A daily bite-size selection of top business content.

PM edition. Issue number 1040

Latest 10 stories. Click the button for more.

Quote: Michael Jensen - “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers”

“The interests and incentives of managers and shareholders conflict over such issues as the optimal size of the firm and the payment of cash to shareholders. These conflicts are especially severe in firms with large free cash flows—more cash than profitable investment opportunities.” - Michael Jensen - “Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers”

This work profoundly shifted our understanding of corporate finance and governance by introducing the concept of free cash flow as a double-edged sword: a sign of a firm’s potential strength, but also a source of internal conflict and inefficiency.

Jensen’s insight was to frame the relationship between corporate management (agents) and shareholders (principals) as inherently conflicted, especially when firms generate substantial cash beyond what they can profitably reinvest. In such cases, managers — acting in their own interests — may prefer to expand the firm’s size, prestige, or personal security rather than return excess funds to shareholders. This can lead to overinvestment, value-destroying acquisitions, and inefficiencies that reduce shareholder wealth.

Jensen argued that these “agency costs” become most acute when a company holds large free cash flows with limited attractive investment opportunities. Understanding and controlling the use of this surplus cash is, therefore, central to corporate governance, capital structure decisions, and the market for corporate control. He further advanced that mechanisms such as debt financing, share buybacks, and vigilant board oversight were required to align managerial behaviour with shareholder interests and mitigate these costs.

Michael C. Jensen – Biography and Authority

Michael C. Jensen (born 1939) is an American economist whose work has reshaped the fields of corporate finance, organisational theory, and governance. He is renowned for co-founding agency theory, which examines conflicts between owners and managers, and for developing the “free cash flow hypothesis,” now a core part of the strategic finance playbook.

Jensen’s academic career spanned appointments at leading institutions, including Harvard Business School. His early collaboration with William Meckling produced the foundational 1976 paper “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure”, formalising the costs incurred when managers’ interests diverge from those of owners. Subsequent works, especially his 1986 American Economic Review piece on free cash flow, have defined how both scholars and practitioners think about the discipline of management, boardroom priorities, dividend policy, and the rationale behind leveraged buyouts and takeovers.

Jensen’s framework links the language of finance with the realities of human behaviour inside organisations, providing both a diagnostic for governance failures and a toolkit for effective capital allocation. His ideas remain integral to the world’s leading advisory, investment, and academic institutions.

Related Leading Theorists and Intellectual Development

• William H. Meckling
  Jensen’s chief collaborator and co-author of the seminal agency theory paper, Meckling’s work with Jensen laid the groundwork for understanding how ownership structure, debt, and managerial incentives interact. Agency theory provided the language and logic that underpins Jensen’s later work on free cash flow.

• Eugene F. Fama
  Fama, a key contributor to efficient market theory and empirical corporate finance, worked closely with Jensen to explain how markets and boards provide checks on managerial behaviour. Their joint work on the role of boards and the market for corporate control complements the agency cost framework.

• Michael C. Jensen, William Meckling, and Agency Theory
  Together, they established the core problems of principal-agent relationships — questions fundamental not just in corporate finance, but across fields concerned with incentives and contracting. Their insights drive the modern emphasis on structuring executive compensation, dividend policy, and corporate governance to counteract managerial self-interest.

• Richard Roll and Henry G. Manne
  These theorists expanded on the market for corporate control, examining how takeovers and shareholder activism can serve as market-based remedies for agency costs and inefficient cash deployment.

Strategic Impact

These theoretical advances created the intellectual foundation for practical innovations such as leveraged buyouts, more activist board involvement, value-based management, and the design of performance-related pay. Today, the discipline around free cash flow is central to effective capital allocation, risk management, and the broader field of corporate strategy — and remains immediately relevant in an environment where deployment of capital is a defining test of leadership and organisation value.

Term: Free Cash Flow (FCF)

Definition and purpose

• Free cash flow (FCF) is the cash a company generates from its operations after it has paid the operating expenses and made the investments required to maintain and grow its asset base. It represents cash available to the providers of capital — equity and debt — for distribution, reinvestment, debt repayment or other corporate uses, without impairing the firm’s ongoing operations.
• Conceptually, FCF is the most direct indicator of a firm’s ability to fund dividends, share buy-backs, debt service and acquisitions from internal resources rather than external financing.

Common formulations

• Operating cash flow approach (practical):
  FCF ~ Cash from operations - Capital expenditure (capex)
• Unlevered (to all capital providers) (accounting/valuation form):
  FCFF = NOPAT + Depreciation & amortisation - Increase in working capital - Capex
  where NOPAT = Net operating profit after tax
• Levered (to equity holders after debt payments):
  FCFE = FCFF - Interest x (1 - tax rate) + Net borrowing

How it is used (strategic and financial)

• Valuation: FCF is the basis for discounted cash flow (DCF) models; projected FCFs discounted at an appropriate weighted average cost of capital (WACC) produce enterprise value.
• Capital allocation: Management uses FCF to decide between reinvestment, acquisitions, dividends, buy-backs or debt reduction.
• Financial health and liquidity: Positive and growing FCF signals the capacity to withstand shocks and pursue strategic options; persistent negative FCF may indicate structural issues or growth investment.
• Corporate governance and strategy: FCF levels influence managerial incentives, capital structure decisions and vulnerability to takeovers.

