneously, the cost of capital followed a steady decline, decreasing from 21.11% in 2014 to 17.86% in 2018, which reduced the weighted burden of the capital employed.
- Economic Profit Analysis
- The economic profit trend reflects a period of significant value destruction between 2015 and 2017, with deficits peaking at 1.721 billion US dollars in 2015. This negative trend was driven by the rapid increase in invested capital which outpaced the growth of NOPAT. However, by 2018, the combination of a sharp increase in operating profit and a lower cost of capital resulted in the economic profit deficit narrowing to 285 million US dollars, indicating a shift toward potential value creation.
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 financial performance from 2014 to 2018 is characterized by a persistent negative economic profit, indicating that the return on invested capital remained below the company's cost of capital throughout the period. While the magnitude of this deficit fluctuated significantly, the organization failed to generate positive economic value added during this five-year window.
- Economic Spread Ratio Trends
- A significant deterioration in the economic spread ratio occurred between 2014 and 2015, dropping from -2.56% to -9.49%. This represents a substantial widening of the gap between the actual return on capital and the required rate of return. The ratio remained deeply negative through 2016 (-9.20%) and 2017 (-8.55%), showing only marginal improvement. However, a sharp recovery was observed in 2018, where the ratio improved to -1.03%, suggesting a near-alignment of returns with the cost of capital by the end of the period.
- Invested Capital Expansion
- Invested capital experienced aggressive growth over the analyzed period, increasing from 9,844 million USD in 2014 to 27,773 million USD in 2018. Notable surges occurred in 2015 and 2018, indicating significant capital injections or acquisitions. This expansion of the capital base occurred while economic profit remained negative, which intensified the pressure on the economic spread ratio during the middle of the period.
- Economic Profit Correlation
- Economic profit mirrored the trajectory of the spread ratio, reaching its lowest point in 2015 at -1,721 million USD. The losses remained relatively stable through 2017, with values hovering between -1,612 million USD and -1,721 million USD. By 2018, economic profit improved substantially to -285 million USD, reflecting a strong trend toward breaking even in economic terms despite the record high level of invested capital.
Overall, the data reflects a period of significant capital expansion accompanied by initial value destruction, followed by a strong recovery in the final year. The convergence of the economic spread ratio toward zero in 2018 indicates a transition toward a more sustainable relationship between capital investment and value generation.
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 financial performance from 2014 to 2018 is characterized by a steady expansion in revenue contrasted with a period of significant economic loss followed by a recovery toward break-even levels.
- Adjusted Net Product Sales
- A consistent and strong upward trend is observed in adjusted net product sales, which grew from 7,569 million USD in 2014 to 15,302 million USD in 2018. This indicates sustained growth in top-line performance throughout the five-year duration.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit remained negative for the entire period, signifying that the company did not generate returns sufficient to cover its cost of capital. A substantial decline occurred between 2014 and 2015, where the economic profit dropped from -252 million USD to -1,721 million USD. This deficit remained relatively stable through 2017 before a significant improvement was realized in 2018, with the figure narrowing to -285 million USD.
- Economic Profit Margin
- The economic profit margin exhibited a V-shaped recovery pattern. After starting at -3.33% in 2014, the margin deteriorated sharply to a low of -18.71% in 2015. From 2016 onward, a progressive recovery is noted, with margins improving to -15.36% and -12.40% in 2016 and 2017, respectively, eventually reaching -1.86% by 2018. This suggests that the increase in adjusted net product sales eventually contributed to a reduction in the gap between the actual return and the cost of capital.