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
Emerson Electric Co. pages available for free this week:
- Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
- Cash Flow Statement
- Common-Size Balance Sheet: Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
- Analysis of Profitability Ratios
- DuPont Analysis: Disaggregation of ROE, ROA, and Net Profit Margin
- Analysis of Reportable Segments
- Analysis of Geographic Areas
- Common Stock Valuation Ratios
- Present Value of Free Cash Flow to Equity (FCFE)
- Return on Assets (ROA) since 2005
The data is hidden behind: . Unhide it.
Get full access to the entire website from $10.42/mo, or
get 1-month access to Emerson Electric Co. for $22.49.
This is a one-time payment. There is no automatic renewal.
We accept:
Economic Profit
| 12 months ended: | Sep 30, 2019 | Sep 30, 2018 | Sep 30, 2017 | Sep 30, 2016 | Sep 30, 2015 | Sep 30, 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT)1 | |||||||
| Cost of capital2 | |||||||
| Invested capital3 | |||||||
| Economic profit4 | |||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
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 between September 30, 2014, and September 30, 2019, demonstrates fluctuating financial performance as measured by economic profit. Net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT) exhibited volatility, while the cost of capital remained relatively stable, and invested capital generally decreased over the observed timeframe.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT began at US$2,212 million in 2014, increased to US$2,871 million in 2015, then declined significantly to US$1,731 million in 2016. A modest recovery to US$1,776 million occurred in 2017, followed by increases to US$2,124 million in 2018 and US$2,461 million in 2019. This indicates a period of initial growth, a substantial downturn, and a subsequent, though uneven, recovery in operational profitability.
- Cost of Capital
- The cost of capital experienced minor fluctuations throughout the period. It started at 18.71% in 2014, decreased to 17.59% in 2015, and then rose to 19.30% in 2018 before settling at 18.93% in 2019. The changes were relatively small, suggesting a consistent cost of funding capital throughout the period.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital generally trended downward. Beginning at US$17,628 million in 2014, it decreased to US$15,181 million in 2017. A slight increase to US$15,617 million was observed in 2018, followed by a further increase to US$16,266 million in 2019. This suggests a reduction in the capital employed by the business, with a modest reversal in the final two years.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit remained negative throughout the entire period, indicating that the company’s returns did not exceed its cost of capital. The largest negative economic profit was recorded in 2014 at US$-1,085 million. It improved to US$-177 million in 2015, but then worsened to US$-1,232 million in 2016. Subsequent years showed a gradual, though incomplete, improvement, with economic profit reaching US$-619 million in 2019. While the magnitude of the loss decreased, the company consistently failed to generate returns sufficient to cover its cost of capital.
In summary, while NOPAT demonstrated some recovery towards the end of the period, the consistently negative economic profit suggests ongoing challenges in generating returns that adequately compensate for the cost of invested capital. The decreasing trend in invested capital may reflect strategic decisions to optimize capital allocation, but has not yet translated into positive economic profit.
Net Operating Profit after Taxes (NOPAT)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
1 Elimination of deferred tax expense. See details »
2 Addition of increase (decrease) in allowances.
3 Addition of increase (decrease) in product warranty.
4 Addition of increase (decrease) in liability for restructuring costs.
5 Addition of increase (decrease) in equity equivalents to net earnings common stockholders.
6 2019 Calculation
Interest expense on capitalized operating leases = Operating lease liability × Discount rate
= × =
7 2019 Calculation
Tax benefit of interest expense = Adjusted interest expense × Statutory income tax rate
= × 21.00% =
8 Addition of after taxes interest expense to net earnings common stockholders.
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.
11 Elimination of discontinued operations.
The analysis of the financial data for the period from September 30, 2014, to September 30, 2019, reveals notable fluctuations in key profitability metrics.
- Net Earnings Common Stockholders
- The net earnings attributable to common stockholders demonstrate variability over the periods considered. Initially, there was an increase from 2,147 million USD in 2014 to a peak of 2,710 million USD in 2015. This was followed by a significant decrease to 1,635 million USD in 2016 and a slight further reduction to 1,518 million USD in 2017. Subsequently, the earnings recovered, rising to 2,203 million USD in 2018 and marginally improving to 2,306 million USD by 2019. This pattern suggests volatility in profitability, with a notable dip in the middle years before recovery in the latter two years.
