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
General Dynamics Corp. pages available for free this week:
- Income Statement
- Balance Sheet: Assets
- Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
- Analysis of Long-term (Investment) Activity Ratios
- DuPont Analysis: Disaggregation of ROE, ROA, and Net Profit Margin
- Common Stock Valuation Ratios
- Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)
- Selected Financial Data since 2005
- Price to Earnings (P/E) since 2005
- Analysis of Revenues
The data is hidden behind: . Unhide it.
Get full access to the entire website from $10.42/mo, or
get 1-month access to General Dynamics Corp. for $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
General Dynamics Corp., economic profit calculation
US$ in millions
| 12 months ended: | Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT)1 | ||||||
| Cost of capital2 | ||||||
| Invested capital3 | ||||||
| Economic profit4 | ||||||
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
= – × =
The period under review demonstrates fluctuating economic profit performance. Net operating profit after taxes generally increased from 2015 to 2019, however, this increase did not consistently translate into positive economic profit due to concurrent changes in invested capital and the cost of capital.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT exhibited an overall upward trend, increasing from US$3,237 million in 2015 to US$4,114 million in 2019. Growth was observed between 2015 and 2016, a slight decrease between 2016 and 2017, followed by further increases through 2019. This suggests improving operational efficiency or revenue generation over the period.
- Cost of Capital
- The cost of capital initially increased from 15.15% in 2015 to 15.44% in 2017, before decreasing significantly to 13.50% in 2018 and stabilizing at 13.67% in 2019. The decline in the cost of capital in later years would generally be expected to support higher economic profit, all other factors being equal.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital increased substantially throughout the period, rising from US$18,175 million in 2015 to US$31,608 million in 2019. The most significant increase occurred between 2017 and 2018. This substantial growth in invested capital appears to be a key driver of the shift in economic profit.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit peaked at US$564 million in 2016, but subsequently declined. A negative economic profit of US$357 million was recorded in 2018, and this trend continued with a negative economic profit of US$208 million in 2019. The decline in economic profit, despite increasing NOPAT, is attributable to the rapid expansion of invested capital outpacing the benefits of improved profitability and the decreasing cost of capital. The substantial increase in invested capital in 2018 appears to have had a particularly negative impact.
In summary, while operational performance, as indicated by NOPAT, generally improved, the significant increases in invested capital ultimately resulted in declining economic profit in the later years of the period. The decreasing cost of capital offered some offset, but was insufficient to maintain positive economic profit.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
General Dynamics Corp., NOPAT calculation
US$ in millions
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 product warranty liabilities.
3 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net earnings.
4 2019 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= × =
5 2019 Calculation
Tax benefit of interest expense = Adjusted interest expense × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
6 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net earnings.
7 2019 Calculation
Tax expense (benefit) of investment income = Investment income, before tax × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
8 Elimination of after taxes investment income.
9 Elimination of discontinued operations.
- Net Earnings
- Net earnings remained relatively stable from 2015 to 2017, showing a slight decrease from 2,965 million USD in 2015 to 2,912 million USD in 2017. However, from 2017 onwards, a notable upward trend is observed with earnings increasing to 3,345 million USD in 2018 and further to 3,484 million USD in 2019. This indicates a period of renewed profitability growth in the last two years under review.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT experienced consistent growth over the entire period. Starting at 3,237 million USD in 2015, it increased to 3,563 million USD in 2016. Despite a slight decrease in 2017 to 3,393 million USD, the overall trend resumed upward momentum, reaching 3,683 million USD in 2018 and then significantly climbing to 4,114 million USD in 2019. This illustrates improving operational efficiency and profitability after taxes over the five-year span.
Cash Operating Taxes
General Dynamics Corp., cash operating taxes calculation
US$ in millions
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 provision for income taxes, net, exhibited a generally stable trend between 2015 and 2017, with values of approximately 1137 million, 1169 million, and 1165 million US dollars, respectively. However, there was a notable decline starting in 2018, with the figure dropping significantly to 727 million and further slightly decreasing to 718 million US dollars in 2019. This downward shift after 2017 suggests a reduction in the overall tax burden or possible changes in tax strategies or profitability.
