CWT Intrinsic Value
Intrinsic Value of CWT Overview
CWT Historical Intrinsic Value
CWT Valuation Metrics
CWT DCF Model
| Dec'20 Actual | Dec'21 Actual | Dec'22 Actual | Dec'23 Actual | Dec'24 Actual | Dec'25 Estimate | Dec'26 Estimate | Dec'27 Estimate | Dec'28 Estimate | Dec'29 Estimate | Dec'30 Estimate | Dec'31 Estimate | Dec'32 Estimate | Dec'33 Estimate | Dec'34 Estimate | Dec'35 Terminal | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% growth | 794.3 11.2% | 790.9 (0.4%) | 846.4 7.0% | 794.6 (6.1%) | 1,036.8 30.5% | 988.4 (4.7%) | 1,036.3 4.9% | 1,092.0 5.4% | 1,152.0 5.5% | 1,217.0 5.6% | 1,277.3 5.0% | 1,331.7 4.3% | 1,379.3 3.6% | 1,419.0 2.9% | 1,450.1 2.2% | 1,471.8 1.5% |
% margin | 136.7 17.2% | 126.2 16.0% | 127.7 15.1% | 77.1 9.7% | 225.1 21.7% | 182.6 18.5% | 191.5 18.5% | 201.8 18.5% | 212.9 18.5% | 224.9 18.5% | 236.0 18.5% | 246.1 18.5% | 254.9 18.5% | 262.2 18.5% | 268.0 18.5% | 272.0 18.5% |
NOPAT % effective tax rate | 121.6 15.3% | 121.3 15.3% | 119.7 14.1% | 88.9 11.2% | 189.4 18.3% | 153.7 15.6% | 161.2 15.6% | 169.8 15.6% | 179.1 15.6% | 189.2 15.6% | 198.6 15.6% | 207.1 15.6% | 214.5 15.6% | 220.7 15.6% | 225.5 15.6% | 228.9 15.6% |
% of revenue | 100.9 12.7% | 111.6 14.1% | 117.4 13.9% | 123.1 15.5% | 131.9 12.7% | 138.6 14.0% | 145.4 14.0% | 153.2 14.0% | 161.6 14.0% | 170.7 14.0% | 179.2 14.0% | 186.8 14.0% | 193.5 14.0% | 199.0 14.0% | 203.4 14.0% | 206.5 14.0% |
% of revenue | (298.7) (37.6%) | (293.2) (37.1%) | (327.8) (38.7%) | (383.7) (48.3%) | 0.0 0.0% | (286.7) (29.0%) | (300.6) (29.0%) | (316.7) (29.0%) | (334.1) (29.0%) | (353.0) (29.0%) | (370.5) (29.0%) | (386.3) (29.0%) | (400.1) (29.0%) | (411.6) (29.0%) | (420.6) (29.0%) | (426.9) (29.0%) |
% of revenue | (110.0) (13.9%) | (6.7) (0.8%) | (22.2) (2.6%) | 15.4 1.9% | (126.5) (12.2%) | (42.4) (4.3%) | (44.5) (4.3%) | (46.9) (4.3%) | (49.5) (4.3%) | (52.3) (4.3%) | (54.9) (4.3%) | (57.2) (4.3%) | (59.2) (4.3%) | (60.9) (4.3%) | (62.3) (4.3%) | (63.2) (4.3%) |
Free Cash Flow to Firm (FCFF) % of revenue | (186.2) (23.4%) | (67.0) (8.5%) | (113.0) (13.3%) | (156.3) (19.7%) | 194.8 18.8% | (36.8) (3.7%) | (38.6) (3.7%) | (40.6) (3.7%) | (42.9) (3.7%) | (45.3) (3.7%) | (47.5) (3.7%) | (49.6) (3.7%) | (51.3) (3.7%) | (52.8) (3.7%) | (54.0) (3.7%) | (54.8) (3.7%) |
% of FCFF used in calculation | 80.8% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% | ||||||
Discount period | 0.50 | 1.50 | 2.50 | 3.50 | 4.50 | 5.50 | 6.50 | 7.50 | 8.50 | 9.50 | ||||||
Discount factor | 0.96 | 0.89 | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.52 | 0.48 | ||||||
Discounted FCFF (DFCFF) |
CWT DCF Value
DCF Value Calculation
Equity Value Bridge
CWT Earnings Power Value and Enterprise Value
CWT Reverse DCF
Reverse DCF Assumptions and Outputs
Implied Free Cash Flow growth vs Historical average vs Industry growth
Competing with CWT Intrinsic Value
Company name | Market Cap | Enterprise Value | Intrinsic Value | DCF Value | Relative value | Ben Graham Revised fair value | Peter Lynch fair value | Earnings Power Value (EPV),
% of EV | Market-Implied Value of Growth (MIVoG),
% of EV | Reverse DCF (implied FCF growth) | Reverse DCF (implied Revenue growth) |
$2,863.8M | $2,887.3M | $66.3 39.8% undervalued | N/A | $66.3 39.8% undervalued | Negative 228.4% overvalued | Negative 162.4% overvalued | 95.0% | 5.0% | (100.0%) | (100.0%) | |
$28.3B | $42.3B | $67.0 53.3% overvalued | N/A | $67.0 53.3% overvalued | $59.9 58.2% overvalued | $47.1 67.2% overvalued | 67.3% | 32.7% | (100.0%) | (100.0%) | |
$11.2B | $14.7B | $27.1 65.0% undervalued | $23.2 41.0% undervalued | $31.1 89.3% undervalued | $403.3 2,351.4% undervalued | $37.2 125.9% undervalued | 158.4% | (58.4%) | 1.4% | (0.3%) | |
$11.0B | $18.7B | $20.7 47.7% overvalued | N/A | $20.7 47.7% overvalued | $6.6 83.4% overvalued | $9.4 76.2% overvalued | 90.2% | 9.8% | (100.0%) | (100.0%) | |
$3,041.3M | $3,952.8M | $46.9 41.3% overvalued | N/A | $46.9 41.3% overvalued | $29.2 63.5% overvalued | $21.4 73.3% overvalued | 62.1% | 37.9% | (100.0%) | (100.0%) | |