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- NOPAT shows a similar trend to net earnings, with an increase from 2,212 million USD in 2014 to 2,871 million USD in 2015, followed by a substantial decrease to 1,731 million USD in 2016. Unlike net earnings, NOPAT stabilizes somewhat in 2017 with a slight increase to 1,776 million USD. In the subsequent years, NOPAT rises consistently, reaching 2,124 million USD in 2018 and 2,461 million USD in 2019. This trend indicates a recovery in operating profitability after a period of decline, with steady improvements in the final two years.
Overall, both net earnings and NOPAT experienced a peak in 2015, followed by a decline over the next one to two years, and then a recovery phase from 2017 onward. The recovery in NOPAT appears somewhat stronger and more consistent than that in net earnings. These trends highlight periods of operational challenges and subsequent improvement in financial performance.
Cash Operating Taxes
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
- Income Tax Expense
- The income tax expense demonstrated a fluctuating downward trend over the six-year period. Starting at $1,164 million in 2014, it increased to a peak of $1,428 million in 2015. However, from 2015 onwards, the figure declined significantly to $697 million in 2016 and further decreased to $660 million in 2017. The downward trend continued, reaching a low of $443 million in 2018, before showing a modest increase to $531 million in 2019. This pattern suggests variability in taxable income or changes in tax rates, with a notable reduction after 2015 and slight recovery toward 2019.
- Cash Operating Taxes
- Cash operating taxes followed a similar overall declining trajectory with some variation. Beginning at $1,394 million in 2014, the amount rose to $1,525 million in 2015, indicating higher cash tax payments that year. Subsequently, there was a sharp decline to $782 million in 2016 and a marginal decrease to $766 million in 2017. The downward movement persisted, with taxes dropping to $737 million in 2018 and then declining further to $619 million in 2019. This trend mirrors the reduction observed in income tax expense, possibly reflecting lower taxable income or effective tax management strategies resulting in decreased cash tax obligations over time.
Invested Capital
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
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 product warranty.
5 Addition of liability for restructuring costs.
6 Addition of equity equivalents to common stockholders’ equity.
7 Removal of accumulated other comprehensive income.
8 Subtraction of construction in progress.
- Total Reported Debt & Leases
- The total reported debt and leases exhibited a non-linear trend over the analyzed periods. It increased from 6,834 million USD in 2014 to peak at 7,624 million USD in 2015, followed by a reduction to 5,137 million USD in 2017. Subsequently, the amount rose again, reaching 6,191 million USD by 2019. This pattern suggests fluctuations in debt management, with a notable decrease in the middle period before a moderate rebound.
- Common Stockholders’ Equity
- Common stockholders’ equity showed a general decline from 10,119 million USD in 2014 to 7,568 million USD in 2016. Thereafter, it increased to 8,947 million USD in 2018, before descending again to 8,233 million USD in 2019. This series of movements indicates some volatility but overall a downward pressure on equity levels during the period.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital steadily decreased from 17,628 million USD in 2014 to a low of 15,181 million USD in 2017. After 2017, it gradually increased to 16,266 million USD by 2019. The downward trend in the initial years followed by a recovery suggests adjustments in the company's capital investment strategy or asset base.
- Overall Observations
- The data reflects a period of financial adjustment, with both liabilities and equity experiencing declines and recoveries at different times. The decrease in invested capital up until 2017, coupled with reduced debt levels in the same period, could indicate an active effort to deleverage or optimize capital structure. Subsequently, the increases in debt and invested capital alongside fluctuating equity values imply dynamic financial management responsive to changing conditions or strategic priorities.
Cost of Capital
Emerson Electric Co., 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: 2019-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
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 – 24.50%) | = | ||||||||
| Operating lease liability4 | ÷ | = | × | × (1 – 24.50%) | = | ||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
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: 2017-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
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: 2016-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
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: 2015-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
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: 2014-09-30).
