Für neue Autoren:
kostenlos, einfach und schnell
Für bereits registrierte Autoren
141 Seiten, Note: very good
1.1. Economic Background and Environmental Analysis
1.2. Identification of Problems and Formulation of Subjects
1.3. Mission, Objectives and Strategies of the Thesis
1.4. Structure of the Thesis (Flow of Thoughts)
2. Analysis of Essence
2.1 Definition of, and approaches to Shareholder Value
2.2 Confrontation of Economic Principles and Accounting Principles
2.3 Definition of Knowledge
2.4 Paradigm shift in the Economy
2.4.1 New Growth Theory
2.4.2 Rules of the New Economy
2.5 Analysis of Impacts
2.5.1 Analysis of Impacts of Information Markets on Shareholder Value
2.5.2 Peculiarity of Information Markets
2.5.3 Analysis of the Impacts of Knowledge
2.6 Position of Knowledge in the Information Age Economy
2.7 Measuring Knowledge
2.7.1 Investment in Intangible Assets
2.7.2 Measuring Yield
2.7.3 Profit Margin
2.7.4 Efficiency and Effectiveness
2.7.5 Non-financial Measures
2.7.6 Financial Measures by Comparative Indicators
2.7.7 Monitoring Intangible Assets for Financial Success
2.7.8 Measuring Competence, Internal Structure, and External Structure
2.7.9 Implementing Systems For Measuring Intangible Assets
2.8 Management Methods of Knowledge
2.8.1 Techniques for Mapping an Organization’s Knowledge Landscape
2.8.2 Identifying Knowledge Management-related Benefits and Priorities
2.8.3 Considering Knowledge by key figures and Critical Success Factors
2.9 Mutual Dependencies of Shareholder Value and Knowledge
3. Emergence of Conclusion and Deduction of Knowledge Valuation
3.1 Knowledge Utilization and Economic Perspectives
3.2 Technical Feasibility
3.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
3.3.1 Tangible Benefits
3.3.2 Intangible Benefits
3.3.3 Comparison of Costs with Benefits
3.4 Development of an extended Value Analysis under uncertainty and criticism
4. Developing Strategies and Approaches for Problemsolving
4.1 Core questions and “quod vadis”
4.2 Knowledge and Uncertainty
4.2.2 Levels of Uncertainty
4.2.3 Developing a Strategic Analysis to Levels of Uncertainty
4.2.4 Strategic Postures
4.2.5 Portfolio of Actions
4.2.6 Framework of Strategies against Uncertainty
4.3 Real Options Approach to Uncertainty
4.3.1 The Resolution of Uncertainty
4.3.2 The Consequences ofContingentInvestment decisions
18.104.22.168 Investment Platforms and Growth Options
22.214.171.124 Uncertainty, Exposure, and Risk; Uncertain and Predictable Changes
126.96.36.199 Considering the Application Cases of the Real Options Approach
4.3.3 Strategic Investments under Uncertainty
4.3.4 The Valuation Dilemma
4.3.5 Strategy of Options
4.3.6 Uncertainty, Total Risk and Option Valuation
4.3.7 Consequences of insights for strategic investments
4.3.8 Comparing the Real Options Approach to Valuation to the Alternatives
4.3.9 Verification of the Real Options Approach
4.3.10 Valuing Options on Real Assets
188.8.131.52 Adapting the Payoffs to Contingent Investment Decisions by Building- Block-Approach
4.4 Vision Transformation into Investment Strategy
4.4.1 Implications of the Real Options Approach
4.4.2 Solution Methodology
184.108.40.206 Frame the Application
220.127.116.11.1 The Classification of Real Options
18.104.22.168 Implementation of the Option Valuation Model
22.214.171.124 Review of the Results and Re-design
4.5 Valuing Real Options
5. Proposals for Implementation and Application of the Approach
5.1 Adaptation of Principles of Accounting
5.2 The Principles of Knowledge Organizations
5.3 Proposed Framework for Identifying Knowledge
5.4 Proposed Method of Measuring Key Factors of Knowledge
5.5 Approaches to the Valuation of Enterprises
5.6 Realizing Business Value and Outlook
5.7 Results, Conclusions and Insights
Die Wirtschaft des beginnenden 21. Jahrhunderts ist geprägt vom Übergang der industriellen Strukturen zu Organisations- und Geschäftsformen in denen informations- und wissensbasierten Strukturen dominieren. Dieser Übergang und Paradigmenwechsel erfordert in allen Bereichen der Unternehmensführung auch eine Neuausrichtung bisheriger, industriell geprägter Konzepte und Anpassung an die Erfordernisse einer neuen Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft – tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis -.