$1,850.8M | $1,843.4M | $61.5 12.1% undervalued | $29.8 46.0% overvalued | $93.2 69.9% undervalued | $24.2 55.9% overvalued | $18.9 65.5% overvalued | 108.7% | (8.7%) | (100.0%) | (100.0%) | |
$1,133.4M | $1,515.1M | $31.0 50.7% overvalued | Negative 120.0% overvalued | $31.0 50.7% overvalued | $12.3 80.4% overvalued | $14.3 77.2% overvalued | 55.8% | 44.2% | 4.4% | 16.7% | |
$917.7M | $1,348.6M | $50.9 66.5% undervalued | N/A | $50.9 66.5% undervalued | Negative 150.2% overvalued | Negative 117.6% overvalued | 101.2% | (1.2%) | (10.2%) | 3.6% | |
$498.5M | $704.1M | $18.3 47.1% overvalued | N/A | $18.3 47.1% overvalued | $13.7 60.5% overvalued | $12.1 65.0% overvalued | 67.3% | 32.7% | 4.7% | (100.0%) | |
$454.6M | $354.0M | $47.9 69.9% undervalued | $56.1 99.0% undervalued | $39.7 40.8% undervalued | Negative 278.9% overvalued | Negative 199.7% overvalued | 106.4% | (6.4%) | (3.0%) | 3.8% | |
$341.2M | $514.2M | $34.8 6.3% undervalued | N/A | $34.8 6.3% undervalued | $36.7 12.4% undervalued | $24.9 23.9% overvalued | 88.6% | 11.4% | (7.0%) | (100.0%) |
Intrinsic Valuation Tools
FAQ
What is the DCF value of California Water Service Group (CWT)?
As of today, DCF Value of California Water Service Group is $0.0, which is undervalued by 0.0%, compared to the current market share price of $47.4
How was the DCF Value calculated?
Step 1: Calculating Intrinsic Enterprise Value DCF Value was calculated by estimating California Water Service Group future free cash flow and then discounting it, using a chosen discount rate to determine Intrinsic Enterprise Value of $0.0B Step 2: Balance Sheet Adjustments Intrinsic Equity Value is calculated by subtracting Balance Sheet items (Cash & Equivalents, Short-term investments and Total Debt) from previously calculated Intrinsic Enterprise Value. This Intrinsic Equity Value is then divided by the total number of outstanding shares of 0 to determine DCF Value of $0.0
What is the Relative value of California Water Service Group (CWT)?
As of today, Relative Value of California Water Service Group is $66.3, which is undervalued by 39.8%, compared to the current market share price of $47.4
How was the Relative Value calculated?
Relative Value was calculated by applying various valuation multiples (EV/Revenue, EV/EBITDA, P/E etc.) to California Water Service Group financials to determine Relative Value of $66.3
What is California Water Service Group (CWT) discount rate?
California Water Service Group current Cost of Equity is 7.5%, while its WACC stands at 7.9%. Cost of Equity is used to value equity, while discounting free cash flow to equity holders (such as Net Income or Free Cash Flow to Equity). Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is used to value the entire firm, while discounting cash flows available to both debt and equity holders (NOPAT or Free Cash Flow to the Firm)
How is Cost of Equity for California Water Service Group (CWT) calculated?
The Cost of Equity represents the return a company must offer investors to compensate for the risk of investing in its stock. It's calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), which combines the risk-free rate, the stock's beta, and the equity risk premium (ERP). This model considers the inherent risk of investing in the stock compared to a risk-free investment and the market's overall risk. Cost of Equity = Risk-Free Rate + Beta x Effective Risk Premium (ERP) 7.5% = 4.3% + 0.7 x 4.6%
How is WACC for California Water Service Group (CWT) calculated?
WACC, or Weighted Average Cost of Capital, is a calculation that reflects the average rate of return a company is expected to pay its security holders to finance its assets. It is a critical measure in financial analysis for valuing a company's entire operations. The WACC formula combines the costs of equity and debt, weighted by their respective proportions in the company's capital structure. WACC = Cost of Equity x Equity Weight in Total Capital + Cost of Debt x (1 - Effective Tax Rate) Debt Weight in Total Capital 7.9% = 7.5% x 2.5% + 20.2% x (1 - (23.7%)) x 97.5%