Drivers and determinants

• Revenue growth and margin profile (affects NOPAT)
• Working capital management (inventory, receivables, payables)
• Capital intensity — required capex for maintenance and growth
• Depreciation policy and tax regime
• Financing decisions (interest and net borrowing affect FCFE)

Common adjustments and measurement issues

• Distinguish maintenance capex from growth capex where possible — one is required to sustain operations, the other to expand them.
• Normalise one-off items (asset sales, litigation receipts, restructuring charges).
• Use consistent definitions across periods and peers when benchmarking.
• Beware that accounting earnings can diverge materially from cash flows; always reconcile net income with cash flow statements.

Strategic implications and typical responses

• High and stable FCF: allows strategic optionality — M&A, sustained dividends, share repurchases, or investment in R&D/innovation.
• Excess FCF with weak internal investment opportunities (the “free cash flow problem”): risk of managerial empire-building or wasteful spending; effective governance is required to ensure value-creating uses.
• Negative FCF during growth phases: may be acceptable if returns on invested capital justify external funding; however, persistent negative FCF with poor returns is a red flag.

Pitfalls and limitations

• FCF alone does not capture cost of capital or opportunity cost of investments; it must be evaluated in a valuation or strategic context.
• Short-term FCF optimisation can undermine long-term value (underinvestment in maintenance, R&D).
• Industry and lifecycle differences matter: capital-intensive or high-growth businesses naturally have very different FCF profiles.

Practical check list for executives and boards

• Reconcile reported FCF with sustainable maintenance requirements and strategic growth plans.
• Tie capital allocation policy to explicit hurdle rates and periodic capital review.
• Monitor trends in working capital and capex intensity as early indicators of operational change.
• Align executive incentives to value-creating uses of FCF and robust governance mechanisms.

Recommended quick example

• Company reports cash from operations of £200m and capex of £75m in a year:
  FCF ~ £200m - £75m = £125m available for distribution or strategic use.

Most closely associated strategy theorist — Michael C. Jensen

Why he is the most relevant

• Michael C. Jensen is the scholar most closely associated with the theoretical treatment of free cash flow in corporate strategy and governance. He set out the “free cash flow hypothesis”, which links excess free cash flow to agency costs and managerial behaviour. His work frames how boards, investors and advisers approach capital allocation, payouts and takeover defence in the presence of substantial internal cash generation.

Backstory and relationship of his ideas to FCF

• Jensen’s contribution builds on agency theory: when managers control resources owned by shareholders, their objectives can diverge from those of owners. He argued that when firms generate significant free cash flow and lack profitable investment opportunities, managers face incentives to deploy that cash in ways that increase the size or prestige of the firm (empire-building) rather than shareholder value — for example, through low-value acquisitions, overstaffing, or excessive perquisites.
• To mitigate these agency costs, Jensen proposed mechanisms that reduce discretionary free cash flow or align managerial incentives with shareholder interests. The main remedies he identified include: increased dividend payouts or share repurchases (directing cash to owners), higher leverage (forcing interest and principal payments), active market for corporate control (takeovers discipline managers), and better executive compensation and governance structures.
• Jensen’s framing made free cash flow a strategic variable: it is not just a measure of liquidity but a determinant of governance risk, takeover vulnerability and the appropriate capital allocation framework.

Biography — concise professional profile

• Michael C. Jensen is an influential American economist and professor recognised for foundational work in agency theory, corporate finance and organisational economics. He rose to prominence through a series of widely cited papers that reshaped how academics and practitioners view managerial incentives, ownership structure and the governance of corporations.
• Key intellectual milestones:
  • Seminal early work on agency theory with William Meckling, which formalised the costs arising when ownership and control are separated and remains central to corporate finance.
  • Development of the free cash flow hypothesis, which articulated the link between excess cash, managerial incentives and takeover markets.
• Roles and influence:
  • Held senior academic posts and taught at leading business schools, influencing generations of scholars and corporate leaders.
  • Served as adviser to boards, institutional investors and practitioners, translating academic insights into governance reform and corporate strategy.
  • His ideas have influenced policy debates on executive compensation, dividend policy and the role of debt in corporate discipline.
• Legacy and criticisms:
  • Jensen’s work stimulated a large empirical and theoretical literature. Some later research nuance and moderate his claims: excess cash can fund innovation and strategic flexibility, and the relationship between FCF and bad managerial behaviour depends on governance context, industry dynamics and opportunity sets.
  • Nonetheless, his framework remains a cornerstone for diagnosing the risks and governance trade-offs associated with free cash flow.

Further reading (core works)

• Jensen, M. C. — “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure” (co-authored with W. Meckling) — foundational for agency theory.
• Jensen, M. C. — article introducing the free cash flow perspective on corporate finance and takeovers.

Concluding strategic note

• Free cash flow deserves to be treated as a strategic indicator, not merely an accounting outcome. Jensen’s insights make it clear that the level and predictability of FCF should shape capital structure, governance arrangements and the firm’s approach to dividends, buy-backs and M&A. Boards should therefore link FCF forecasting to explicit capital allocation rules and governance safeguards to preserve long?-term shareholder value.

Free cash flow (FCF) is the cash a company generates from its operations after it has paid the operating expenses and made the investments required to maintain and grow its asset base. It represents cash available to the providers of capital — equity and debt — for distribution, reinvestment, debt repayment or other corporate uses, without impairing the firm’s ongoing operations.

