Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial Statements

Paul M. Healy; Krishna G. Palepu

Text Book | 2007

Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial Statements

Abstract

Financial statements are the basis for a wide range of business analysis. Managers, securities analysts, bankers, and consultants all use them to make business decisions. There is strong demand among business students for course materials that provide a framework for using financial statement data in a variety of business analysis and valuation contexts. The fourth edition of Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial Statements allows you to undertake financial statement analysis using a four-part framework—(1) business strategy analysis for developing an understanding of a firm's competitive strategy; (2) accounting analysis for representing the firm's business economics and strategy in its financial statements and for developing adjusted accounting measures of performance; (3) financial analysis for ratio analysis and cash flow measures of operating; and (4) prospective analysis. Then, you'll learn how to apply these tools in a variety of decision contexts, including securities analysis, credit analysis, corporate financing policies analysis, mergers and acquisitions analysis, and governance and communication analysis.

Keywords: Valuation; Framework; Decision Choices and Conditions; Financial Statements;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Healy, Paul M., and Krishna G. Palepu. Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial Statements. 4th ed. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western, 2007.

Tesla’s board of directors proposed an unusual compensation plan for the company’s CEO Elon Musk. The plan payouts were entirely contingent on achieving very ambitious market value, sales, and EBIT targets over the next ten years. If all the targets were achieved, Tesla would be one of the most valuable companies in the world, and Musk would receive the highest compensation of any CEO in US corporate history. If the targets were not achieved, Musk would receive nothing. Proxy advisors (ISS and Glass Lewis) expressed serious reservations about the plan and urged shareholders to vote against it. Should shareholders approve or reject the plan?

This case centers around the Air Products' hostile takeover attempt of Airgas in 2010. Air Products argued that its offer of a 38% premium is generous given Airgas' poor performance, which Air Products attributed to underperforming and entrenched managers at Airgas. On the other hand, Airgas' management argued that the company's recent struggles are cyclical and that Air Products' offer grossly undervalues Airgas' long-run potential. How might Airgas' management credibly communicate its conviction to shareholders? Should Airgas shareholders side with Air Products and accept a certain short term return, or should they side with Airgas' management and accept an uncertain but potentially higher long-term outcome? How should the Airgas board balance its responsibilities to short-term versus long-term shareholders?

Faculty & Research

Business Analysis and Valuation: Using Financial Statements

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors