学习必需的技术技能，从而掌握分析财务报表和披露财务信息用于财务分析的能力，并了解会计标准和高管层激励对财务报告流程的影响。学完本课程后，您将学会阅读三种最常见的财务报表：利润表、资产负债表和现金收支一览表。然后，您可以运用所学技能处理现实商务挑战，这也是沃顿商学院商务基础专项课程的组成部分。
3.3.1: 更多现金流量表 (SCF) 主题和息税折旧摊销前利润 (EBITDA)
Loading...
Из курса от партнера University of Pennsylvania
财务会计概论（中文版）
56 оценки
Из урока
第 3 周: 周现金流
现金为王！ 首先我们要根据活动目的将现金流分为经营现金流、投资现金流和融资现金流几类。 然后我们将建立和分析现金流量表。 我们将为前面用作示例的创业公司建立和分析现金流量表，对该公司之前的案例进行总结。 最后，我们将讨论营运收入、营运现金流、息税折旧摊销前利润 (EBITDA) 和净现金流的区别。
Познакомьтесь с преподавателями
Brian J BusheeThe Geoffrey T. Boisi Professor
Accounting
Hello, I'm Professor Brian Bushee, welcome back.
In this video we're going to tackle a number of miscellaneous cash flow
topics that I haven't gotten to yet.
First, we'll talk about how to treat a gain or loss on sale of property, plant,
and equipment on the cash flow statement.
Then we'll talk about some complications in how things
are classified on the statement of cash flows.
And we'll wrap up with a discussion of earnings versus cash flow versus EBITDA
versus free cash flows.
It's a big agenda, so let's get to it.
First, let's look at an example of how to treat a gain on sale of property, plant,
and equipment under the indirect method cash flow statement.
So let's say we sold property, plant, and equipment worth $70 on the books for
$75 cash.
>> How are we able to sell PP&E for more than it is worth?
I bet that never, ever happens in the real world.
>> You're correct that we can't really sell something for more than it's worth
because what somebody pays for it is essentially what the asset is worth.
But I said how much it's worth on the books or the financial statements.
And remember the book value of property, plant,
and equipment is going to be a function of our depreciation assumptions
because it equals the original cost minus the accumulated depreciation.
So if the depreciation assumptions are incorrect, which they always are,
then we're going to end up selling it for more or less than it's on the books.
So think of it this way, if we depreciate something too much,
we drop its value too much, we end up having a gain on sale, which sort of
brings it to the true amount of depreciation over the life of the asset.
If we depreciate something too little, then we'll have a loss on sale,
which again gets us to the true level of depreciation on the asset over its life.
So this gain or loss on sale helps us adjust our incorrect assumptions and
get the true amount of economic depreciation over the life of the asset.
Anyway, that's going to result in a gain of $5,
which will go on the income statement.
>> Excuse me, does this $5 gain count as revenue?
>> Excellent question.
Although this gain will go on the income statement and
increase the income just like revenue would, we're not going to consider a top
line revenue because it's not part of our core business activities.
In other words, we're not in the business of buying and selling buildings.
One implication in this example is because it's not a core business activity,
it's going to be an investing activity.
And because it's an investing activity, we need to remove that
gain out of the operating section and place it into the investing section.
So we're going to consider all $75 of cash that we receive as an investing activity,
which is another indication that we don't treat this as a revenue activity.
Because if it was, it would be part of operating cash flow.
So I'm going to bring back one of the basic examples we did early on,
where we have all of our sales in cash,
all of our cost of goods sold in cash, and then depreciation of $10.
We're going to add to that the gain on sale of property, plant, and equipment,
which goes on the income statement, which would make our net income 35.
Under the direct method cash flow, all of our sales were cash, so
we have collections from customers of 100.
All of our costs of goods sold was in cash, so
we have payments to suppliers of 60.
Depreciation, of course, is not cash, and the gain on sale of property, plant, and
equipment, we want to consider that part of the investing cash flow.
So we ignore that, and we end up with operating cash flow of 40.
And then we have investing cast flow as the full $75 proceeds from sale of PP&E.
Under the indirect method, we start with net income, which is 35.
We add back depreciation expense of 10 because it's a noncash expense, and
then we have to remove the gain, otherwise we'll double count that cash flow.
A gain increases that income, so to remove it, we need to subtract the gain.
Once we do that, we end up with operating cash flow of 40,
so it's the same under the indirect and direct method.
And then we have, again, the full cash flow from the sale of the PP&E,
75, as an investing cash flow.
>> I believe that some students could be confused by this example.
Could you provide the viewers a handy algorithm for
remembering how to adjust for such gains?
>> I do have a little memory device that I use when I teach this on campus, but
I'm trying to think about whether I'm too embarrassed to put this on video.
What the heck, let's do it.
So the way to remember how to deal with gains and
losses on investing activities in the operating section is the hokey pokey.
I don't know if you remember this little song and dance,
but it goes something like this.
You put the gain in, you kick the gain out, you put the gain in, and
you shake it all about.