Die vorliegende These versucht hier Ansatzpunkte zur einer Neuausrichtung der Unternehmensbewertung und Unternehmensführung in der Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft herauszuarbeiten und darzustellen.
Zunächst erfolgt eine Darstellung und Analyse der Prinzipien der Unternehmensbewertung und Rechnungslegung sowie moderner marktwertorientierter Ansätze der Unternehmenssteuerung (EVA).
Es folgt eine Darstellung und Analyse der Bedeutung und wertschöpfenden Funktion von Wissen in der Organisations- und Prozeßgestaltung, der Messung, Bewertung und Beobachtung des Wertschöpfungsbeitrages von wissensbasierten Systemen im Unternehmen. Hierbei wird auf die Besonderheiten und technologiebedingten Charakteristiken und neuen Regeln der künftigen Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft eingegangen, die neue Anforderungen an die Entwicklung und wechselseitige Abstimmung von Strategien und Unternehmensfinanzierung stellen.
In einem weiteren Schritt erfolgt die Darstellung und Auseinandersetzung mit dem Problem Unternehmensbewertung und Unternehmensführung unter Unsicherheit, die doch gerade Paradigmenwechsel und Übergangswirtschaften besonders prägen und künftig in einer sich durch Innovationsschüben rasch ändernden und nichtlinear verlaufenden Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft dominieren werden.
Hierbei wird zunehmend Unternehmenswachstum durch optionale Wahrnehmung von Marktchancen und frühzeitigen Erkennen und Eliminieren von Marktrisiken durch die Unternehmensleitung geprägt werden.
Als Ergebnis wird erkannt, daß zur Unternehmensbewertung neben den marktwert –und ertragswertorientierten linearen Bewertungsverfahren der Paradigmenwechsel und die künftige Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft eine stärkere Berücksichtigung von nichtlinearen, mehrdimensionalen, optionspreisorientierten Bewertungsmodellen erfordern. Hierbei verschmelzen Strategieentwicklung und Unternehmensfinanzierung zu einem hochwirksamen Instrument der Unternehmensführung.
Zur Unternehmenswertsteigerung in der künftigen Informations- und Wissenswirtschaft erscheint der Einsatz von wissensfokussierte Strategien, bei denen moderne Elemente der Personalführung mit den medialen Möglichkeiten der Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie optimiert werden, am wirksamsten.
The economy of the beginning 21st. Century is dominated by the transition from industrial to information – and knowledge based structures in organizations and businesses.
This economy of transition and paradigmshift requires a new strategic orientation and adaptation in all areas of business management from the former industrial-determined concepts to the requirements of a new economy of information - and knowledge – tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis -.
This thesis tries to work out and present approaches for a new orientation of valuation of enterprises and business management in the economy of information and knowledge.
At first there is a presentation and analysis of principles of valuation and accounting as well as modern market value-oriented approaches of controlling of corporations by economic added value (EVA).
It is followed by a presentation and analysis of the importance and value-adding function of knowledge in organizations and processes, the measurement, valuation and monitoring of the value-adding contribution of knowledge management systems in the corporation.
Thereby it will be considered the properties and the technology-specific characteristics and the new rules of economies of information – and knowledge that ask for new requirements to the development and mutual commitments of corporate strategies and corporate finance.
In a further step follows the presentation and discussion of the problem of valuation of enterprise and business management under uncertainty that is quite especially dominated by paradigmshifts and economies of transition. That scenarios will be quite dominated in future by innovation shifts and quick changing and non-linear developing economies of information – and knowledge.
Thereby, the growth of enterprises will be increasingly dominated by taking market opportunities optionally and the early recognizing and eliminating of market risks by the management of corporation.