Quote: Peter Drucker - Father of modern management

“Until a business returns a profit that is greater than its cost of capital, it operates at a loss.” - Peter Drucker - Father of modern management

Drucker argues that a company cannot be considered genuinely profitable unless it covers not only its explicit costs, but also compensates investors for the opportunity cost of their capital. Traditional accounting profits can be misleading: a business could appear successful based on net income, yet, if it fails to generate returns above its cost of capital, it ultimately erodes shareholder value and consumes resources that could be better employed elsewhere.

Drucker’s quote lays the philosophical foundation for modern tools such as Economic Value Added (EVA), which explicitly measure whether a company is creating economic profit—returns above all costs, including the cost of capital. This insight pushes leaders to remain vigilant about capital efficiency and value creation, not just superficial profit metrics.

About Peter Drucker

Peter Ferdinand Drucker (1909–2005) was an Austrian?American management consultant, educator, and author, widely regarded as the “father of modern management”. Drucker’s work spanned nearly seven decades and profoundly influenced how businesses and organisations are led worldwide. He introduced management by objectives, decentralisation, and the “knowledge worker”—concepts that have become central to contemporary management thought.

Drucker began his career as a journalist and academic in Europe before moving to the United States in 1937. His landmark study of General Motors, published as Concept of the Corporation, was profoundly influential, as were subsequent works such as The Practice of Management (1954) and Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (1973). Drucker believed business was both a human and a social institution. He advocated strongly for decentralised management, seeing it as critical to both innovation and accountability.

Renowned for his intellectual rigour and clear prose, Drucker published 39 books and numerous articles, taught executives and students around the globe, and consulted for major corporations and non?profits throughout his life. He helped shape management education, most notably by establishing advanced executive programmes in the United States and founding the Drucker School of Management at Claremont Graduate University.

Drucker’s thinking was always ahead of its time: he predicted the rise of Japan as an economic power, highlighted the critical role of marketing and innovation, and coined the term “knowledge economy” long before it entered common use. His work continues to inform boardroom decisions and management curricula worldwide.

Leading Theorists and the Extension of Economic Profit

Peter Drucker’s insight regarding the true nature of profit set the stage for later advances in value-based management and the operationalisation of economic profit.

• Alfred Rappaport: An influential academic, Rappaport further developed the shareholder value framework, arguing that businesses should be managed with the explicit aim of maximising long-term shareholder value. His book Creating Shareholder Value helped popularise the use of discounted cash flow (DCF) and economic profit approaches in corporate strategy and valuation.

• G. Bennett Stewart III: Stewart co-founded Stern Stewart & Co. in the 1980s and transformed economic profit from a theoretical concept into a practical management tool. He developed and commercialised the Economic Value Added (EVA) methodology—a precise, formula?driven approach for measuring value creation. Stewart advocated for detailed accounting adjustments and consistent estimation of the cost of capital, making EVA an industry standard for linking performance management, incentive systems, and investor capital efficiency.

• Joel Stern: As co?founder of Stern Stewart & Co., Joel Stern played a key role in the advancement and global adoption of EVA and value?based management practices. Together with Stewart, he advised leading corporations on capital allocation, performance measurement, and the creation of shareholder value through disciplined management.

All of these theorists put into action Drucker’s call for a true, economic definition of profit—one that demands a firm not just survive, but actually add value over and above the cost of all capital employed.

Summary

Drucker’s quote is a challenge: unless a business rewards its capital providers adequately, it is, in economic terms, “operating at a loss.” This principle, codified in frameworks like EVA by leading theorists such as Stewart and Stern, remains foundational to modern strategic management. Drucker’s legacy is the call to measure success not by accounting convention, but by the rigorous, economic reality of genuine value creation.

Term: Economic profit / Economic value added (EVA)

Economic value added (EVA) is a measure of a company’s financial performance that captures the surplus generated over and above the required return on the capital invested in the business. It is an implementation of the residual income concept: the profit left after charging the business for the full economic cost of the capital employed.

• Formula (standard form): EVA = NOPAT - (WACC × Capital Employed)
  • NOPAT = Net operating profit after tax (operating profit adjusted for tax, before financing effects)
  • WACC = Weighted average cost of capital (the blended cost of equity and debt)
  • Capital Employed = The invested capital that supports the operating profit (often measured as total assets less current liabilities, or equity plus interest-bearing debt)

Interpretation: A positive EVA indicates the business is generating returns in excess of its cost of capital and therefore creating shareholder value. A negative EVA indicates the opposite — the firm’s operations are not earning the return investors require.

Why EVA matters for strategy and performance management

• Aligns incentives: EVA links operating performance to the cost of capital, helping to align managers’ decisions with shareholder value creation.
• Focuses on capital efficiency: By charging a cost for capital, EVA emphasises efficient use of assets and discourages investment projects that do not earn the required return.
• Supports value-based management: EVA is used as a performance metric for investment appraisal, budgeting, incentive compensation and capital allocation to ensure decisions increase long-term value rather than short-term accounting profit.
• Communicates economic profit: Unlike raw accounting profit, EVA attempts to reflect the economic reality of financing costs and the opportunity cost of capital.

Key components and typical Stern Stewart adjustments

• NOPAT adjustments: Remove non-operating items, one-off gains/losses, and align tax treatments. Capitalise certain operating expenses (for example, R&D or advertising) that generate future economic benefits.
• Capital base adjustments: Capitalise operating leases, adjust for goodwill amortisation, add back certain provisions that represent invested capital, and remove non-operating assets.
• WACC estimation: Use market values where practical, ensure consistent treatment of tax shields and risk premia, and use a long-term horizon for cost of capital assumptions.
• Stern Stewart recommended a number of standardised adjustments (often many dozens) to convert accounting statements into an economic-profit framework; these are intended to make EVA comparable across businesses and periods.

