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.
Economic Profit
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 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).
1 NOPAT. See details »
2 Cost of capital. See details »
3 Invested capital. See details »
4 2019 Calculation
Economic profit = NOPAT – Cost of capital × Invested capital
= 3,773,634 – 19.63% × 32,663,914 = -2,638,035
The financial performance from 2015 to 2019 is characterized by a substantial recovery in operational profitability, although the organization failed to generate a positive economic profit throughout the analyzed period.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- A significant upward trajectory is observed in NOPAT, which transitioned from a loss of 6.8 billion US dollars in 2015 to a peak profit of 4.6 billion US dollars in 2018. While a decline to 3.7 billion US dollars occurred in 2019, the overall trend indicates a successful return to operational profitability after deep losses in the early part of the period.
- Invested Capital and Cost of Capital
- Invested capital exhibited a consistent growth pattern, rising from 24.4 billion US dollars in 2015 to 32.6 billion US dollars by 2019. During this expansion, the cost of capital remained relatively stable, oscillating within a narrow range between 19.44% and 20.62%, suggesting a consistent risk profile and funding cost environment.
- Economic Profit Trends
- Economic profit remained negative for all five years, signifying that the company did not create value above its cost of capital. The economic loss narrowed considerably from 11.5 billion US dollars in 2015 to 1.5 billion US dollars in 2018. However, this progress reversed in 2019, with the economic profit falling back to negative 2.6 billion US dollars. This downturn in 2019 is attributable to the combination of a decrease in NOPAT and a continued increase in the total amount of invested capital, which expanded the capital charge.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 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).
1 Elimination of deferred tax expense. See details »
2 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net income (loss).
3 2019 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= 799,365 × 3.50% = 27,978
4 2019 Calculation
Tax benefit of net interest expense = Adjusted net interest expense × Statutory income tax rate
= 213,107 × 21.00% = 44,752
5 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net income (loss).
A significant financial recovery is observed between 2015 and 2019, characterized by a transition from substantial operational losses to consistent profitability. Both Net Income and Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) follow a similar V-shaped recovery trajectory, peaking in 2018 before experiencing a moderate contraction in 2019.
- Net Income Performance
- A period of significant instability is noted starting in 2015 with a loss of 4.52 billion US dollars. This loss narrowed in 2016 to 1.10 billion US dollars before shifting to a positive position of 2.58 billion US dollars in 2017. Profitability reached a peak of 3.42 billion US dollars in 2018, followed by a decline to 2.73 billion US dollars in 2019.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT) Trends
- NOPAT exhibits more volatility than Net Income, recording a deep deficit of 6.84 billion US dollars in 2015. A strong recovery trend followed, with losses reducing to 1.42 billion US dollars in 2016 and turning positive in 2017 at 783.73 million US dollars. A substantial surge occurred in 2018, where NOPAT reached 4.67 billion US dollars, before receding to 3.77 billion US dollars in 2019.
- Comparative Analysis of NOPAT and Net Income
- A divergence in the relationship between operating and bottom-line profit is observed over the five-year period. From 2015 to 2017, NOPAT remained consistently lower than Net Income, suggesting that non-operating items provided a relative cushion or that operating inefficiencies were more pronounced than the final net result. However, in 2018 and 2019, this trend reversed, with NOPAT exceeding Net Income. In 2018, NOPAT was approximately 1.25 billion US dollars higher than Net Income, and in 2019, it remained 1.04 billion US dollars higher, indicating that operating performance became the primary driver of value creation, outweighing the impact of non-operating expenses or taxes.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?
Cash Operating Taxes
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 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).
The analysis of tax-related items from 2015 through 2019 reveals a significant shift in the fiscal profile of the organization, transitioning from a period of substantial tax benefits to a period of tax provisions and fluctuating cash tax outflows.
- Income Tax Provision Trends
- Between 2015 and 2017, substantial income tax benefits were recorded, peaking at approximately $2.397 billion in 2015. This trend reversed in 2018 and 2019, where the entity transitioned to reporting positive tax provisions of $821.9 million and $810.4 million, respectively. This shift indicates a move from a tax-benefit position to a tax-expense position over the observed period.
- Cash Operating Tax Volatility
- Cash operating taxes exhibited relative stability from 2015 to 2017, with annual outflows ranging between $157.8 million and $173.4 million. However, a sharp reversal occurred in 2018, as the figure shifted to negative $165.6 million, representing a cash inflow. This trend persisted into 2019, although the cash inflow diminished to negative $15.3 million.