It will be recognized as result that for valuation of enterprises besides the market-value – and DCF-oriented linear valuation approaches the paradigmshifts and the economy of information – and knowledge in future requires a stronger consideration of non-linear, multi-dimensional, optionsprice-oriented valuation models. Thereby, corporate strategy and corporate finance mergers to a high-efficient tool of the business management.
For increasing of corporate value in economy of information – and knowledge in future, the implementation of knowledge-focused strategies that optimizes modern elements and aspects of human resources with the media possibilities of the information – and communication technology seems to be the most efficient.
Today, the economy is in a transition from the industrial age to a post-industrial age or information age that is dominated by information and telecommunication technology (I/T-Technology) in business. I/T-technology is the essential driver of the current evolution toward a „New Economy“ and causes a lot of restructuring in traditional sectors of the economy as well as the changing of economic indicators.
Most current methods and approaches to business administration originated in the industrial age and don’t consider the paradigm shift to the information age with its changes of items and resources in running a business. In the industrial age, tangible goods dominated business, and the principles of accounting, controlling and managing a business were deducted from them. Appraisals of businesses were dominated by the net asset values shown in balance sheets and the earnings shown in profit & loss or income statements. During the industrial production process the part of intangible goods and assets (like knowledge) and services was small.
Today, in the information age, intangible goods and services (like expert knowledge), represent an essential part of the business assets, dominate the production process and value chain. Even so, the discounted cash flow method (DCF-method) for determining shareholder value is an essential tool for the appraisal of a business and more important and meaningful than other methods oriented on tangible assets.
However, some aspects of the „New Economy“ in the information age can make the prediction of cash flows and thus the application of the DCF-method more difficult for somebody than in the „value-stable“ industrial age. Mainly these aspects are the high speed of progress that causes rapid improvement as well as changes of technologies and the fast growth of knowledge. Last, but not least, I/T-technologies supports global competition and drives progress and knowledge growth by sharing and exchanging information
Considering the paradigm of the information age, this thesis will:
· analyze the application of traditional methods and approaches of business administration from the industrial age at managing, controlling, accounting and valuing corporations in the information industry and identify the problems of transforming and applying these methods in the information age,
· analyze the application of traditional industrial business philosophy on accounting and valuing knowledge and identify the problems and weaknesses of traditional methods for the transformation from the industrial age to the information age,
- investigate the identified problems,
- deduce conclusions and starting points,
- develop strategies and approaches for problem solving develop proposals for implementation and application of the findings.
The content and background of the thesis is the result of personal experience in the participation of corporate valuation and M&A-proceedings during my practice as a management accountant in controlling of affiliate companies in the I/T-branch, completed and deepened by reading the current literature on the subject, taking part in seminars on knowledge management and analyzing and evaluating the information found.
Mission of the Thesis:
Accounting principles and valuation approaches should always consider the real contribution of value addition in the value chain.
The central idea of the concept is to respect to be „true and fair“ at every economy age and consider the changes of the business and its environment.
The thesis will analyze this problem in regards to knowledge and its consideration of its „true and fair“ meaning in the information age.
Goals of the Thesis:
Rethink and reform the traditional methods, approaches and principles of the industrial age. New economies need „shifting gears“.
Objectives of the Thesis:
The assumption is that each economic age has own certain concepts of business accounting and valuation, and that these can not be blindly applied in a new economy. Focused on the information industry in the information age, this thesis will investigate and analyze existing traditional concepts of accounting and valuation and their suitability of representing and documenting „true and fair“ business values.
In a further step, the thesis will create proposals for adapting the existing traditional concepts of „old economies“ to new corrected concepts, considering the changes of the essential key factors of the economy.
Strategies of the Thesis:
Following the assumption that certain concepts of business accounting and valuation are deducted from certain forms of production processes and their essential value drivers, the investigations should include them.
Considering the current approaches and principles of accounting and corporate valuation, their origins , context and positions in the industrial production process should be verified.
Led by technological and cultural evolution, the change of economic ages changes also the meaning and position of the essential items and value drivers of production processes.
„Knowledge“ has had an essential impact on the production processes in the information age and should be the dominant value driver of corporations today.
A definition of knowledge should be developed, its impact on the production processes today shown, and concepts and proposals for accounting and valuing knowledge deduced.
The most widely used traditional methods of measuring performance are earnings per share (EPS) or return on equity (ROE) as accrual-based accounting measures. However, these accrual-based ratios aren’t always useful indicators of future growth or performance.
A more realistic means of assessing business value other than accrual-based accounting standards is offered by use of free cash flow analysis or Shareholder Value Analysis (SVA).
SVA works by explicitly measuring the economic impact of each strategy on the value of a business. Any strategic decision, regardless of whether it involves internal or external investment, should be evaluated. Such strategic decision making situations include mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, divestitures, new product development (R&D), and capital expenditures (major plant and equipment investments).
The actual measurement of shareholder value combines three main factors:
1) cash flow,
2) cash as measured over a given period of time (value growth duration), and
3) risk, otherwise known as the cost of capital.
With a basic understanding of these three components, you are well on your way to valuing a business or entity (see Figure 1) <16>.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 1: Factors in Shareholder Value (adapted from <16>)
Corporate value is equal to the net present value of all future cash flows due to all investor types, including both debt and equity holders. Shareholder value is the corporate value minus all future claims to cash flow (debt) before equity holders are paid.
Future claims typically include both short- and long-term debt, capital lease obligations, underfunded pensions, and other claims such as contingent liabilities-lawsuits brought against the company (see Figure 2).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2: Corporate and Shareholder Value (adapted from <16>)
Another way to define shareholder value is to say that it is equal to the net funds a company generates that shareholders could receive in the form of a cash distribution, such as a dividend. Don’t confuse this figure with the actual dividend a company pays. A company’s dividend policy has little or nothing to do with the actual cash the company generates. Look at the high growth of businesses sectors such as computer software or biotechnology. Few pay dividends because they have strategic opportunities to reinvest cash flows and earn the higher returns investors desire.
Generally, it’s easy to determine the market value of future obligations or debt. In most cases, it’s the accumulation of several debt instruments. To obtain the market value of these financial instruments, use the yield to maturity to calculate the market value of each debt instrument. Avoid adding the face value of each debt or bond issue. The question to ask is. „ If this obligation were to be paid in full today, how much would the lender need to retire it?“<16>
After determining corporate and shareholder value, the next step is to measure cash flow. The most tangible measurement of cash flow (also referred to as operating cash flow or free cash flow) can be calculated as shown in Table 1.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 1: Measuring Cash Flow (adapted from <16>)
Notice that the calculation focuses on the relationship between operating cash income and expenses, specifically by using operating cash taxes rather than the provision for income taxes. It accounts for the investments made on the balance sheet.
Many companies measure cash flow by looking at net operating profit after taxes (NOPAT), but this tells only part of the story. Investments to grow the business, either by expansion of the plant and facilities or with working capital policies such as extending the receivable period from net 30 to net 60 days, have a significant impact on the capital employed. Remember: Shareholders are looking for returns on their capital invested in business growth, which requires well-planned capital expenditures.
Failure to account for the investment makes for a crucial mistake in the evaluation of strategic alternatives <16>.
The calculation of cash flows illustrates a high level of performance in an organization and produces a result that approximates the net cash of a company. In effect, these funds are a potential dividend to shareholders because they reflect optimal use of shareholder monies for ongoing growth. This is why dividend policies and free cash flow are not synonymous. Few companies base their dividend payout on net cash flow, while others are justified in generating free cash flow, without paying dividends.
To forecast cash flow, most companies require a more detailed formula, as presented in Table 1. In most cases, sales growth tells very little about sales activity, so companies use metrics such as price, volume, GNP, and other micro or macroeconomic factors to forecast revenues and costs more realistically. This calculation usually is conducted at a strategic business unit level and then consolidated for corporate purposes.
The key is to plan accurately at the appropriate level of business activity (business unit, value chain, or some other distinction).