Simple numeric example

• Suppose a business reports operating profit (EBIT) of £120m - tax (rate 25%) = NOPAT = £90m.
• Capital employed = £900m. WACC = 10% x capital charge = £900m × 10% = £90m.
• EVA = £90m - £90m = £0 - the firm is earning exactly its cost of capital; no economic profit has been created.

Practical strengths

• Intuitive: Direct connection between profit and capital cost makes the measure persuasive to senior management and investors.
• Actionable: Encourages managers to consider both returns and capital use when evaluating projects and performance.
• Versatile: Can be applied at business unit, divisional or project levels and used to design incentive schemes.

Limitations and risks

• Sensitivity to assumptions: WACC and capital base choices materially affect EVA; inconsistent or optimistic assumptions can mislead.
• Complexity and manipulation risk: The many possible adjustments, while intended to improve economic accuracy, can be used selectively to shape results.
• Short term vs long term: Over-emphasis on current EVA can discourage longer-term investments (e.g. R&D) unless these are capitalised or explicitly adjusted.
• Not the only metric: EVA should complement, not replace, other strategic measures (market position, innovation pipeline, customer metrics).

When to use and implementation considerations

• Use EVA when the objective is to embed value-based management, make capital allocation decisions transparent, and align compensation with economic outcomes.
• Implementation steps:
  1. Define consistent accounting adjustments and governance for their application.
  2. Establish a robust approach to costing capital (market-based where possible).
  3. Train management and non-financial stakeholders in interpretation and trade-offs.
  4. Integrate EVA into planning, investment appraisal and incentive systems, with safeguards for long-term investment.
  5. Monitor and periodically review adjustment policies and WACC assumptions.
• Avoid simplistic application: ensure transparency in the chosen adjustments and present EVA alongside supporting metrics (cash flows, ROIC, strategic KPIs).

Relationship to other concepts

• EVA is a specific operationalisation of the residual income approach and is closely aligned with shareholder value maximisation and agency-theory remedies (better linking of pay to long-term performance).
• Alternatives / complements include cash-flow-based measures (FCF, NPV), return on invested capital (ROIC), and other risk-adjusted profit measures (RAROC).

Relevant strategy theorist: G. Bennett Stewart III

G. Bennett Stewart III (commonly cited as Bennett Stewart) is the central figure in the development and commercialisation of EVA. As co-founder of Stern Stewart & Co., he led the effort to translate residual-income theory into a practical, widely adoptable performance metric and management system that executives and boards could use to manage for shareholder value.

Backstory and relationship to EVA

• In the 1980s and early 1990s, a small team at Stern Stewart & Co. formalised and branded the economic profit approach as “Economic Value Added” (EVA). Stewart played a leading role in refining the calculation, promoting standardised adjustments so that EVA could be consistently used across diverse firms, and building an advisory practice that helped companies embed EVA into planning, capital allocation and executive compensation.
• Stewart’s work focused on making the abstract notion of “value creation” operational. He argued that traditional accounting measures (e.g. reported earnings) often obscure the true economic performance of a business because they fail to account properly for the cost of capital and capitalised investments. EVA was presented as the remedy: a single metric that made the economics of managerial decisions clearer and linked pay to true economic outcomes.
• Through client engagements, publications and speeches, Stewart and Stern Stewart & Co. persuaded a number of large corporations to adopt EVA frameworks in the 1990s. The metric also stimulated a broader management conversation about value-based management, capital efficiency and incentive design.

Biography (career highlights and contributions)

• Profession and role: Bennett Stewart is an American management consultant and thought-leader best known as co-founder and a senior leader of Stern Stewart & Co., the consultancy that developed and popularised EVA.
• Principal contributions:
  • Institutionalised the EVA metric and the operational practices required to apply it in corporate settings.
  • Co-authored and promoted publications on value-based management (notably “The Quest for Value”, a widely cited book on how managers can create shareholder value through disciplined capital allocation and performance measurement).
  • Advised many large, multinational firms on how to redesign planning, performance measurement and incentive systems around economic profit.
• Legacy: Stewart’s work shifted executive attention from accounting profits towards economic profitability and cost of capital. EVA’s influence is clear in the subsequent proliferation of value-based management techniques and in the emphasis on capital efficiency in contemporary strategic practice.

Context and critique in strategy literature

• Stewart’s EVA sits within a longer intellectual lineage that includes economists and strategists who emphasised the primacy of shareholder value (for example Alfred Rappaport’s work on shareholder value creation). EVA’s distinctive contribution was to provide a practical, implementable metric plus diagnostic adjustments that managers could apply in firms with differing accounting practices and capital structures.
• Critics have pointed out that EVA can be overly rigid if used in isolation, that its many adjustments can introduce subjectivity, and that it must be carefully managed to avoid short-termist behaviour. Proponents argue these weaknesses are manageable with disciplined governance and appropriate long-term incentive design.

Concluding note

EVA is a powerful tool when used as part of a broader value-based management system: it converts the abstract idea of “creating shareholder value” into a measurable, actionable figure that ties operational results to the cost of capital. G. Bennett Stewart III’s contribution was to turn that concept into a widely adopted management practice by defining adjustments, demonstrating application across real companies, and promoting EVA as the backbone of incentive and capital-allocation systems. Use it with clear rules, transparent governance and complementary strategic metrics to avoid the common pitfalls.