You do the hokey pokey, and you turn yourself around,
that's what it's all about.
Next I want to talk about some of the complications that you may
run into when looking at a statement of cash flows.
These are not things that we're going to explicitly cover in the course, but
I want you to be aware of them because you will run into them in practice.
And all these complications surround the question, why doesn't the change in
the balance sheet numbers often equal the number on the statement of cash flows?
So in all the examples that we've done so far, when you look at the change in
the balance sheet numbers for say, accounts receivable, it's the exact same
number that you see in the operating section statement of cash flows.
But in real financial statements, you often see it's not the case for
one of these four reasons.
First, there could be non-cash investing in financing activities that relate to
the working capital accounts in the operating section.
An example would be, let's say one of our customers who owes an account receivable
can't pay us cash, so instead they give us a piece of land.
Well, that would be a non-cash transaction.
It would be disclosed at the bottom of the statement of cash flows.
It would also affect the balance sheet number for
accounts receivable, but it wouldn't show up on the cash flow statement because
there's no cash involved.
A more common example would be acquisitions or
divestitures of businesses.
All the cash that companies pay when they acquire another company is considered
an investing cash flow.
But part of the things that companies acquire are working capital assets and
liabilities.
So for instance, let's say a company made an acquisition.
Part of the acquisition, they acquired some accounts receivable.
Those accounts receivable would show up on the balance sheet, but
would not be part of the number in the operating section,
because we want to call that cash flow an investing cash flow.
And we don't want to double count it, so we break it out.
Third, there are foreign currency translation adjustments.
For multinational companies which have subsidiaries in multiple countries,
in different currencies,
what we do is we take any effect of exchange rate movements and
break them out of the operating section of the cash flow, showing them at the bottom.
So a foreign exchange rate movement would affect the balance of say,
accounts receivable or inventory in the balance sheet, but
we wouldn't show it in the operating section of the statement of cash flows.
>> Foreign currency, what what whats?
Does anyone even do these in the real world?
>> Do you mean the MTV show The Real World or in practice?
because if you're talking about the MTV show The Real World,
I don't think they did any foreign currency translation adjustments.
It seems more like a Jersey Shore thing.
Anyway, this is a pretty advanced topic.
It's something I cover in a second year elective, so
we're not going to go into this in detail in this course.
I just wanted you to be aware of the fact that all of the effects of exchange rate
movements on a cash flow statement are broken out on one line item in the bottom,
so that when you look at the operating section, what you're seeing are changes in
accounts due to real activities, not due to exchange rate movements.
The last complication is that sometimes companies have subsidiaries in different
industries which affect what is considered operating versus investing activities.
So let's think back to our company before that made the pills to cure grey hair,
not that grey hair needs to be cured.
Let's say this company goes out and buys a real estate subsidiary.
What would happen then is the pharmaceutical company buys land,
it would be considered an investing activity.
But if the real estate subsidiary buys land, it would be considered an operating
activity because that's part of their core operations.
So the same transaction of buying land can show up as either operating or investing.
Now companies in this situation will sometimes produce
separate cash flow statements to help investors see
these different activities match up in the different subsidiaries.
Next, I want to talk about disagreements that analysts and
investors have over the FASB classification of a couple items.
I know it's hard to believe that people would disagree with the FASB, but
there are a couple disagreements out there.
The first, many investors and
analysts prefer to classify interest payments as a financing activity, and
interest and dividends received on an investment as an investing activity.
Under IFRS, a company could put those activities in the different buckets.
But remember, under US GAAP you're required to call those operating.
So one thing the FASB did is they required a disclosure of cash paid for interest.
So if investors or analysts want to take it out of operating they can easily
subtract it because that disclosure is provided.
Another disagreement is that all income tax effects are shown in the operating
section even if the income relates to financing or investing activities.
So if there's an income tax effect from getting say a gain on selling property,
plant, and equipment, which would be an investing activity,
the tax effects show up as operating.
So the FASB requires that all cash taxes paid must be disclosed.
Again, so if you don't think that cash taxes should be part of operating,
you can take them all out in your calculation.
Next, I want to talk about this measure EBITDA, which is defined as earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.
EBITDA is often used by investors and analysts as a proxy for
operating cash flow.
And because it excludes interest and taxes, it solves for
that problem that we talked about on the last slide.
However, EBITDA does not do a good job of measuring cash flow if there
are large changes in working capital, like accounts receivable or inventory.
And in fact, it suffers from the same manipulation potential as net income.
So for example, let's think of a company that does channel stuffing.
Channel stuffing is the situation where at the end of a quarter,
the company's trying to meet an earnings target.
So they ship a bunch of product to customers in order to book the revenue,
which would then increase earnings and of course, then increase EBITDA.
But there's no cash that's collected, the customers haven't paid us yet.
Instead accounts receivable go up.
So EBITDA would consider this channel staffing as a cash flow, but
it's not a cash flow.
Now if we took EBITDA and adjusted for this increase in accounts receivable,
then we would have a good measure of cash flow.
