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
Reynolds American Inc. pages available for free this week:
- Analysis of Profitability Ratios
- Analysis of Liquidity Ratios
- Analysis of Short-term (Operating) Activity Ratios
- Enterprise Value to EBITDA (EV/EBITDA)
- Enterprise Value to FCFF (EV/FCFF)
- Net Profit Margin since 2005
- Debt to Equity since 2005
- Price to Earnings (P/E) since 2005
- Price to Book Value (P/BV) since 2005
- Analysis of Debt
The data is hidden behind: . Unhide it.
Get full access to the entire website from $10.42/mo, or
get 1-month access to Reynolds American Inc. for $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
Reynolds American Inc., economic profit calculation
US$ in millions
| 12 months ended: | Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | Dec 31, 2013 | Dec 31, 2012 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT)1 | ||||||
| Cost of capital2 | ||||||
| Invested capital3 | ||||||
| Economic profit4 | ||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 NOPAT. See details »
2 Cost of capital. See details »
3 Invested capital. See details »
4 2016 Calculation
Economic profit = NOPAT – Cost of capital × Invested capital
= – × =
Reynolds American Inc. demonstrated fluctuating economic performance between 2012 and 2016. Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT), cost of capital, and invested capital all exhibited distinct trends impacting the company’s economic profit.
- NOPAT Trend
- NOPAT increased significantly from US$1,384 million in 2012 to US$2,217 million in 2013. A subsequent decline to US$1,432 million occurred in 2014, followed by a substantial increase to US$2,912 million in 2015. The most significant rise was observed in 2016, with NOPAT reaching US$6,935 million.
- Cost of Capital Trend
- The cost of capital experienced a slight increase from 8.73% in 2012 to 8.82% in 2013, then rose more noticeably to 9.12% in 2014. A decrease to 8.56% was seen in 2015, followed by a return to 9.06% in 2016. These fluctuations suggest sensitivity to market conditions or changes in the company’s capital structure.
- Invested Capital Trend
- Invested capital remained relatively stable between 2012 and 2014, fluctuating around US$10 billion. A dramatic increase occurred in 2015, reaching US$45,105 million, and remained high in 2016 at US$44,972 million. This substantial rise likely reflects significant capital investments or acquisitions.
- Economic Profit Trend
- Economic profit mirrored the interplay between NOPAT, cost of capital, and invested capital. Positive economic profit was recorded from 2012 to 2014, peaking at US$1,292 million in 2013. A negative economic profit of US$948 million was observed in 2015, coinciding with the large increase in invested capital. Economic profit rebounded strongly in 2016 to US$2,860 million, driven by the substantial increase in NOPAT.
The significant increase in invested capital in 2015, without a corresponding immediate increase in NOPAT, resulted in a negative economic profit for that year. However, the subsequent growth in NOPAT in 2016 was sufficient to overcome the higher capital base and generate a substantial positive economic profit. The company’s ability to generate economic profit appears strongly correlated with its NOPAT performance.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Reynolds American Inc., NOPAT calculation
US$ in millions
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 Elimination of deferred tax expense. See details »
2 Addition of increase (decrease) in LIFO reserve. See details »
3 Addition of increase (decrease) in deferred revenue, related party.
4 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net income.
5 2016 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= × =
6 2016 Calculation
Tax benefit of interest and debt expense = Adjusted interest and debt expense × Statutory income tax rate
= × 35.00% =
7 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net income.
8 2016 Calculation
Tax expense (benefit) of investment income = Investment income, before tax × Statutory income tax rate
= × 35.00% =
9 Elimination of after taxes investment income.
10 Elimination of discontinued operations.
- Net Income
- Net income exhibited a positive trend over the five-year period. Starting at 1,272 million US dollars in 2012, it increased to 1,718 million US dollars in 2013, representing a strong growth. A decline occurred in 2014 to 1,470 million US dollars, followed by a substantial rise in 2015 to 3,253 million US dollars. The upward momentum continued sharply in 2016, reaching 6,073 million US dollars. Overall, this reflects significant growth with some volatility, especially the strong rebound after 2014.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT values followed a pattern similar to net income but with greater relative fluctuations. Beginning at 1,384 million US dollars in 2012, NOPAT increased notably to 2,217 million US dollars in 2013. It then declined to 1,432 million US dollars in 2014, mirroring the dip in net income. A strong recovery was observed in 2015, with NOPAT more than doubling from the prior year to 2,912 million US dollars. This trend continued with an even sharper increase to 6,935 million US dollars in 2016, surpassing the net income growth rate during the same period. This indicates improving operational efficiency or profitability after taxes, especially in the later years.