Cash operating taxes showed a downward trajectory over the five-year period. Starting from 1007 million US dollars in 2015, cash operating taxes decreased to 833 million in 2016, and then continued to decline slightly to 811 million in 2017. In 2018, the amount remained relatively stable at 814 million US dollars but then decreased again to 732 million in 2019. This gradual reduction aligns with the trend observed in the provision for income taxes, although the decline in cash taxes began earlier and was more gradual compared to the sharper decrease seen in the provision figures after 2017.
Overall, both tax-related metrics demonstrate a significant reduction in the company’s income tax liabilities from 2017 onwards, with cash taxes showing a steady decline throughout the entire period. This pattern may reflect changes in taxable income, effective tax rates, tax planning measures, or adjustments in accounting for tax provisions.
Invested Capital
General Dynamics Corp., invested capital calculation (financing approach)
US$ in millions
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 product warranty liabilities.
4 Addition of equity equivalents to shareholders’ equity.
5 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
6 Subtraction of construction in process.
The analysis of the financial data over the five-year period reveals several noteworthy trends in the company's debt levels, equity base, and invested capital.
- Total Reported Debt & Leases
- The total reported debt and leases exhibited a generally increasing trend from 2015 to 2017, rising from $4,345 million to $5,188 million. A significant jump occurred between 2017 and 2018, with debt surging dramatically to $13,882 million, followed by a slight decrease in 2019 to $13,433 million. This suggests a substantial increase in leverage starting in 2018, which may reflect a strategic decision to finance growth, acquisitions, or other investments during this time.
- Shareholders’ Equity
- Shareholders’ equity steadily increased over the analyzed periods, moving from $10,738 million in 2015 to $13,577 million in 2019. The growth was relatively consistent, indicating ongoing accumulation of retained earnings and/or capital contributions. The equity growth rate appears moderate and stable compared to the more volatile changes observed in total debt.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital increased from $18,175 million in 2015 to $19,772 million by 2017, which is a moderate growth. However, a sharp rise occurred between 2017 and 2018, coinciding with the surge in reported debt and leases, with invested capital reaching $29,939 million in 2018 and further increasing to $31,608 million in 2019. This suggests significant investment or expansion activities starting in 2018, funded in part by increased debt levels.
Overall, the data indicate a period of relative stability from 2015 through 2017, followed by a substantial increase in leverage and total invested capital beginning in 2018. The company’s equity base grew steadily throughout, providing a solid foundation despite the sharp increase in debt. This pattern may reflect a strategic shift toward accelerated growth or capital-intensive initiatives in the latter years of the period analyzed.
Cost of Capital
General Dynamics Corp., cost of capital calculations
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Short- and long-term debt principal3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Short- and long-term debt principal. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Short- and long-term debt principal3 | ÷ | = | × | × (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 Short- and long-term debt principal. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Short- and long-term debt principal3 | ÷ | = | × | × (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 Short- and long-term debt principal. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Short- and long-term debt principal3 | ÷ | = | × | × (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 Short- and long-term debt principal. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Short- and long-term debt principal3 | ÷ | = | × | × (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 Short- and long-term debt principal. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
General Dynamics Corp., economic spread ratio calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | ||||||
| Invested capital2 | ||||||
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic spread ratio3 | ||||||
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Spread Ratio, Competitors4 | ||||||
| Boeing Co. | ||||||
| Caterpillar Inc. | ||||||
| Eaton Corp. plc | ||||||
| GE Aerospace | ||||||
| Honeywell International Inc. | ||||||
| Lockheed Martin Corp. | ||||||
| RTX 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 × ÷ =
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The economic spread ratio exhibited a declining trend between 2015 and 2019. Initially positive, the ratio transitioned to negative values during the latter part of the analyzed period. This shift correlates with fluctuations in economic profit and invested capital.
