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 Mills Inc. pages available for free this week:
- Balance Sheet: Assets
- Analysis of Long-term (Investment) Activity Ratios
- Enterprise Value to EBITDA (EV/EBITDA)
- Price to FCFE (P/FCFE)
- Dividend Discount Model (DDM)
- Return on Equity (ROE) since 2005
- Current Ratio since 2005
- Total Asset Turnover since 2005
- Price to Operating Profit (P/OP) 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 Mills Inc. for $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
| 12 months ended: | May 26, 2019 | May 27, 2018 | May 28, 2017 | May 29, 2016 | May 31, 2015 | May 25, 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT)1 | |||||||
| Cost of capital2 | |||||||
| Invested capital3 | |||||||
| Economic profit4 | |||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
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
= – × =
Analysis of the financial performance between May 2014 and May 2019 reveals a persistent inability to generate positive economic profit, indicating that the returns on invested capital remained below the company's cost of capital throughout the entire period.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT exhibited significant volatility, starting at 2,219,325 thousand USD in 2014 before dropping to a period low of 1,616,844 thousand USD in 2015. A recovery trend followed, peaking at 2,274,308 thousand USD by 2019. Despite these fluctuations, the operating profit did not grow at a rate sufficient to offset the capital requirements and associated costs.
- Invested Capital Trends
- The capital base remained relatively stable between 2014 and 2017, fluctuating around 18 to 19 billion USD. However, a substantial increase occurred in May 2018, where invested capital surged to 27,608,082 thousand USD. This sharp increase in the asset base represents a significant expansion in the resources required to generate operating income.
- Cost of Capital
- The cost of capital remained within a narrow range, peaking at 12.57% in 2016 and reaching a minimum of 10.09% in 2018. While the decrease in the cost of capital in 2018 was a positive development, it was insufficient to counteract the simultaneous surge in invested capital.
- Economic Profit Performance
- Economic profit remained negative for all six years analyzed, confirming that the entity destroyed economic value during this timeframe. The most significant deficit occurred in 2018, reaching -864,292 thousand USD. This decline correlates directly with the sharp increase in invested capital, which raised the total capital charge beyond the capacity of the NOPAT to cover it. Although a slight recovery in economic profit was observed in 2019, the value remained negative at -691,068 thousand USD.
The overall trend indicates a structural challenge where the expansion of the capital base in 2018 intensified the negative economic profit. The inability to align NOPAT growth with the cost of the expanded invested capital resulted in a sustained period of value erosion.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
1 Elimination of deferred tax expense. See details »
2 Addition of increase (decrease) in allowance for doubtful accounts.
3 Addition of increase (decrease) in LIFO reserve. See details »
4 Addition of increase (decrease) in reserve for restructuring and other exit charges.
5 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net earnings attributable to General Mills.
6 2019 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= × =
7 2019 Calculation
Tax benefit of interest expense, net of capitalized interest = Adjusted interest expense, net of capitalized interest × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
8 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net earnings attributable to General Mills.
9 2019 Calculation
Tax expense (benefit) of investment income = Investment income, before tax × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
10 Elimination of after taxes investment income.
The financial data shows the annual performance of the company over a six-year period from 2014 to 2019. Two key metrics are presented: net earnings attributable to the company and net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT).
- Net Earnings Attributable to the Company
- The net earnings exhibit fluctuations throughout the period. Starting from $1,824,400 thousand in 2014, there is a notable decline to $1,221,300 thousand in 2015. This is followed by a recovery phase where net earnings increase to $1,697,400 thousand in 2016 but then slightly dip to $1,657,500 thousand in 2017. The peak is observed in 2018 at $2,131,000 thousand, representing the highest net earnings in this timeframe. However, the following year, 2019, shows a decline to $1,752,700 thousand, reflecting a decrease of approximately 17.8% from the previous year’s peak.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT also shows variability but with a generally increasing trend. It begins at $2,219,325 thousand in 2014 and declines in 2015 to $1,616,844 thousand, mirroring the net earnings pattern. Thereafter, NOPAT steadily recovers and increases, reaching $2,029,941 thousand in 2016 and continuing its ascent with minor fluctuation to $2,079,159 thousand in 2017 and $1,920,512 thousand in 2018. The highest value is recorded in 2019 at $2,274,308 thousand, representing a strong recovery and the highest operational efficiency in terms of post-tax profits over the period.