Economic value added (EVA) is a measure of financial performance that captures the surplus generated above the required return on the capital invested in the business: the profit left after charging the business for the full economic cost of the capital employed.

Term: Compound annual growth rate (CAGR)

Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) represents the annualised rate at which an investment, business metric, or portfolio grows over a specified period, assuming that gains are reinvested each year and growth occurs at a steady, compounded pace. CAGR serves as a critical metric for both investors and business strategists due to its ability to smooth volatile performance into a single, comparable growth rate for analysis and forecasting.

Definition and Calculation
CAGR quantifies how much an investment or financial metric (such as revenue, EBITDA, or asset value) would have grown if it had developed at a constant compounded rate between a defined starting and ending value over a certain period (usually greater than one year).

The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) equation is:

The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) represents the annualised rate at which an investment, business metric, or portfolio grows over a specified period, assuming that gains are reinvested each year and growth occurs at a steady, compounded pace. CAGR serves as a critical metric for both investors and business strategists due to its ability to smooth volatile performance into a single, comparable growth rate for analysis and forecasting.

where:

• - Ending Value = value at the end of the period
• - Beginning Value = value at the start of the period
• - n = number of years (or periods)

Applications and Significance
CAGR is especially valued for its role in:

• Evaluating historical investment performance while minimising the distortion from year-on-year volatility.
• Comparing the relative performance of different investment opportunities or business units by standardising growth rates.
• Informing forward-looking projections by providing a baseline growth assumption that incorporates the effects of compounding.

CAGR does not reflect actual annual returns; instead, it depicts a hypothetical steady rate, offering clarity when reviewing performance over inconsistent periods or for benchmarking against industry standards. It is widely used in strategy consulting, financial modelling, budgeting, and decision analysis.

Leading Strategy Theorist: Alfred Rappaport
Alfred Rappaport is closely associated with financial performance metrics and their application in corporate strategy, making him a central figure in the context of CAGR’s strategic use. Rappaport is an Emeritus Professor at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, renowned for pioneering the concept of shareholder value analysis—a framework that hinges on the rigorous evaluation of cash flows and the long-term compounding rate of return (paralleling the logic of CAGR).

Rappaport’s seminal book, Creating Shareholder Value, published in 1986 (and subsequently updated), positioned value creation as the primary objective of management, with CAGR-based metrics being critical to tracking value growth through discounted cash flow analysis. His work profoundly shaped the discipline of value-based management, which relies on compounding growth rates both in forecasting and in performance assessment.

Throughout his career, Rappaport has acted as both an academic and adviser, influencing leading corporates and institutional investors by promoting disciplined investment criteria and strategic decision-making grounded in robust, compounding growth metrics like CAGR. His recognition of the importance of compound returns as opposed to simple arithmetic averages underpins the widespread adoption of CAGR in professional practice.

Quote: Benjamin Graham - The “father of value investing”

“The worth of a business is measured not by what has been put into it, but by what can be taken out of it.” - Benjamin Graham - The “father of value investing”

The quote, “The worth of a business is measured not by what has been put into it, but by what can be taken out of it,” is attributed to Benjamin Graham, a figure widely acknowledged as the “father of value investing”. This perspective reflects Graham’s lifelong focus on intrinsic value and his pivotal role in shaping modern investment philosophy.

Context and Significance of the Quote

This statement underscores Graham’s central insight: the value of a business does not rest in the sum of capital, effort, or resources invested, but in its potential to generate future cash flows and economic returns for shareholders. It rebuffs the superficial appeal to sunk costs or historical inputs and instead centres evaluation on what the business can practically yield for its owners—capturing a core tenet of value investing, where intrinsic value outweighs market sentiment or accounting measures. This approach has not only revolutionised equity analysis but has become the benchmark for rational, objective investment decision-making amidst market speculation and emotion.

About Benjamin Graham

Born in 1894 in London and emigrating to New York as a child, Benjamin Graham began his career in a tumultuous era for financial markets. Facing personal financial hardship after his father’s death, Graham still excelled academically and graduated from Columbia University in 1914, forgoing opportunities to teach in favour of a position on Wall Street.

His career was marked by the establishment of the Graham–Newman Corporation in 1926, an investment partnership that thrived through the Great Depression—demonstrating the resilience of his theories in adverse conditions. Graham’s most influential works, Security Analysis (1934, with David Dodd) and The Intelligent Investor (1949), articulated the discipline of value investing and codified concepts such as “intrinsic value,” “margin of safety”, and the distinction between investment and speculation.

Unusually, Graham placed great emphasis on independent thinking, emotional detachment, and systematic security analysis, encouraging investors to focus on underlying business fundamentals rather than market fluctuations. His professional legacy was cemented through his mentorship of legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, John Templeton, and Irving Kahn, and through the enduring influence of his teachings at Columbia Business School and elsewhere.