Sale or market growth estimations can be achieved many different ways. Predicting price and volume, for instance, provides for a more manageable metric that can be evaluated readily and used later for compensation purposes. In other words, sales growth is a „value driver“. But what drives the value drivers ? Herein typically lies the metric operational professionals can get their hands on. Planning and forecasting can become a real operating activity rather than a boardroom exercise. <16>
Once cash flow has been defined, the next step is to determine the length of the forecast period. The definition of cash flow over time or value growth duration is the length of time expected for a company to invest in opportunities that will yield internal rates of return (IRR) above their weighted average cost of capital (WACC). This premise is the core of value creation: performing above expectations for a sustainable period of time.
Management usually plans for cycles of three to five years. If this is the case and if the cash flows are discounted over a period of time, the valuation probably will be inaccurate as it does not allow for fluctuations in cash flow throughout the requisite growth period (or the value growth duration). Several factors must be considered.
One is Michael Porter’s work on the competitive structure and five forces of industries (see Figure 3). Porter says that management’s responsibility is to map the company and its competition according to several factors. Some areas to consider are distribution channels, established brand names, and research and development.
Take the pharmaceutical industry, for instance. It has a relatively long value growth duration because of patented products, proven processes, and research and development investment that raise the barriers of entry. <16>
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 3: Forces Driving Industry Competition (adapted from <29>)
The classical five forces of Michael Porter, added by new forces of the „New Economy“ as
Deregulation (Adam Smith), Globalization (Metcalfes Law), Digitalization (Moores Law) and Knowledge. The impact of the classic and new forces have to be considered when creating a business plan with cash flows and value creation. Currently, the new forces of the „New Economy“ play a dominant role in the changes to and transformation of the economy from the traditional industrial age to the information age (or post-capitalist economy by Peter F. Drucker). New forces are creating „killer applications“ that have a high return on the initial investment.
It can summarized that knowledge, in the distinguished form it appears in today, is one of the dominant barriers of entry.
Another point for consideration is Alfred Rappaport’s suggestion of the use of public information to assess the market’s expectation for a company’s value growth duration. Forecast information on a particular company as well as identified competitors should be gathered. Rappaport also advises managers to employ the researched information and forecast the cash flows, as shown previously. But rather than changing any value driver assumptions, change only the length of the forecast until the present value of the cash flows less debt equals the market value of the valued company. Surprisingly, most companies in a given industry tend to fall within a certain range; thus , the market is suggesting an implied value growth duration. These „market signals“ are helpful for starting an internal analysis and discussion.<16>
Once you have determined the value growth duration, you must address the value of the cash flows beyond the current period. This determination is called the terminal or residual value. Assume that, after the forecast period, new investments (fixed and working capital) will yield returns equal to the cost of capital. In other words, the internal rate of return is equal to the weighted average cost of capital. Therefore, the net present value of cash flows from new or incremental investments beyond the value growth duration will be equal to zero. The only cash flow left to value in the residual period is the preinvestment cash flow, or NOPAT (see Table 1). Note that depreciation is not included because it is viewed as a proxy for reinvestment. Given that the cash flows are valued infinitely, the business probably would not continue to generate the same level of cash flow if the plant, equipment, or other physical assets were allowed to deteriorate fully. In fact, some companies recognize a higher level of „maintenance“ spending and will adjust the cash flow in the residual period to reflect higher replacement costs.<16>
At this point, it is necessary to discuss some assumptions of terminal value.
The net present value of the residual cash flows is equal to an infinite stream of cash flow (as measured by NOPAT) discounted back at the WACC. Mathematically, this is NOPAT at the end of the value growth duration divided by the WACC. Once this calculation is complete, it is necessary to discount the value back to the current period. The formula is presented in Figure 4 (assuming a five-year value growth duration and 12% WACC).<16>
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The last component or determining the value of an entity is deciding on the overall risk. The risk of a company usually is measured with WACC. The approach assumes there is some mixture of debt and equity that is financing the company. The cost of debt is measured as after-tax cost, that is, the cost accounting for the tax deductibility of interest payments. The marginal cost of debt is not necessarily the average coupon rate on various debt instruments.
Instead, it is the rate for which banks will lend the company an incremental dollar. <16> Figure 4 shows the calculation of WACC by a simple example, considering to determined cost of equity.