And I'm going to talk about this more in the next video.
>> I believe this is not correct.
Everyone knows that EBITDA is the best measure of cash.
>> Now I feel pretty strongly that EBITDA is not a good measure of cash flow.
Because unless you adjust for these changes in working capital,
then EBITDA is just as easy to manipulate as earnings is.
What we're going to do in the next video is a case where we'll highlight some of
these drawbacks of EBITDA, and
I'll show you when it's not a great measure of cash flow.
And then, one more point on this.
You often hear people talking about cash is king, implying that you should only
look at cash from operations or EBITDA as a proxy for cash from operations,
and not even look at earnings, because it's too easy to manipulate.
Well, there's actually been a lot of academic research that's
looked at this question of earnings versus cash flow.
And it finds that earnings are a better predictor of future cash flows than
current cash flow from operations.
The reason is that earnings is trying to measure the creation of value.
It's trying to answer the question, are you able to price your product of service
high enough to cover all the costs of doing business?
If so, you tend to get high cash flows in the future,
even if it turns out you don't happen to have high cash flows this period.
Where as cash from operations can be much more susceptible to timing effects,
which is something we'll look at in the next video.
But the good news is, you don't have to choose one or the other.
You get both earnings and cash flow from operations.
And academic research is very clear that if you put both measures in together,
you get the best predictions of how a company's going to do in
the future in terms of its future cash flows.
>> I bet that accounting professors did the research to show that earnings is
better than cash flow.
Is that really the case in the real world?
>> Yes, it was mostly accounting researchers that did this research.
But is there anything wrong with that?
The data that they looked at, though, came from real companies looking at long time
series of data from 1962 to the present, and it's a very robust result that
earnings are a better predictor of future cash flows than current cash flows.
But again, the research emphasizes the best prediction
comes from including both measures together.
The last topic of this video is that I want to briefly talk about free cash flow.
Now this is more of a finance topic, where they use free cash flow a lot.
But since we've been talking about cash flows, and
these finance approaches generally pull cash flow numbers
out of the financial statements, I wanted to briefly give you some cautions
that you should have in dealing with free cash flows.
When people talk about free cash flow,
they generally mean operating cash flow minus cash used for long term investments.
There's valuation models out there that show if you forecast out of companies'
free cash flows, discount them back to present value, you'll get a measure of how
much the company should be worth, what it stock price should be.
The problem is that if you look across these measures of free cash flow,
there's often no standard measure for operating cash flow.
So I've got a number of accounting and finance textbooks lying around my office,
and they all seem to define operating cash flows differently.
One book defines it as cash from operations before interest expense, so
using the FASB number and then adjusting for interest expense.
Another defines it as NOPLAT which is net operating profits less adjusted taxes
which would be EBITDA minus cash taxes on EBITDA,
which is not a good measure of cash flow because it doesn't measure cash.
Without changes in working capital, you won't get a measure of cash.
The next one NOPAT minus increases in working capital is a better measure.
NOPAT is net income, adding back interest expense, and then adjusting for
changes in working capital to get closer to cash flow.
Another book called it net income adjusted for
depreciation, other non-cash items minus an increase in working capital.
Which I guess would be okay as long as the depreciation was after tax,
because net income is after tax.
Another said gross up, earnings before interest in taxes and add depreciation.
And a lot of them just say EBITDA without defining what it is.
And on top of this another problem you'll encounter is companies will offer
disclosed free cash flows using their own custom definition.
And what you'll find is that definition often changes across companies,
or companies will change it across years.
So if you're using any kind of cash flow measure,
the most important thing is to figure out how it's actually defined,
because some of these measures are defined much better than others.
>> I believe a better approach than telling us everyone is wrong would be
telling us what is correct.
>> I'm not saying everyone is wrong,
I'm just saying some people are more correct than others.
I think there's two approaches that would give you a really good cash flow from
operations number.
The first approach would be to take the cash from operations from
the cash flow statement which uses the FASB classification, and
then subtract out cash paid for interest and cash paid for
taxes, which are disclosed somewhere else in the report.
The second way would be to start with EBITDA and then adjust for
these changes in working capital, like receivables, inventories, and payables,
using the balance sheet equation like we do under the indirect method.
In the next video,
we'll look at a case which will better highlight some of these advantages and
disadvantages of these different managers for cash flow operations.
So I know that's a lot to throw at you in one video.
What we're going to do in the next video
is look at a couple of examples which will give us more
practice on putting together cash flow statements under the indirect method.
It will give us some practice on handling gains and losses on sale of property,
plant, and equipment in the cash flow statement.
And it will allow us to continue our discussion of earnings versus cash flow
versus EBITDA.
I'll see you then.
>> I believe that we will see you next video.
Ознакомьтесь с нашим каталогом
Присоединяйтесь бесплатно и получайте персонализированные рекомендации, обновления и предложения.
Coursera делает лучшее в мире образование доступным каждому, предлагая онлайн-курсы от ведущих университетов и организаций.
© Coursera Inc., 2018 Все права защищены.