Leading Theorists in Value Investing and Company Valuation

Value investing as a discipline owes much to Graham but was refined and advanced by several influential theorists:

• David Dodd: Graham’s collaborator at Columbia, Dodd co-authored Security Analysis and helped develop the foundational precepts of value investing. Together, they formalised the empirical, research-based approach to identifying undervalued securities, prioritising intrinsic value over market price.
• Warren Buffett: Perhaps Graham’s most renowned protégé, Buffett adapted value investing by emphasising the durability of a business’s economic “moat,” management quality, and long-term compounding, steering the discipline toward higher-quality businesses and more qualitative evaluation.
• John Templeton: Known for global value investing, Templeton demonstrated the universality and adaptability of Graham’s ideas across different markets and economic conditions, focusing on contrarian analysis and deep value.
• Seth Klarman: In his book Margin of Safety, Klarman applied Graham’s strict risk-aversion and intrinsic value methodologies to distressed investing, advocating for patience, margin of safety, and scepticism.
• Irving Kahn and Mario Gabelli: Both disciples of Graham who applied his principles through various market cycles and inspired generations of analysts and fund managers, incorporating rigorous corporate valuation and fundamental research.

Other schools of thought in corporate valuation and investor returns—such as those developed by John Burr Williams and Aswath Damodaran—further developed discounted cash flow analysis and the quantitative assessment of future earnings power, building on the original insight that a business’s worth resides in its capacity to generate distributable cash over time.

Enduring Relevance

Graham’s philosophy remains at the core of every rigorous approach to corporate valuation. The quote is especially pertinent in contemporary valuation debates, where the temptation exists to focus on investment scale, novelty, or historical spend, rather than sustainable, extractable value. In every market era, Graham’s legacy is a call to refocus on long-term economic substance over short-term narratives—“not what has been put into it, but what can be taken out of it”.

Term: Return on Net Assets (RONA), also commonly referred to as Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)

Return on Net Assets (RONA), also commonly referred to as Return on Invested Capital (ROIC), is a profitability ratio that measures how efficiently a company generates net operating profit after tax (NOPAT) from its invested capital. The typical formula is:

RONA (or ROIC) = NOPAT ÷ Invested Capital
where invested capital is defined as fixed assets plus net working capital.

This metric assesses the return a business earns on the capital allocated to its core operations, excluding the effect of financial leverage and non-operating items. NOPAT is used as it reflects the after-tax profits generated purely from operations, providing a cleaner view of value creation for all providers of capital. Invested capital focuses on assets directly tied to operational performance: fixed assets such as property, plant and equipment, and net working capital (current operating assets less current operating liabilities). This construction ensures the measure remains aligned with how capital is deployed within the firm.

RONA/ROIC enables investors, managers, and analysts to judge whether a company is generating returns above its cost of capital—a key determinant of value creation and strategic advantage. The ratio also acts as a benchmark for performance improvement and capital allocation decisions.

Arguments for Using RONA/ROIC

• Comprehensive Operational Measurement: As it focuses on NOPAT and invested capital, it reflects returns from the actual deployment of resources, independent of capital structure or accounting artefacts.
• Alignment with Value Creation: ROIC is a foundational building block in value-based management, reliably indicating whether growth creates or destroys shareholder value. Returns above the cost of capital are indicative of a firm’s competitive advantage and its ability to reinvest profitably.
• Benchmarking Capability: This measure enables robust comparison of performance across industries, companies, and geographies, particularly where capital intensity varies significantly.
• Management Discipline: Emphasising RONA/ROIC encourages effective capital allocation and ongoing scrutiny of operational efficiency, discouraging unproductive investment.

Criticisms and Limitations

• Potential for Manipulation: Definitions of invested capital and NOPAT can vary between organisations. Differences in accounting policies (e.g., capitalisation vs expensing, asset write-downs) may distort comparisons.
• Ignores Future Investment Needs: As a static measure, RONA/ROIC reflects past or current performance, not the changing investment requirements or growth opportunities facing a business.
• May Penalise Growth: High growth companies with significant recent capital expenditure may report lower RONA/ROIC, even if those investments will yield future returns.
• Industry Differences: Utility is often highest in mature businesses—RONA/ROIC may be less relevant or comparable for asset-light or intangible-driven business models.

Leading Theorists and Strategic Foundations

Aswath Damodaran and the authors of Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies—Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels—are directly associated with the development, articulation, and scholarly propagation of concepts like RONA and ROIC.

Tim Koller, Marc Goedhart, and David Wessels

As co-authors of the definitive text Valuation: Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies (first published in 1990, now in its 7th edition), Koller, Goedhart, and Wessels have provided the most detailed and widely adopted frameworks for calculating, interpreting, and applying ROIC in both academic and practitioner circles.

Their work systematised the relationship between ROIC, cost of capital, and value creation, embedding this metric at the heart of modern strategic finance and value-based management. They emphasise that only companies able to sustain ROIC above their cost of capital create lasting economic value, and their approach is rigorous in ensuring clarity of calculation (advocating NOPAT and properly defined invested capital for consistency and comparability). Their text is canonical in both MBA programmes and leading advisory practices, widely referenced in strategic due diligence, private equity, and long-term corporate planning.

Aswath Damodaran

Aswath Damodaran, Professor of Finance at the NYU Stern School of Business, is another seminal figure. His textbooks, including Investment Valuation and Damodaran on Valuation, champion the use of ROIC as a core measure of company performance. Damodaran’s extensive public lectures, datasets, and analytical frameworks stress the importance of analysing returns on invested capital and understanding how this interacts with growth and risk in both investment analysis and strategic decision-making.

Damodaran’s work is highly practical, meticulously clarifying issues in the calculation and interpretation of ROIC, especially around treatment of operating leases, goodwill, and intangibles, and highlighting the complexities that confront both value investors and boards. His influence is broad, with his online resources and publications serving as go-to technical references for professionals and academics alike.

Both Damodaran and the Valuation authors are credited with shaping the field’s understanding of RONA/ROIC’s strategic implications and embedding this measure at the core of value-driven management and investment strategy.

