By 
What is economic value added (EVA)? What is Market Value Added (MVA)? How do companies choose their value creation strategies? Do higher cash flows automatically result in higher economic profit? How do companies that opt for the highest economic value added compare with companies that opt for the highest market value added? What informs reasonable compensation for managers based on performance metrics? These strategic policy questions relate to a business firm’s profit-producing capacity and optimal cash flow enhancement strategies: the right mix of cash inflows and outflows that maximizes net cash flows and, therefore, therefore, return on investment and shareholder wealth while minimizing the cost of operations. simultaneously.
One of management’s strategic goals is to maximize shareholder value, which is based on the company’s future cash flows. In addition, other management goals include maximizing the company’s share price; and the value of any asset based on the cash flows the asset is expected to produce. Therefore, management strives to maximize the cash flows available to investors. But how does management decide which business actions are most likely to increase those cash flows, and how do investors estimate future cash flows? The answers to these questions may differ markedly, but they lie in a careful analysis of the financial statements that publicly traded companies are required to provide to investors and regulators.
There are divergent cash flow improvement goals and many factors influence effective cash flow improvement strategies. For those familiar with the relevant academic literature, the critical factors are well known and supported by contemporary research. The main goals of effective cash flow improvement strategies and the core elements of effective cash flow improvement strategies are equally well established in the existing academic and professional literature. However, some industry observers and professionals continue to identify profit maximization as the primary goal of a business enterprise. As we have warned in previous reviews and guides, this focus on profit maximization is a bit short-sighted and misguided.
The most common metrics used to determine a company’s value include economic value added (EVA) and market value added (MVA). In practice, there are clear differences between these two valuation strategies, and investors need to know how to use each. Economic Value Added (EVA) and Market Value Added (MVA) are common ways an investor can assess the value of a company. While EVA is useful as a way to assess a company’s economic success, or lack thereof, over a specific period of time, MVA is useful as a measure of wealth, assessing the level of value a company has accumulated over a period of time. time frame.
Some practical guidelines
As we explained in a previous review, cash flows provide critical information about the company’s performance that cannot be discerned through net income analysis. In addition, financial accounting students and professionals know that net income data is more amenable to accounting methods such as inventory and depreciation methods.
The financial statements often do not reflect the market values of the companies, so they are not suitable for the purposes of evaluating the performance of managers. To fill this assessment gap, financial analysts developed two additional performance measures: Economic Market Added (EVA) and Market Value Added (MVA).
The Economic Value Added (EVA) is a performance measure that tries to measure the true economic benefit produced by a company. EVA is often referred to as “economic profit” and provides a measure of a company’s economic success (or failure) over a period of time. Such a benchmark is useful for investors looking to determine how well a company has produced value for its investors, and can be compared to industry benchmarks – the company’s peers for a quick analysis of how well the company is operating in your industry.
Economic profit can be calculated by taking a company’s after-tax net operating profit and subtracting from it the product of the company’s invested capital multiplied by its percentage cost of capital. EVA provides a standardized measure of the wealth that the company generated above its cost of capital during the year.
In practice, the profitability of a company can be evaluated by calculating the EVA, since it focuses on the profitability of a company’s project and, therefore, on the efficiency of the company’s management. Economic value added (EVA) weighs the opportunity cost of alternative investments, while market value added (MVA) does not. EVA as an estimate of a company’s true economic profit often differs considerably from accounting net income because it considers the cost of debt and equity capital, while accounting income only considers the cost of debt capital.
Market value added (MVA), on the other hand, is simply the difference between a company’s current total market value and the capital contributed by investors (including shareholders and bondholders). It is used for companies that are larger and publicly traded. MVA is not a performance benchmark like EVA, but rather a wealth benchmark, which measures the level of value a company has accumulated over time.
As a company performs well over time, it will retain profits. This will improve the book value of the company’s shares, and investors are likely to drive up the prices of those shares in anticipation of future earnings, thereby increasing the company’s market value. When this occurs, the difference between the market value of the company and the capital contributed by investors (its MVA) represents the price of excess or excess that the market assigns to the company as a result of its past operating successes or failures, respectively. .
In short, unlike EVA, MVA is a simple metric of a company’s operating capacity and, as such, does not incorporate the opportunity cost of alternative investments. The positive trending EVA will also help ensure a positive trending MVA. Additionally, while MVA applies to the entire company, EVA can be determined for both business units and the entire company, making it useful as a guide to reasonable compensation for corporate and unit managers.