Overall, both net earnings and NOPAT show an initial decline from 2014 to 2015, likely indicating a challenging year or adverse conditions. Despite this, the company demonstrates resilience with a recovery phase from 2016 onward. Net earnings reach their peak in 2018 but experience a downturn in 2019. Conversely, NOPAT recovers more robustly, peaking in 2019 and displaying stronger operational profitability relative to net earnings. This divergence in the final year may suggest changes in non-operating items, tax impacts, or other factors affecting net earnings differently than operating profit.
Cash Operating Taxes
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
The financial data reveals a fluctuating trend in the income taxes and cash operating taxes over the six-year period.
- Income Taxes
-
Income taxes decreased significantly from 883,300 thousand US dollars in May 2014 to 586,800 thousand US dollars in May 2015, representing a notable reduction.
Subsequently, there was an increase to 755,200 thousand US dollars in May 2016, followed by a decline to 655,200 thousand US dollars in May 2017.
In May 2018, income taxes declined sharply to 57,300 thousand US dollars, marking the lowest point in the period analyzed, before rising to 367,800 thousand US dollars in May 2019.
- Cash Operating Taxes
-
Cash operating taxes exhibited a more stable but variable trend, starting at 821,360 thousand US dollars in May 2014 and decreasing to 676,323 thousand US dollars in May 2015.
There was a slight increase to 745,707 thousand US dollars in May 2016, followed by a decrease to 579,670 thousand US dollars in May 2017.
The value rose again to 674,791 thousand US dollars in May 2018 before declining sharply to 383,900 thousand US dollars in May 2019.
Overall, both income taxes and cash operating taxes show substantial volatility over the years. Income taxes show a steep decline around 2018, while cash operating taxes, although variable, remain generally higher than income taxes except for 2018. The trends suggest potential changes in tax obligations or tax planning strategies impacting these financial items during the examined period.
Invested Capital
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
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 LIFO reserve. See details »
5 Addition of reserve for restructuring and other exit charges.
6 Addition of equity equivalents to stockholders’ equity.
7 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
8 Subtraction of construction in progress.
9 Subtraction of marketable securities.
- Total Reported Debt & Leases
- The total reported debt and leases showed a fluctuating trend over the six-year period. Initially, there was a moderate increase from approximately $9.13 billion in 2014 to $9.58 billion in 2015, followed by a decline to about $8.79 billion in 2016. In 2017, the debt level rose again to roughly $9.93 billion. A significant increase occurred in 2018, reaching approximately $16.32 billion, the highest level in the period analyzed. This peak was followed by a slight reduction to $14.93 billion in 2019, indicating a partial deleveraging but maintaining a relatively high debt position compared to earlier years.
- Stockholders’ Equity
- Stockholders’ equity experienced a downward trajectory between 2014 and 2017, decreasing from approximately $6.53 billion to around $4.33 billion. This decline suggests a reduction in the net value attributable to shareholders during this period. However, equity started to recover in 2018, increasing notably to $6.14 billion, and continued to grow in 2019, reaching about $7.05 billion. The recovery indicates a strengthening of the company’s equity base in the latter years analyzed.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital exhibited relative stability from 2014 to 2017, ranging between approximately $18.4 billion and $19.4 billion. In 2018 there was a marked increase to roughly $27.61 billion, which was sustained in 2019 with a slight decrease to $27.38 billion. This sharp increase in invested capital parallels the rise in total reported debt and leases during the same period, suggesting significant capital allocation or asset acquisition financed largely through debt.
- Overall Analysis
- The financial data indicates that the company increased its leverage significantly in 2018 and maintained a higher debt load in 2019 relative to the earlier years. This period also coincides with a substantial jump in invested capital, signaling possibly intensified investment activity or expansion. Meanwhile, stockholders’ equity contracted from 2014 through 2017 but recovered afterward, possibly reflecting improved profitability or capital injections. The trends suggest a strategic phase of investment funded by increased debt, with signs of balance sheet strengthening towards the end of the period.
Cost of Capital
General Mills Inc., cost of capital calculations
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 21.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26).
1 US$ in thousands
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 – 29.40%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 29.40%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27).
1 US$ in thousands
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: 2017-05-28).
1 US$ in thousands
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: 2016-05-29).
1 US$ in thousands
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: 2015-05-31).
1 US$ in thousands
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: 2014-05-25).