The cost of equity is somewhat more complex. If companies use the Capital Asset Pricing Model approach developed by economists Sharpe, Lintner, and Treynor in the mid-1960s, the cost of equity has two basic components:
a risk-free return required by investors and
a premium for investing in equities that are of higher risk.
The risk-free rate is the treasury rate on 30-year U.S. government bonds. This standard generally is used because these bonds typically are seen as delivering the most risk-free, long-term returns investors can earn.
The second component is the premium for investing in something that is of higher risk than the U.S. government. This element is called the market risk premium (MRP). The MRP has two components- the MRP itself and a multiplier, called beta, for investments that are more or less risky than the market portfolio. <16>
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 2: Calculation of WACC (Weighted Average Capital Cost): An Example (adapted from <10>)
The market risk, often also called systematic or undiversifiable risk, is the risk of the market that cannot be avoided by diversification with other investments. Market risk stems from the fact that there are other economy-wide perils which threaten all businesses.
The unique risk (often called unsystematic risk, residual risk, specific risk, or diversifiable risk) is risk which can potentially be eliminated by diversification with other investments. Unique risk stems from the fact that many of the perils that surround an individual are peculiar to that company and perhaps its immediate competitors.<7>
The market risk premium is calculated and published by sources such as Ibbotson Associates (e.g. in its annual SBBI/Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation), <16> Merrill Lynch and others.
Historically, the premium for holding a portfolio of equities, as opposed to investing in a risk-free instrument, is between 6% and 7%, depending on whether you use an arithmetic or geometric average.<16>
Beta is a measure of the relative riskiness of an individual company or portfolio as compared with the market. Thus a beta of 1.0 correlates exactly with the market returns. Beta is measured by comparing the returns of an individual security or portfolio with those of the market. Sources of beta estimates include Merrill Lynch, ValueLine, and Alcar.
There is another way to measure the MRP that is consistent with a forecasting approach. This tack uses estimates of the expected return on the market for the next year. Each month Merrill Lynch publishes a 12-month expected return on the market (S&P 500).
Using this forecast, one can determine the expected MRP by subtracting the current risk-free rate, as measured by 30-year treasuries, from the current forecast of market returns. <16>
Putting all the components of the cost of equity equation together yields the following formula<12,7>:
Cost of Equity = Risk-free rate + Beta * (Market Risk Premium) (1a.) or,
Ce = Rf + Beta* (MRP) (1 b.)
Expected Return on the Market (%) = Rf (%) + MRP (%) (2. )
Once you have calculated the cost of equity and the cost of debt, you may use the WACC approach to combine both costs (debt and equity). In calculating the WACC, use the market values of debt and equity, not the book values, because the market costs of each source of financing are being measured. The question is as follows <12,5>:
WACC (Cc ) = % of Debt * (Cost of Debt (Cd )) + % of Equity * (Cost of Equity (Ce )) (3.)
An example involving a manufacturing company using risk estimation shall show the application of the equation above:
A U.S. manufacturing company is publicly traded and has a market capitalization of $550 million. Its outstanding debt totals $250 million at a marginal borrowing rate of 8,5 % (assume this is the market value of debt and includes all obligations of the company). The current risk-free rate is 7 %, the expected return on the market is 12 %, the beta of this company has been published as 0.90, and its marginal tax rate is 28 %.
What is the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) ? (see Table 3)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 3: Calculation of WACC at given Market Capitalization, Beta and Tax Rate: An Example (adapted from <16>)
Summarizing the exposition above, the SVA-methodology is a more realistic means of assessing the actual value of a business than that offered by accrual-based accounting standards.