- Overall Analysis
- Both net income and NOPAT demonstrated significant growth between 2012 and 2016, with a noticeable dip in 2014 followed by rapid recovery and acceleration in the subsequent years. The company's profitability, both at the net income level and operational profit after tax level, suggests effective management of operations and potentially enhanced revenue streams or cost efficiencies post-2014. The sharper rise in NOPAT compared to net income in 2015 and 2016 may indicate improved operational performance relative to other income components such as non-operating expenses or taxes. These patterns imply a strong financial performance trajectory in the latter part of the analyzed period.
Cash Operating Taxes
Reynolds American Inc., cash operating taxes calculation
US$ in millions
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
- Provision for income taxes
- The provision for income taxes exhibited an overall increasing trend from 2012 to 2016. The value rose notably from 681 million in 2012 to 1023 million in 2013, indicating a significant increase early in the period. However, in 2014, the provision decreased to 817 million, signaling a temporary decline. Subsequently, there was a sharp and substantial increase to 3131 million in 2015, followed by a further increase to 3618 million in 2016. This pattern suggests a considerable rise in tax liability or changes in tax provision accounting during the latter years.
- Cash operating taxes
- Cash operating taxes showed some fluctuations but generally increased over the five-year span. Starting at 805 million in 2012, the amount remained relatively stable at 801 million in 2013. It rose to 1096 million in 2014, marking the beginning of a more pronounced increase. In 2015, cash operating taxes surged dramatically to 3988 million, representing a significant outflow compared to prior years. However, there was a decline to 3456 million in 2016, indicating some reduction in cash taxes paid, though still well above earlier period levels. This suggests modifications in operational cash tax payments or timing differences.
Invested Capital
Reynolds American Inc., invested capital calculation (financing approach)
US$ in millions
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 Addition of capitalized operating leases.
2 Elimination of deferred taxes from assets and liabilities. See details »
3 Addition of LIFO reserve. See details »
4 Addition of deferred revenue, related party.
5 Addition of equity equivalents to shareholders’ equity.
6 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
7 Subtraction of construction-in-process.
8 Subtraction of marketable securities.
- Total reported debt & leases
-
The total reported debt and leases remained relatively stable between 2012 and 2014, with values hovering slightly above 5,100 million US dollars. However, there was a significant increase in 2015, where the figure more than tripled to 17,473 million US dollars. This substantial rise was followed by a decline in 2016 to 13,190 million US dollars, though the amount remained considerably higher than in the initial three years.
- Shareholders’ equity
-
Shareholders’ equity displayed a slight downward trend from 2012 to 2014, decreasing from 5,257 million US dollars to 4,522 million US dollars. In 2015, it experienced a substantial increase to 18,252 million US dollars, continuing to rise in 2016 to 21,711 million US dollars. This growth mirrors the pattern seen in total reported debt but extends to an even higher level by the end of the period.
- Invested capital
-
Invested capital remained relatively constant and stable from 2012 through 2014, with values just below and around the 10,000 million US dollars mark. There was a marked escalation in 2015 to 45,105 million US dollars, sustaining a similar level in 2016 at 44,972 million US dollars. This sharp increase corresponds with the shifts in both debt and equity, indicating a considerable expansion in the company's capital base during this period.
- Overall Analysis
-
The financial data reveals a period of relative stability from 2012 to 2014, followed by a pronounced transformation starting in 2015. Both total reported debt and shareholders’ equity saw massive increases, which drove a nearly fourfold surge in invested capital. Although total debt decreased somewhat in 2016, it remained significantly elevated compared to the earlier years. The simultaneous rise in equity suggests that the company may have undertaken major financing and capital restructuring initiatives during 2015, resulting in a substantial enlargement of its financial structure. This shift likely reflects strategic decisions impacting the capital composition, potentially involving acquisitions, capital infusion, or other large-scale financial activities.