Quote: Aswath Damodaran - Professor, Valuation authority

“There is a role for valuation at every stage of a firm’s life cycle.” - Aswath Damodaran - Professor, Valuation authority

The firm life cycle—from inception and private ownership, through growth, maturity, and ultimately potential decline or renewal—demands distinct approaches to appraising value. Damodaran’s teaching and extensive writings consistently stress that whether a company is a start-up seeking venture funding, a mature enterprise evaluating capital allocation, or a business facing restructuring, rigorous valuation remains central to informed strategic choices.

His observation is rooted in decades of scholarly analysis and practical engagement with valuation in corporate finance—arguing that effective valuation is not limited to transactional moments (such as M&A or IPOs), but underpins everything from resource allocation and performance assessment to risk management and governance. By embedding valuation across the firm life cycle, leaders can navigate uncertainty, optimise capital deployment, and align stakeholder interests, regardless of market conditions or organisational maturity.

About Aswath Damodaran

Aswath Damodaran is universally acknowledged as one of the world’s pre-eminent authorities on valuation. Professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business since 1986, Damodaran holds the Kerschner Family Chair in Finance Education. His academic lineage includes a PhD in Finance and an MBA from the University of California, Los Angeles, as well as an early degree from the Indian Institute of Management.

Damodaran’s reputation extends far beyond academia. He is widely known as “the dean of valuation”, not only for his influential research and widely-adopted textbooks but also for his dedication to education accessibility—he makes his complete MBA courses and learning materials freely available online, thereby fostering global understanding of corporate finance and valuation concepts.

His published work spans peer-reviewed articles in leading academic journals, practical texts on valuation and corporate finance, and detailed explorations of topics such as risk premiums, capital structure, and market liquidity. Damodaran’s approach combines rigorous theoretical frameworks with empirical clarity and real-world application, making him a key reference for practitioners, students, and policy-makers. Prominent media regularly seek his views on valuation, capital markets, and broader themes in finance.

Leading Valuation Theorists – Backstory and Impact

While Damodaran has shaped the modern field, the subject of valuation draws on the work of multiple generations of thought leaders.

• Irving Fisher (1867–1947): Fisher’s foundational models on the time value of money underlie discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis, still core to valuation[3 inferred].
• John Burr Williams (1900–1989): Williams formalised the concept of intrinsic value through discounted cash flow models, notably in his 1938 work "The Theory of Investment Value", establishing principles that support much of today’s practice[3 inferred].
• Franco Modigliani & Merton Miller: Their Modigliani–Miller theorem (1958) rigorously defined capital structure irrelevance under frictionless markets, and later work addressed the link between risk, return, and firm value. While not strictly about valuation methods, their insights underpin how financial practitioners evaluate cost of capital and risk premiums[3 inferred].
• Myron Scholes & Fischer Black: The Black–Scholes option pricing model introduced a quantitative approach to valuing contingent claims, fundamentally expanding the valuation toolkit for both corporate finance and derivatives[3 inferred].
• Richard Brealey & Stewart Myers: Their textbooks, such as "Principles of Corporate Finance", have helped standardise and disseminate best practice in valuation and financial decision-making globally[3 inferred].
• Shannon Pratt: Known for his influential books on business valuation, Pratt synthesised theory with actionable methodologies tailored for private company and litigation contexts[3 inferred].

Damodaran’s Place in the Lineage

Damodaran’s distinctive contribution is the synthesis of classical theory with contemporary market realities. His focus on making valuation relevant “at every stage of a firm’s life cycle” bridges the depth of theoretical models with the dynamic complexity of today’s global markets. Through his teaching, prolific writing, and commitment to open-access learning, he has shaped not only valuation scholarship but also the way investors, executives, and advisors worldwide think about value creation and measurement.

Term: EBITDA multiple

The EBITDA multiple, also known as the enterprise multiple, is a widely used financial metric for valuing businesses, particularly in mergers and acquisitions and investment analysis. It is calculated by dividing a company’s Enterprise Value (EV) by its Earnings Before Interest, Tax, Depreciation, and Amortisation (EBITDA). The formula can be expressed as:

EBITDA Multiple = Enterprise Value (EV) ÷ EBITDA.

Enterprise Value (EV) represents the theoretical takeover value of a business and is commonly computed as the market capitalisation plus total debt, minus cash and cash equivalents. By using EV (which is capital structure-neutral), the EBITDA multiple enables comparison across companies with differing debt and equity mixes, making it particularly valuable for benchmarking and deal-making in private equity, strategic acquisitions, and capital markets.

Arguments for Using the EBITDA Multiple

• Neutral to Capital Structure: Since it uses enterprise value, the EBITDA multiple is not affected by the company’s financing decisions, allowing for more accurate comparison between firms with different levels of debt and equity.
• Cross-Industry Applicability: It provides a standardised approach to valuation across industries and geographical markets, making it suitable for benchmarking peer companies and sectors.
• Proxy for Operating Performance: EBITDA is seen as a reasonable proxy for operating cash flow, as it excludes interest, tax effects, and non-cash expenses like depreciation and amortisation, thus focusing on core earning capacity.
• Simplicity and Practicality: As a single, widely recognised metric, the EBITDA multiple is relatively easy for investors, analysts, and boards to understand and apply—particularly during preliminary assessments or shortlisting of targets.

