According to the behavioral hypothesis, firms with inflated equity seek to acquire undervalued targets using overvalued stocks as a payment method. Consequently, value creation through M&A can occur by identifying undervalued assets and acquire them at a discount (Zenger, 2016). Hence, the thesis intends to further investigate the underlying value of CWEI as it seeks to uncover potential motives for the acquisition by Noble.
6.3.1 DCF Model
Based on the constructed forecast presented in the previous section, expected free cash flow was calculated and discounted by the calculated cost of capital (WACC). By adding the discounted value of the budgeting period (2017-2021) and the discounted terminal value (2022-perp.), the enterprise value was estimated. By subtracting the net bearing interest debt, the market value of equity was retrieved which was then divided by the number of outstanding shares to display a share price.
Figure 35: DCF-model reference case (Compiled by authors, 2018).
Cash flow statement 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e 2021e 2022e
NOPAT 75 106 121 121 120 123 Depreciations -11 -15 -14 -14 -14 -14 Impairments -29 -41 -12 -12 -13 -13 Changes in net working capital -11 -1 0 -0 -0 -0 Non-current operating receivables -128 - - - - -Cash flow from operations -104 49 95 94 93 95 Investments PP&E -91 -331 157 5 7 -4 Free cash flow to the firm -195 -282 252 99 100 91 Changes in NIBD 123 269 -91 15 14 22 Net financial expenses after tax -18 -25 -23 -23 -24 -24 FCFE -90 -38 138 91 90 89 Dividends 90 38 -138 -91 -90 -89
Cash surplus 0 0 0 0 0 0
DCF-model Terminal period Growth
Reference case 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e 2021e 2022e 2,45 %
Free cash flow to the firm -195 -282 252 99 100 91
WACC 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98%
Discount factor 0,926 0,858 0,794 0,736 0,681
Discounted FCFF -180 -242 200 73 68
Discounted, budgeting period -82
Discounted, terminal period 1.120
Enterprise Value 1.039
NIBD 567
Market value of equity 471.640.873 Number of shares 17.629.338
Market value per share 26,75
Budgeting period
91 6.3.2 EVA Model
To ensure an accurate valuation, the EVA model was applied to act as a ‘sanity check’ of the estimated value generated in the DCF model as the two models are theoretically similar (Petersen & Plenborg, 2012).
Figure 36: EVA-model reference case (Compiled by authors, 2018)
Figure 37: Enterprise value from EVA-model (Compiled by authors, 2018)
As be seen from above, the yielded results do not reflect market expectations. The share price until the day before the announcement was $103.65 in comparison to the calculated $26.75. As one must assume that the market has access to all relevant information, one must assume that the underlying estimations on future performance are incorrect (Koller et al, 2010). As a result, it is decided to further investigate the inputs and assumptions applied through a sensitivity analysis.
6.3.3 Sensitivity Analysis
To ensure the valuation’s validity, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to further examine the consequences of key value drivers. By performing a sensitivity analysis, an indication of the result’s plausibility can be formed as it provides insights on the assumptions of which the market price is
EVA-model Terminal period Growth
Reference case 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e 2021e 2022e 2,45 %
NOPAT 74,9 106,3 120,8 120,5 119,8 122,7 Invested capital, primo 727,7 997,5 1.385,5 1.254,7 1.276,4 1.296,5
WACC 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98% 7,98%
Capital costs 58,07 79,60 110,56 100,12 101,86 103,46 EVA 16,80 26,70 10,26 20,40 17,93 19,26
Discount factor 0,93 0,86 0,79 0,74 0,68
Capital value EVA 15,6 22,9 8,1 15,0 12,2 Invested capital, primo 727,7
Capital value EVA budgeting period 73,8 Capital value EVA terminal period 237,3 Enterprise value 1.039
NIBD 567
Market value of equity 471.640.873 Number of shares 17.629.338
Market value per share 26,75
Budgeting period
70%
7%
23%
Enterprise value
Invested capital, primoCapital value EVA budgeting period Capital value EVA terminal period
92 based upon (Koller et al., 2010). This thesis have chosen to analyze the effects of WACC and the growth rate as they evidently relate to both the discounted budgeting and the terminal period.
Table 24: Sensitivity analysis, WACC & growth (Compiled by authors, 2018)
The reference case is based on a terminal growth rate of 2.45% and a 7.98% WACC. As can be seen from table 24 above, both the growth rate and WACC have significant impact on CWEI’s share price.
A change of 0.5 percentage points in the WACC results in a 23.13% and -25.01% respectively in CWEI’s share price. By comparison, a change of 0.5 percentage points in the growth rate has an impact on the share’s price by 19.56% and -19.02% respectively.
Figure 38: Terminal period growth vs. change in WACC (Compiled by authors, 2018)
Drawing upon the relationship between the two variables and the share price, the estimated share price of 26.75 is significantly lower than the valuation performed by the market at 103.65. As previously argued, this indicates incorrect assumptions underlying the valuation, as the default assumption is that the market has access to all relevant information and is efficient, i.e. the market is right (Koller, et al., 2010).