Cost of Capital
Reynolds American Inc., cost of capital calculations
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Long-term 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 Long-term debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Long-term 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 Long-term debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Long-term 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 Long-term debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Long-term debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
| Capital (fair value)1 | Weights | Cost of capital | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equity2 | ÷ | = | × | = | |||||||||
| Long-term debt3 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 35.00%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Long-term debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
Reynolds American Inc., economic spread ratio calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | Dec 31, 2013 | Dec 31, 2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| 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: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 Invested capital. See details »
3 2016 Calculation
Economic spread ratio = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Invested capital
= 100 × ÷ =
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The economic spread ratio exhibited considerable fluctuation between 2012 and 2016. Initial values indicated a positive spread, which declined significantly before recovering to a level exceeding the initial period. This analysis details the observed trends in economic profit, invested capital, and the resulting economic spread ratio.
- Economic Spread Ratio
- The economic spread ratio began at 4.61% in 2012, demonstrating a substantial increase to 12.33% in 2013. This represents a period of strong performance relative to the cost of capital. A subsequent decrease was observed in 2014, with the ratio falling to 5.59%. The most significant change occurred in 2015, where the ratio became negative at -2.10%, indicating that returns were not covering the cost of capital. The ratio rebounded strongly in 2016, reaching 6.36%, surpassing the initial value from 2012.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit mirrored the trend of the economic spread ratio, though with differing magnitudes. It increased from US$479 million in 2012 to US$1,292 million in 2013, then decreased to US$544 million in 2014. A substantial decline occurred in 2015, resulting in a loss of US$-948 million. Economic profit recovered significantly in 2016, reaching US$2,860 million, the highest value within the observed period.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital remained relatively stable between 2012 and 2014, fluctuating between US$9,728 million and US$10,479 million. A dramatic increase occurred in 2015, rising to US$45,105 million. While remaining high, invested capital decreased slightly in 2016 to US$44,972 million. The substantial increase in invested capital in 2015 likely contributed to the negative economic spread ratio observed in that year, as the increased capital base required a higher level of profit generation to maintain a positive spread.
The period demonstrates a volatile relationship between economic profit, invested capital, and the economic spread ratio. The significant increase in invested capital in 2015 appears to have had a substantial impact on the company’s ability to generate returns exceeding its cost of capital, although performance recovered markedly in the following year.
Economic Profit Margin
Reynolds American Inc., economic profit margin calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | Dec 31, 2013 | Dec 31, 2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | ||||||
| Economic profit1 | ||||||
| Net sales, includes excise taxes | ||||||
| Add: Increase (decrease) in deferred revenue, related party | ||||||
| Adjusted net sales, includes excise taxes | ||||||
| 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: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
1 Economic profit. See details »
2 2016 Calculation
Economic profit margin = 100 × Economic profit ÷ Adjusted net sales, includes excise taxes
= 100 × ÷ =
3 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The economic profit margin exhibited significant fluctuation between 2012 and 2016. Initial values demonstrated positive economic profit, followed by a substantial decline, and then a strong recovery. A detailed examination of the trends is presented below.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit increased considerably from US$479 million in 2012 to US$1,292 million in 2013. This growth slowed in 2014, with economic profit reported at US$544 million. A significant downturn occurred in 2015, resulting in an economic loss of US$948 million. However, 2016 saw a dramatic rebound, with economic profit reaching US$2,860 million.
- Adjusted Net Sales
- Adjusted net sales experienced a slight decrease from US$12,227 million in 2012 to US$11,972 million in 2013. Sales remained relatively stable in 2014 at US$12,080 million before increasing substantially to US$14,885 million in 2015 and further to US$16,918 million in 2016. The growth in sales appears to accelerate in the latter two years.
- Economic Profit Margin
- The economic profit margin began at 3.92% in 2012, increasing sharply to 10.79% in 2013. It then decreased to 4.50% in 2014. The margin turned negative in 2015, reaching -6.37%, reflecting the economic loss experienced that year. A substantial improvement occurred in 2016, with the economic profit margin rising to 16.90%. This indicates a significant increase in profitability relative to sales in the most recent year.
The correlation between adjusted net sales and economic profit margin is not consistently direct. While sales increased in 2015 and 2016, the margin only became strongly positive in 2016. This suggests that factors beyond revenue generation, such as cost management or capital efficiency, played a crucial role in the 2016 performance. The negative margin in 2015, despite increased sales, highlights the importance of considering the cost of capital when evaluating profitability.