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:
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
= – × =
- Net Operating Profit After Taxes (NOPAT)
- The NOPAT values show a generally increasing trend over the observed periods. Starting at 1,384 million USD in 2012, there is a significant increase in 2013 to 2,217 million USD, followed by a decline in 2014 to 1,432 million USD. Subsequently, the NOPAT rises sharply in 2015 to 2,912 million USD and further accelerates to 6,935 million USD in 2016, indicating strong profitability growth in the later years.
- Cost of Capital
- The cost of capital remains relatively stable over the years, fluctuating slightly between 7.67% and 8.15%. This consistency indicates the company’s capital costs did not experience significant volatility, maintaining an average slightly above 7.8% with a small dip in 2015.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital exhibits a notable pattern with fairly stable values around the range of 9,728 million USD to 10,479 million USD from 2012 to 2014. However, there is a dramatic increase in 2015 and 2016, with invested capital rising to approximately 45,105 million USD and 44,972 million USD respectively. This sharp increase suggests substantial capital expansion or acquisition activity in these later years.
- Economic Profit
- Economic profit, calculated as the value created beyond the cost of capital, shows volatility throughout the period. It begins positively at 573 million USD in 2012 and grows to 1,390 million USD in 2013. A drop to 639 million USD occurs in 2014, followed by a negative economic profit of -548 million USD in 2015, indicating a period where returns did not cover the cost of capital. Recovery is evident in 2016, with economic profit rising significantly to 3,293 million USD, reflecting improved efficiency or profitability in relation to invested capital.
- Summary
- Overall, the financial data reveals a phase of stable operations through 2012 to 2014, followed by considerable expansion in invested capital and improved profitability by 2016. The large jump in invested capital combined with increased NOPAT and economic profit in the later period suggests strategic investments or acquisitions that have positively impacted financial performance. The temporary decline in economic profit in 2015 may reflect integration costs or transitional inefficiencies during this expansion.
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.
- Economic Profit
- The economic profit experienced significant fluctuations over the analyzed periods. Starting at $573 million in 2012, it more than doubled to $1,390 million in 2013, indicating a strong improvement in profitability. However, the figure then declined sharply to $639 million in 2014. A notable downturn occurred in 2015, with economic profit turning negative to -$548 million, which suggests operational or market challenges. The trend reversed dramatically in 2016, with economic profit reaching a peak of $3,293 million, the highest in the observed timeframe, demonstrating substantial recovery and growth.
- Invested Capital
- Invested capital remained relatively stable around $10,000 million from 2012 through 2014, with minor fluctuations. A significant increase took place in 2015, with invested capital rising to approximately $45,105 million, and it remained at a similar elevated level in 2016 at $44,972 million. This sharp rise indicates a major investment or acquisition during this period, which corresponded with the recovery in economic profit observed in 2016.
- Economic Spread Ratio
- The economic spread ratio displayed variability aligned with economic profit trends. It started at 5.53% in 2012, increased markedly to 13.26% in 2013, suggesting improved margin performance. The ratio then declined to 6.57% in 2014 and turned negative to -1.21% in 2015, corresponding to the negative economic profit. In 2016, the ratio rebounded to 7.32%, indicating a restoration of economic value added and improved efficiency following the prior downturn.
Economic Profit Margin
Reynolds American Inc., economic profit margin calculation, comparison to benchmarks
| Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | Dec 31, 2013 | Dec 31, 2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ 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 financial data reveals several noteworthy trends over the five-year period ending December 31, 2016. The economic profit exhibited significant fluctuations, starting at $573 million in 2012 and increasing sharply to $1,390 million in 2013. This was followed by a decline to $639 million in 2014 and a reversal to a negative economic profit of -$548 million in 2015. However, there was a substantial recovery in 2016, with economic profit reaching a high of $3,293 million.
Adjusted net sales, including excise taxes, show a generally upward trajectory. Sales were slightly lower in 2013 compared to 2012, moving from $12,227 million down to $11,972 million, but thereafter demonstrated steady growth each year. By 2016, adjusted net sales had increased significantly to $16,918 million, marking the highest level over the period.
The economic profit margin reflects the volatility observed in the absolute economic profit figures. It rose sharply from 4.69% in 2012 to 11.61% in 2013, declined to 5.29% in 2014, and turned negative at -3.68% in 2015. The margin then rebounded impressively to 19.46% in 2016, correlating with the large increase in economic profit that year.
Overall, the analysis indicates a company experiencing variable profitability with a strong rebound in 2016 after a downturn in 2015. The increase in adjusted net sales throughout the period suggests growth in revenue-generating capacity, while the fluctuations in economic profit and margin highlight changes in operational efficiency or cost management that affected profitability.