1 US$ in thousands
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
| May 26, 2019 | May 27, 2018 | May 28, 2017 | May 29, 2016 | May 31, 2015 | May 25, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | |||||||
| Economic profit1 | |||||||
| Invested capital2 | |||||||
| Performance Ratio | |||||||
| Economic spread ratio3 | |||||||
| Benchmarks | |||||||
| Economic Spread Ratio, Competitors4 | |||||||
| Coca-Cola Co. | |||||||
| Mondelēz International Inc. | |||||||
| PepsiCo Inc. | |||||||
| Philip Morris International Inc. | |||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
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 financial performance from 2014 to 2019 is characterized by a persistent failure to generate positive economic value, as evidenced by consistently negative economic profit and economic spread ratios. The analysis indicates that the returns on invested capital did not exceed the company's cost of capital throughout the entire reporting period, resulting in a destruction of shareholder value.
- Economic Profit Trends
- Economic profit remained negative for all six years, exhibiting significant volatility. Following a relatively low loss in 2014, losses expanded sharply in 2015 to -678.2 million. A recovery trend was observed between 2016 and 2017, with the loss narrowing to -136.2 million by May 2017. However, this progress was reversed in 2018, when economic profit fell to its lowest point in the series at -864.3 million, before slightly improving to -691.1 million in 2019.
- Invested Capital Dynamics
- Invested capital remained relatively stable between 2014 and 2017, fluctuating within a range of approximately 18.4 billion to 19.4 billion. A substantial increase occurred in 2018, where invested capital rose to 27.6 billion, representing a significant expansion of the capital base. This figure remained largely stable into 2019, closing at 27.4 billion.
- Economic Spread Ratio Analysis
- The economic spread ratio, which measures the difference between the return on invested capital and the cost of capital, remained negative throughout the period. The ratio deteriorated from -0.51% in 2014 to -3.52% in 2015, then improved steadily to -0.72% by 2017. The spike in invested capital in 2018 coincided with a sharp decline in the spread ratio to -3.13%, suggesting that the additional capital deployed did not generate sufficient returns to offset its cost. A marginal recovery to -2.52% was noted in 2019, although the ratio remains well below the break-even point of 0%.
The correlation between the surge in invested capital in 2018 and the simultaneous decline in both economic profit and the spread ratio suggests that the capital expansion during that period was not accretive to economic value. The overall trend reflects a struggle to align capital deployment with a return rate that exceeds the weighted average cost of capital.
Economic Profit Margin
| May 26, 2019 | May 27, 2018 | May 28, 2017 | May 29, 2016 | May 31, 2015 | May 25, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | |||||||
| Economic profit1 | |||||||
| Net sales | |||||||
| Performance Ratio | |||||||
| Economic profit margin2 | |||||||
| Benchmarks | |||||||
| Economic Profit Margin, Competitors3 | |||||||
| Coca-Cola Co. | |||||||
| Mondelēz International Inc. | |||||||
| PepsiCo Inc. | |||||||
| Philip Morris International Inc. | |||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-05-26), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-05-27), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-05-28), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-05-29), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-05-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-05-25).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 2019 Calculation
Economic profit margin = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Net sales
= 100 × ÷ =
3 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The financial performance from May 2014 to May 2019 is characterized by a consistent failure to generate positive economic value, as evidenced by negative economic profit and economic profit margins across the entire six-year period. This indicates that the returns generated were insufficient to cover the company's cost of capital.
- Economic Profit Trends
- Economic profit remained negative throughout the analyzed period, exhibiting significant volatility. A sharp decline occurred between 2014 and 2015, where the deficit increased from -98,765 thousand to -678,204 thousand. While a recovery trend was observed through 2017, reaching a relative high of -136,169 thousand, this progress was reversed in 2018 with the period's most significant loss of -864,292 thousand. The period ended with a slight recovery to -691,068 thousand in 2019.
- Net Sales Trajectory
- Net sales experienced a steady decline from May 2014, starting at 17,909,600 thousand and reaching a trough of 15,619,800 thousand in May 2017. Following this low point, a gradual recovery in top-line revenue was observed, with sales increasing to 16,865,200 thousand by May 2019.
- Economic Profit Margin Analysis
- The economic profit margin mirrored the volatility of the absolute economic profit, remaining consistently negative. The margin deteriorated sharply from -0.55% in 2014 to -3.85% in 2015. After improving to -0.87% in 2017, the margin reached its lowest point in 2018 at -5.49%, suggesting a severe disconnect between operational returns and the cost of capital during that fiscal year. By 2019, the margin improved slightly to -4.10%.
Overall, the data demonstrates a correlation between declining net sales and fluctuating economic losses. The most critical period of value destruction occurred in 2018, where the combination of low sales relative to the 2014 peak and the highest absolute economic loss resulted in the widest negative margin of the period.