5,98% 6,48% 6,98% 7,48% 7,98% 8,48% 8,98% 9,48% 9,98%
0,95% 41,42 32,54 25,17 18,94 13,63 9,04 5,04 1,52 -1,59
1,45% 50,07 39,45 30,79 23,59 17,52 12,33 7,85 3,95 0,52
1,95% 60,89 47,90 37,53 29,08 22,05 16,13 11,07 6,70 2,89
2,45% 74,81 58,46 45,78 35,67 26,75 20,56 14,78 9,84 5,58
2,95% 93,39 72,06 56,10 43,73 33,86 25,80 19,11 13,47 8,65
3,45% 119,46 90,21 69,39 53,81 41,73 32,10 24,24 17,70 12,20
3,95% 158,65 115,67 87,12 66,79 51,59 39,79 30,39 22,71 16,33
WACC
Growth
93 As the forecast is considered well argued for and a sustainable growth rate cannot exceed long-term economic growth, focus is directed towards wrongdoings concerning the weighted average cost of capital. Since smaller companies are to a greater extent affected by economic and interest rate fluctuations, it may be difficult to properly assess CWEI’s cost of raising equity and debt capital. The applied peer beta was based on present day data and the noteworthy volatility in CWEI share price during the examined period shows indication of an ill-applied discount rate. As a result, it was decided to compute a new discount rate (WACC) based on the U.S. E&P industry average return on equity.
Table 25: WACC (Compiled by authors, 2018)
Although the oversimplification is acknowledged, an average industry (E&P) cost of equity of 8.76%
has been applied when computing the WACC in the forecasting period, calculated to 6.03% (NYU Stern, 2018). It was decided to conduct a second valuation based on the new WACC.
Figure 39: EVA-model with a WACC of 6.03% (Compiled by authors, 2018)
Figure 40: Enterprise Value from EVA-model with a WACC of 6.03% (Compiled by authors, 2018)
EVA-model Terminal period Growth
Reference case 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e 2021e 2022e 2,45 %
NOPAT 74,9 106,3 120,8 120,5 119,8 122,7 Invested capital, primo 727,7 997,5 1.385,5 1.254,7 1.276,4 1.296,5
WACC 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03%
Capital costs 43,88 60,15 83,54 75,66 76,97 78,18 EVA 30,99 46,15 37,27 44,86 42,82 44,54
Discount factor 0,94 0,89 0,84 0,79 0,75
Capital value EVA 29,2 41,1 31,3 35,5 32,0 Invested capital, primo 727,7
Capital value EVA budgeting period 169,0 Capital value EVA terminal period 928,5 Enterprise value 1.825
NIBD 567
Market value of equity 1.257.992.392 Number of shares 17.629.338
Market value per share 71,36
Budgeting period
WACC
AVG financial leverage 37,6 %
Unlevered equity 62,4 %
Rd 1,50%
Re 8,76%
WACC 6,03%
94
Figure 41: DCF-model with a WACC of 6.03% (Compiled by authors, 2018)
The valuation based on the lower WACC yields a more reasonable result as it better reflects the market’s valuation of CWEI. Nonetheless, the calculated enterprise value is still lower than what the market perceived it to be.
6.3.4 Scenario Analysis
The thesis has consistently sought to identify crucial factors, which affect CWEI’s performance. The main drivers identified are economic growth and the price of oil, which constitutes CWEI’s revenue equation in terms of volume of oil they can produce and the price they can charge per unit of volume.
Additionally, as a significant portion of the estimated value stems from the terminal period, future economic growth has a great impact on the valuation. As production and economic growth is expected to fluctuate to a lesser extent, focus is directed towards oil price, which are deemed to be exposed to a higher degree of uncertainties.
6.3.4.1 Oil Price
As was elaborated upon in the beginning of the thesis, the pricing mechanism of oil is complex and affected by various economical and geopolitical factors. The great amount of uncertainty regarding future oil prices is thus of great importance when estimating CWEI’s future performance. Long-term estimates of oil prices are to be applied with precaution due to the abovementioned uncertainty.
Nonetheless, oil prices until 2025 computed by professional services is presented below:
DCF-model Terminal period Growth
Reference case 2017e 2018e 2019e 2020e 2021e 2022e 2,45 %
Free cash flow to the firm -195 -282 252 99 100 91
WACC 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03% 6,03%
Discount factor 0,943 0,889 0,839 0,791 0,746
Discounted FCFF -184 -251 211 78 74
Discounted, budgeting period -71
Discounted, terminal period 1.896
Enterprise Value 1.825
NIBD 567
Market value of equity 1.257.992.392 Number of shares 17.629.338
Market value per share 71,36
Budgeting period
95
Table 26: Oil forecast (S&P Capital IQ, 2018)
Figure 42: DCF-model, high oil price scenario (Compiled by authors, 2018)
Figure 43: DCF-model, low oil price scenario (Compiled by authors, 2018)
The scenarios displayed above indicates that commodity prices has a significant impact on CWEI’s performance and valuation. A critical theme is the emphasis on controllability, i.e. to what extent performance is affected by externalities. Additionally, in regard to the valuation performed, the optimistic oil price scenario is the closest to realized market value. This could indicate that the market holds an optimistic view on future oil prices.