- Correlation Between Provision and Cash Payments
- A divergence is observable between the accounting tax provisions and actual cash tax movements. While the income tax provision showed massive benefits in the early part of the period, cash operating taxes remained positive outflows. Conversely, in 2018, as the income tax provision became a positive expense, the cash operating taxes shifted to a negative value, indicating a discrepancy between accrued tax accounting and actual cash settlements.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?
Invested Capital
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31).
1 Addition of capitalized operating leases.
2 Elimination of deferred taxes from assets and liabilities. See details »
3 Addition of equity equivalents to stockholders’ equity.
4 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
An analysis of the capital structure from 2015 to 2019 reveals a strategic shift toward equity financing and a consistent expansion of the total capital base utilized for operations.
- Total Reported Debt and Leases
- A general downward trend is observed in debt and lease obligations over the five-year period. After a slight increase in 2016 to US$ 7.31 billion, the balance declined steadily for three consecutive years, ending at US$ 5.97 billion in 2019. This represents a reduction of approximately 14.9% relative to 2015 levels.
- Stockholders' Equity
- Equity demonstrated robust and uninterrupted growth, increasing from US$ 12.94 billion in 2015 to US$ 21.64 billion in 2019. This significant upward trajectory indicates a substantial increase in retained earnings or capital contributions, strengthening the company's solvency and internal funding capacity.
- Invested Capital Growth
- Total invested capital followed a consistent upward trajectory, rising from US$ 24.43 billion in 2015 to US$ 32.66 billion in 2019. The cumulative increase of approximately 33.7% suggests an ongoing expansion of the company's asset base intended to generate future economic value.
- Capital Composition and Leverage
- The growth in invested capital was driven primarily by the expansion of stockholders' equity, which more than offset the reduction in reported debt. This divergence indicates a deliberate deleveraging of the balance sheet, resulting in a capital structure that is increasingly funded by equity rather than debt.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?
Cost of Capital
EOG Resources Inc., cost of capital calculations
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | 34,923,267) | 34,923,267) | ÷ | 41,232,532) | = | 0.85 | 0.85 | × | 22.66% | = | 19.19% | ||
| Long-term debt and finance leases3 | 5,509,900) | 5,509,900) | ÷ | 41,232,532) | = | 0.13 | 0.13 | × | 3.62% × (1 – 21.00%) | = | 0.38% | ||
| Operating lease liability4 | 799,365) | 799,365) | ÷ | 41,232,532) | = | 0.02 | 0.02 | × | 3.50% × (1 – 21.00%) | = | 0.05% | ||
| Total: | 41,232,532) | 1.00 | 19.63% | ||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt and finance leases. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | 54,472,798) | 54,472,798) | ÷ | 61,070,781) | = | 0.89 | 0.89 | × | 22.66% | = | 20.21% | ||
| Long-term debt and finance leases3 | 6,098,571) | 6,098,571) | ÷ | 61,070,781) | = | 0.10 | 0.10 | × | 3.92% × (1 – 21.00%) | = | 0.31% | ||
| Operating lease liability4 | 499,411) | 499,411) | ÷ | 61,070,781) | = | 0.01 | 0.01 | × | 3.92% × (1 – 21.00%) | = | 0.03% | ||
| Total: | 61,070,781) | 1.00 | 20.55% | ||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-12-31).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt and finance leases. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | 61,879,371) | 61,879,371) | ÷ | 68,893,883) | = | 0.90 | 0.90 | × | 22.66% | = | 20.35% | ||
| Long-term debt and finance leases3 | 6,634,155) | 6,634,155) | ÷ | 68,893,883) | = | 0.10 | 0.10 | × | 4.08% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.26% | ||
| Operating lease liability4 | 380,358) | 380,358) | ÷ | 68,893,883) | = | 0.01 | 0.01 | × | 4.08% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.01% | ||
| Total: | 68,893,883) | 1.00 | 20.62% | ||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2017-12-31).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt and finance leases. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | 56,477,629) | 56,477,629) | ÷ | 64,029,530) | = | 0.88 | 0.88 | × | 22.66% | = | 19.99% | ||
| Long-term debt and finance leases3 | 7,228,710) | 7,228,710) | ÷ | 64,029,530) | = | 0.11 | 0.11 | × | 4.24% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.31% | ||
| Operating lease liability4 | 323,191) | 323,191) | ÷ | 64,029,530) | = | 0.01 | 0.01 | × | 4.24% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.01% | ||
| Total: | 64,029,530) | 1.00 | 20.31% | ||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt and finance leases. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | 37,667,012) | 37,667,012) | ÷ | 44,859,189) | = | 0.84 | 0.84 | × | 22.66% | = | 19.03% | ||
| Long-term debt and finance leases3 | 6,828,782) | 6,828,782) | ÷ | 44,859,189) | = | 0.15 | 0.15 | × | 3.96% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.39% | ||
| Operating lease liability4 | 363,395) | 363,395) | ÷ | 44,859,189) | = | 0.01 | 0.01 | × | 3.96% × (1 – 35.00%) | = | 0.02% | ||
| Total: | 44,859,189) | 1.00 | 19.44% | ||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt and finance leases. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
| Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | (2,638,035) | (1,567,082) | (4,696,137) | (6,766,839) | (11,593,105) | |
| Invested capital2 | 32,663,914) | 30,360,840) | 26,570,707) | 26,322,407) | 24,433,279) | |
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic spread ratio3 | -8.08% | -5.16% | -17.67% | -25.71% | -47.45% | |
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Spread Ratio, Competitors4 | ||||||
| Chevron Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| ConocoPhillips | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Exxon Mobil Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 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).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 Invested capital. See details »
3 2019 Calculation
Economic spread ratio = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Invested capital
= 100 × -2,638,035 ÷ 32,663,914 = -8.08%
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
An analysis of the economic value added metrics from 2015 to 2019 reveals a period of substantial recovery in economic performance, although the organization did not achieve a positive economic profit during this interval. The trend is characterized by a consistent increase in the capital base alongside a significant reduction in economic losses until 2018, followed by a modest decline in 2019.