1 US$ in millions
2 Equity. See details »
3 Debt. See details »
4 Operating lease liability. See details »
Economic Spread Ratio
| Sep 30, 2019 | Sep 30, 2018 | Sep 30, 2017 | Sep 30, 2016 | Sep 30, 2015 | Sep 30, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
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 period between September 30, 2014, and September 30, 2019, demonstrates a fluctuating, but generally improving, financial performance as measured by economic value added metrics. While economic profit remained negative throughout the observed timeframe, the magnitude of the losses decreased over the years. Invested capital experienced a decline initially, followed by a period of relative stabilization and a slight increase towards the end of the period. The economic spread ratio, reflecting the efficiency of capital allocation, exhibited a similar pattern of improvement.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit consistently registered as a negative value across all reported years. The largest loss occurred in 2014, at -US$1,085 million. Subsequent years showed reductions in the size of the loss, reaching -US$619 million in 2019. This indicates a gradual improvement in the company’s ability to generate returns exceeding its cost of capital, although it did not achieve positive economic profit during this period.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital decreased from US$17,628 million in 2014 to US$15,181 million in 2017, representing a substantial reduction in capital employed. A modest increase was then observed in 2018 to US$15,617 million, followed by a further increase to US$16,266 million in 2019. This suggests a period of capital optimization followed by reinvestment or a change in capital structure.
- Economic Spread Ratio
- The economic spread ratio, expressed as a percentage, began at -6.16% in 2014. It improved significantly to -1.02% in 2015, before worsening again to -7.46% in 2016. From 2016, the ratio showed a consistent, albeit slow, upward trend, reaching -3.81% in 2019. This improvement suggests that the company became more efficient in generating returns on its invested capital over time, narrowing the gap between its cost of capital and its return on investment. The negative values consistently indicate that returns were still below the cost of capital, but the magnitude of the shortfall lessened.
Overall, the trend suggests a positive trajectory in the company’s economic performance, despite continued negative economic profit. The decreasing magnitude of losses, coupled with the improving economic spread ratio, indicates a strengthening of the company’s financial position and a more effective utilization of invested capital.
Economic Profit Margin
| Sep 30, 2019 | Sep 30, 2018 | Sep 30, 2017 | Sep 30, 2016 | Sep 30, 2015 | Sep 30, 2014 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in millions) | |||||||
| Economic profit1 | |||||||
| Net sales | |||||||
| 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: 2019-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2018-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2017-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2016-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-09-30), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-09-30).
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 period between September 30, 2014, and September 30, 2019, demonstrates a fluctuating, but generally improving, economic profit margin. While economic profit remained negative throughout the observed timeframe, the magnitude of the loss decreased over the years. Net sales also exhibited volatility, impacting the economic profit margin calculations.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit consistently registered as a negative value across all reported years. The largest loss occurred in 2014, at -US$1,085 million. Losses decreased to -US$177 million in 2015, before increasing again to -US$1,232 million in 2016. Subsequent years showed a gradual reduction in the size of the loss, reaching -US$619 million by 2019. This suggests improving operational efficiency or capital allocation over time, despite not yet achieving positive economic profit.
- Net Sales
- Net sales experienced significant variation. A decrease from US$24,537 million in 2014 to US$22,304 million in 2015 was followed by a substantial decline to US$14,522 million in 2016. Sales then recovered, reaching US$15,264 million in 2017, US$17,408 million in 2018, and further increasing to US$18,372 million in 2019. This sales volatility likely influenced the fluctuations observed in economic profit.
- Economic Profit Margin
- The economic profit margin mirrored the trends in economic profit, expressed as a percentage of net sales. The margin was -4.42% in 2014, improved to -0.79% in 2015, then deteriorated to -8.48% in 2016, coinciding with the lowest sales figures. A consistent upward trend was then observed, with the margin improving to -7.33% in 2017, -5.12% in 2018, and finally reaching -3.37% in 2019. This indicates that while the company did not generate positive economic profit, its ability to generate economic profit relative to sales improved over the period.
In summary, the company experienced negative economic profit throughout the analyzed period, but demonstrated a positive trend in its economic profit margin, particularly from 2016 onwards. This improvement appears linked to both increasing net sales and a reduction in the magnitude of economic losses.