SVA works by explicitly measuring the economic impact of each strategy on the value of a business. Contrarily, the traditional accrual-based accounting measures are oriented on the decisions of the past and their impacts and mappings to the traditional financial figures as balance sheet and profit & loss statements. However, those traditional financial figures are oriented on accounting principles which are dominated by „tangible“ assets and industrial production processes. Below is a confrontation of the essentials of both methodologies:
1. Economic Principles
Shareholder Value Analysis (SVA )- also known as Discounted Cash Flow analysis (DCF) or Net Present Value (NPV)
- Evaluates cash inflows to cash outflows on a risk-adjusted basis
- Most widely accepted approach to business evaluation
Economic Value Analysis (EVA )
- Primarily used as a performance measurement tool to calculate period-by-period performance
- Helps an organization to focus on value creation or increased cash flow
- Measuring the change in EVA also may be an effective financial measurement tool
Cash Flow Return on Investment (CFROI)
- Derived from market data to determine cash flow growth and the overall discount rate
- Helps an organization to focus on value creation or increased cash flow
- Seen as a complex financial measurement device
2. Accounting Principles
Return on Capital (ROC)
Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)
Return on Equity (ROE)
Earning per Share (EPS)
The SVA-method supports the analysis and identification of the key value drivers of the business, such as production yield, waste, inventory management and their relative impact on the business value. Thus managers get a market-oriented and real-time tool to evaluate strategic choices and to monitor performance of the business in an ever evolving environment of the information age.
EVA, or Economic Value Added is a measure of financial performance that combines the familiar concept of residual income with principles of modern corporate finance. This means that all capital has a cost and that earning more than the cost of capital creates value for shareholders. So EVA is after-tax net operating profit (NOPAT) minus a capital charge. If a company’s return on capital exceeds its cost of capital, it is creating true value for shareholders and vice versa. Thus, companies with high EVAs are top performers that are valued highly by shareholders.
Key components of EVA are NOPAT and the capital charge, the amount of capital times the cost of capital. NOPAT is profit derived from a company’s operations after taxes but before financing costs and non cash-bookkeeping entries. It is the total pool of profits available to provide a cash return to those who provided capital to the firm.
Capital is the amount of cash invested in the business, net of depreciation. It can be calculated as the sum of the interest-bearing debt and equity or as the sum of net assets less non-interest-bearing current liabilities (NIBCLS).
The capital charge is the cash flow required to compensate investors for the riskiness of the business given the amount of capital invested. Reducing the amount of working capital or fixed assets required to run the business while holding profits steady increases EVA.
The cost of capital is the minimum rate of return on capital required to compensate debt and equity investors for bearing risk (e.g. decay of knowledge) which is a cut-off rate to create value.
In formula form:
EVA = ( r - WACC) * capital;
where r = rate of return; and
WACC = cost of capital, or the weighted average cost of capital
then, EVA = (r * capital) - (WACC * capital);
EVA = NOPAT - WACC * capital ; and
EVA = operating profits - a capital charge
Integral to valuation is the cost of capital. All corporations and all individual business units within a corporation have four kinds of cost of capital:
- the cost of capital for business risk (c br ) is the required return investors will have for the difficulty encountered in accurately forecasting NOPAT. c br is what the cost of equity would be in the absence of debt financing.
- the cost of equity (c e ) reflects the difficulty investors will encounter in their attempts to accurately forecast the bottom-line profits that are available to shareholders. It is equal to c br plus a premium to compensate shareholders for the risk of leverage.
- The after-tax borrowing rate on debt ((1-t)b). t is the corporate marginal income tax rate, the rate at which additional interest expense reduces tax. b is the rate the company would have to pay to raise new permanent debt capital.
- The weighted average cost of capital (WACC; see table 3) can be computed from a financing approach by weighting the after-tax costs of debt and equity in the proportions employed in management’s target capital structure. Better, though, is the operating approach, which reduces the required return for business risk by the tax benefit that arises from debt in management’s target capital structure.
From the four kinds of cost of capital, WACC is the one that really matters. It is the one to use to discount operating free cash flow to a present value; it is the rate new projects must hurdle to be acceptable; and it is the benchmark to judge actual rates of return on capital. In view of its importance, WACC should, when practicable, be established for individual business units and capital projects to account for their specific business risks and ability to support debt.
Otherwise, low-risk, high-debt-capacity business units are apt to subsidize high-risk, low-debt-capacity units <35>..
Another perspective on EVA can be gained by looking at a firm’s RONA or Return on Net Assets. For a firm, RONA is a ratio that is calculated by dividing its NOPAT by the amount of capital it employs (RONA = NOPAT/Capital) after making the necessary adjustments of the data reported by a conventional financial accounting system.