- Economic Profit Trajectory
- A marked improvement in economic profit was observed between 2015 and 2018, as economic losses narrowed from 11.59 billion US dollars to 1.57 billion US dollars. This positive trajectory was interrupted in 2019, when the economic profit declined to negative 2.64 billion US dollars, indicating a setback in the trend toward value creation.
- Invested Capital Growth
- Invested capital exhibited a consistent upward trend throughout the five-year period, growing from 24.43 billion US dollars in 2015 to 32.66 billion US dollars in 2019. This steady expansion of the capital base occurred concurrently with the reduction in economic losses.
- Economic Spread Ratio Analysis
- The economic spread ratio showed a strong recovery from a low of negative 47.45% in 2015 to a peak of negative 5.16% in 2018. This indicates that the gap between the return on invested capital and the cost of capital narrowed significantly over four years. However, the ratio widened slightly to negative 8.08% in 2019, mirroring the decline observed in absolute economic profit.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?
Economic Profit Margin
| Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | (2,638,035) | (1,567,082) | (4,696,137) | (6,766,839) | (11,593,105) | |
| Operating revenues and other | 17,379,973) | 17,275,399) | 11,208,320) | 7,650,632) | 8,757,428) | |
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic profit margin2 | -15.18% | -9.07% | -41.90% | -88.45% | -132.38% | |
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Profit Margin, Competitors3 | ||||||
| Chevron Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| ConocoPhillips | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Exxon Mobil Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31), 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).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 2019 Calculation
Economic profit margin = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Operating revenues and other
= 100 × -2,638,035 ÷ 17,379,973 = -15.18%
3 Click competitor name to see calculations.
An analysis of the financial performance from 2015 to 2019 reveals a period of significant recovery in economic value creation, although the company remained unable to generate a positive economic profit throughout the entire duration. A general trend of narrowing losses is evident from 2015 through 2018, followed by a slight regression in 2019.
- Economic Profit Trends
- The economic profit demonstrated a consistent upward trajectory from 2015 to 2018, moving from a deficit of US$ 11.59 billion to a deficit of US$ 1.57 billion. This improvement indicates a reduction in the gap between operating profits and the cost of capital. However, this positive momentum reversed in 2019, with the economic profit declining to negative US$ 2.64 billion, suggesting a resurgence of capital costs exceeding operating returns.
- Operating Revenue Growth
- Operating revenues and other income exhibited strong growth over the period, with the exception of a slight dip in 2016. Revenues increased from US$ 8.76 billion in 2015 to US$ 17.38 billion by 2019. The most substantial growth occurred between 2016 and 2018, where revenues more than doubled, which correlates with the period of fastest improvement in economic profit.
- Economic Profit Margin Analysis
- The economic profit margin shows a dramatic narrowing from -132.38% in 2015 to a peak of -9.07% in 2018. This shift reflects an increase in efficiency and a stronger ability to cover the cost of capital relative to the scale of operations. The margin deteriorated to -15.18% in 2019, indicating that while revenue remained stable, the economic value generated relative to those revenues decreased.
Overall, the period was characterized by a substantial recovery in the company's capacity to generate economic value, driven largely by significant revenue expansion. Despite this progress, the persistent negative economic profit margin indicates that the business did not achieve a return above its cost of capital during the analyzed five-year window.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
How can I help you?