Criticisms of the EBITDA Multiple

• Ignores Capex and Working Capital Needs: EBITDA does not account for capital expenditures or changes in working capital, both of which can be significant in assessing the true cash-generating ability and financial health of a business.
• Can Obscure True Profitability: By excluding significant costs (depreciation, amortisation), EBITDA may overstate operational performance, particularly for asset-intensive businesses or those with aging fixed assets.
• Susceptible to Manipulation: Since EBITDA excludes interest, tax, and non-cash charges, it can be vulnerable to window dressing and manipulation by management aiming to present better than actual results.
• Limited Relevance for Highly Leveraged Firms: For businesses with high levels of debt, focusing solely on EBITDA multiples may underplay the risks associated with financial leverage.

Related Strategy Theorist: Michael C. Jensen

The evolution and widespread adoption of EBITDA multiples in valuation is closely linked to the rise of leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and private equity in the 1980s—a movement shaped and analysed by Michael C. Jensen, a foundational figure in corporate finance and strategic management.

Michael C. Jensen (born 1939):
Jensen is an American economist and Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, widely recognised for his work on agency theory, corporate governance, and the market for corporate control. He is perhaps best known for his groundbreaking 1976 paper with William Meckling, "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure," which fundamentally shaped understanding of firm value, ownership, and managerial incentives.

During the 1980s, Jensen extensively researched the dynamics of leveraged buyouts and the use of debt in corporate restructuring, documenting how private equity sponsors used enterprise value and metrics like EBITDA multiples to value acquisition targets. He advocated for the use of cash flow–oriented metrics (such as EBITDA and free cash flow) as better indicators of firm value than traditional accounting profit measures, particularly in contexts where operating assets and financial structure could be separated.

His scholarship not only legitimised and popularised such metrics among practitioners but also critically explored their limitations—addressing issues around agency costs, capital allocation, and the importance of considering cash flows over accounting earnings.
Jensen’s influence persists in both academic valuation methodologies and real-world transaction practice, where EBITDA multiples remain central.

In summary, the EBITDA multiple is a powerful and popular tool for business valuation—valued for its simplicity and broad applicability, but its limitations require careful interpretation and complementary analysis. Michael C. Jensen’s scholarship frames both the advantages and necessary caution in relying on single-value multiples in strategy and valuation.

Quote: Bill Miller - Investor, fund manager

“One of the most powerful sources of mispricing is the tendency to over-weight or over-emphasize current conditions.” - Bill Miller - Investor, fund manager

Bill Miller is a renowned American investor and fund manager, most prominent for his extraordinary tenure at Legg Mason Capital Management where he managed the Value Trust mutual fund. Born in 1950 in North Carolina, Miller graduated with honours in economics from Washington and Lee University in 1972 and went on to serve as a military intelligence officer. He later pursued graduate studies in philosophy at Johns Hopkins University before advancing into finance, embarking on a career that would reshape perceptions of value investing.

Miller joined Legg Mason in 1981 as a security analyst, eventually becoming chairman and chief investment officer for the firm and its flagship fund. Between 1991 and 2005, the Legg Mason Value Trust—under Miller’s stewardship—outperformed the S&P 500 for a then-unprecedented 15 consecutive years. This performance earned Miller near-mythical status within investment circles. However, the 2008 financial crisis, where he was heavily exposed to collapsing financial stocks, led to significant losses and a period of high-profile criticism. Yet Miller’s intellectual rigour and willingness to adapt led him to recover, founding Miller Value Partners and continuing to contribute important insights to the field.

The context of Miller’s quote lies in his continued attention to investor psychology and behavioural finance. His experience—through market booms, crises, and recoveries—led him to question conventional wisdom around value investing and to recognise how often investors, swayed by the immediacy of current economic and market conditions, inaccurately price assets by projecting the present into the future. This insight is rooted both in academic research and in practical experience during periods such as the technology bubble, where the market mispriced risk and opportunity by over-emphasising prevailing narratives.

Miller’s work and this quote sit within the broader tradition of theorists who have examined mispricing, market psychology, and the fallibility of investor judgement:

• Benjamin Graham, widely considered the father of value investing, argued in “The Intelligent Investor” (1949) and “Security Analysis” (1934) that investors should focus on intrinsic value, patiently waiting for the market to correct its mispricings rather than being swayed by current market euphoria or fear. Graham’s concept of “Mr Market” personifies the emotional extremes that create opportunity and danger through irrational pricing.

• John Maynard Keynes provided foundational commentary on the way markets can become speculative as investors focus on what they believe others believe—summed up in his famous comparison to a “beauty contest”—leading to extended periods of mispricing based on the prevailing sentiment of the day.

• Robert Shiller advanced these insights with his work on behavioural finance, notably in “Irrational Exuberance” (2000), where he dissected how overemphasis on current positive trends can inflate asset bubbles far beyond their underlying value.

• Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, pioneers of behavioural economics, introduced the psychological mechanisms—such as recency bias and availability heuristic—that explain why investors habitually overvalue current conditions and presume their persistence.

• Howard Marks, in his memos and book “The Most Important Thing”, amplifies the importance of second-level thinking—moving beyond the obvious and questioning whether prevailing conditions are likely to persist, or whether the crowd is mispricing risk due to their focus on the present.

Bill Miller’s career is both a case study and a cautionary tale of these lessons in action. His perspective emphasises that value emerges over time, and only those who look beyond the prevailing winds of sentiment are positioned to capitalise on genuine mispricing. The tendency to overvalue present conditions is perennial, but so too are the opportunities for those who resist it.