- Economic Spread Ratio
- In 2015, the economic spread ratio stood at 2.66%, indicating a positive spread between the return on invested capital and the cost of capital. This ratio increased to 2.89% in 2016, suggesting improved profitability relative to the capital employed. A subsequent decrease to 1.73% in 2017 signaled a narrowing of this spread. The ratio became negative in 2018, reaching -1.19%, and continued to decline, reaching -0.66% in 2019. This indicates that the cost of capital exceeded the return generated from invested capital in both 2018 and 2019.
The economic spread ratio’s movement is closely tied to the behavior of economic profit and invested capital. While economic profit increased from 2015 to 2016, it decreased in 2017 and became negative in 2018 and 2019. Simultaneously, invested capital consistently increased throughout the period. The combination of declining economic profit and rising invested capital contributed to the observed deterioration in the economic spread ratio.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital increased steadily from US$18,175 million in 2015 to US$31,608 million in 2019. This consistent growth in capital employed, without a corresponding increase in economic profit, exerted downward pressure on the economic spread ratio.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit peaked at US$564 million in 2016 before declining significantly. It fell to US$341 million in 2017 and then became negative, reaching -US$357 million in 2018 and -US$208 million in 2019. This negative economic profit in the later years directly contributed to the negative economic spread ratio.
The trend suggests a diminishing ability to generate returns exceeding the cost of capital. Further investigation into the factors driving the decline in economic profit and the increase in invested capital would be necessary to understand the underlying causes and potential corrective actions.
Economic Profit Margin
General Dynamics Corp., economic profit margin calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2019 | Dec 31, 2018 | Dec 31, 2017 | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | ||||||
| Revenue | ||||||
| Performance Ratio | ||||||
| Economic profit margin2 | ||||||
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| Economic Profit Margin, Competitors3 | ||||||
| Boeing Co. | ||||||
| Caterpillar Inc. | ||||||
| Eaton Corp. plc | ||||||
| GE Aerospace | ||||||
| Honeywell International Inc. | ||||||
| Lockheed Martin Corp. | ||||||
| RTX 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 ÷ Revenue
= 100 × ÷ =
3 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The economic profit margin exhibited a fluctuating pattern over the five-year period. Initially positive, it declined and eventually became negative, indicating a shift in the company’s ability to generate returns exceeding its cost of capital.
- Economic Profit Margin Trend
- The economic profit margin began at 1.54% in 2015 and increased to 1.80% in 2016. This suggests improving profitability relative to the capital employed during these years. However, the margin decreased to 1.10% in 2017, signaling a potential weakening of this performance. A significant downturn occurred in 2018, with the margin falling to -0.99%, indicating that economic profit was negative. This trend continued into 2019, with the margin reaching -0.53%, demonstrating a sustained period of value destruction.
Revenue demonstrated an overall upward trend, though not consistently. While revenue decreased slightly from 2015 to 2017, it experienced substantial growth in 2018 and 2019. This revenue growth did not translate into improved economic profit margin, suggesting that increases in costs or capital employed outpaced revenue gains.
- Relationship between Revenue and Economic Profit Margin
- Despite revenue increasing from US$31,469 million in 2015 to US$39,350 million in 2019, the economic profit margin declined from positive to negative values. This divergence suggests that the company’s cost of capital, or operational inefficiencies, increased at a faster rate than revenue growth. The negative economic profit margin in 2018 and 2019 indicates that the company was not generating sufficient returns to cover its capital costs, even with higher revenue.
Economic profit itself followed a similar trajectory to the economic profit margin. Positive economic profit of US$484 million and US$564 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively, decreased to US$341 million in 2017 before becoming negative in 2018 (US$-357 million) and 2019 (US$-208 million). This reinforces the observation that the company’s financial performance deteriorated over the period, ultimately failing to generate economic profit.