A convenient formulation of EVA is obtained by multiplying the total amount of net assets tied up by the spread between RONA and a threshold or minimum rate of return such as the cost of capital.
EVA = net investments * (RONA - required minimum return)
If RONA is above the threshold rate, EVA is positive.
Gains in shareholder wealth are driven by gains in EVA. The market price of a stock incorporates the current level of EVA and the expectation of future EVA. To increase the stock price, management must increase the current level of EVA and change the market’s expectations of growth in future EVA.
In summary, EVA is really just another definition of earnings, sales less operating expenses, with one more items subtracted, a charge for use of the capital involved. It is true economic profit consisting of all costs including the cost of capital.
Market Value Added, or MVA, is a measure of the wealth a company created for its investors. In effect, MVA shows the difference between what investors put in and what they can take out. By other words, EVA is the fuel that fires up a company’s MVA. A company that has a positive EVA year after year will see its MVA rise, while negative EVA year in and year out will drag down MVA as the market loses faith that the company will ever provide a decent return on invested capital.
MVA is a cumulative measure of corporate performance that looks at how much a company’s stock has added to (or taken out of) investors’ pocketbooks over its life and compares it with the capital those same investors put into the firm.
If MVA is a positive number, the company has made its shareholder richer. A negative MVA indicates how much shareholder wealth has been destroyed. Maximizing MVA should be the primary objective for any company that is concerned about its shareholders’ welfare.
In formula form, MVA is calculated as follows:
MVA = ((shares outstanding * stock price) + market value of preferred stock +
market value of debt) - total capital
The total capital is represented simplified by business assets of the company.
The steps for calculation are: , first, all the capital a company took in over its span of existence is identified including equity and debt offerings, bank loans, and retained earnings, and the amounts are added up. Then, some „adjustments“ are made that capitalize certain past expenditures, like R&D spending, as an investment in future earnings. This adjusted capital amount is compared to a firm’s total market value, which is the current value of a company’s stock and debt to get MVA or the difference between what the investors can take out (total market value) and the amount investors put in (invested capital).
MVA tends to move in tandem with the firm’s stock market value. It is contended that EVA is the sole measurement method that can be correlated with a firm’s stock price.
For example, the MVA (1998) of Deutsche Telekom is approx. 54 billion US $ according to a market-value of approx.125 billion US $ and current business assets of approx. 71 billion US $. This means that the MVA of 54 bn US $ requires from the management a permanent (growing) EVA of ca. 4 bn US $ p.a. at a discount-rate of 7 percent.
Moreover, there are two approaches for calculating and controlling the value of an enterprise by EVA:
1. EVA approach: Adding all the present values (PV) of the expected EVAs to the current value of business assets and getting the current market-value of the company. The sum of added PV of the expected EVAs represents the market-value-added (MVA).
This EVA approach is recommended and is simple but has,because of the short planning horizon, a high sensitivity when looking atthe terminal value (TV).
2. Incremental EVA approach: Adding all the present value of the expected EVA-incremental (improvements) to the current operation value (COV = PV of business assets + EVA/(cost of capital)) and getting the current market-value of the company. The sum of the added PV of the EVA-incremental is the value of the expected growth of the company in the future.
This EVA-incremental approach shows regularly less sensitivity of the terminal value (TV).
Only a permanent increase in EVA leads to a sustained value increase of the business unit. The current absolute EVA level shows the performance of the past and is represented in the value of enterprise of today. According to the current EVA level only improvements and change about the expectation of the investors are to be considered. The EVA-incremental is a base for value-oriented controlling of an enterprise and could be used in connection with an EVA-based compensation system for the responsible executives.
As shown, EVA and MVA can be calculated using some very simplistic formulas. However, the simplicity of these calculations can be misleading because NOPAT (Net Operating Profit After Taxes) and the amount used for capital are not readily available. That is, they don’t come directly off the financial statements. Therefore, the amount of equity equivalent reserves for certain accounts must be determined first, and the footnotes to the financial statements is the primary source for this information.
Equity equivalents are adjustments that turn a firm’s accounting book value into „economic book value“, which is a truer measure of the cash that investors have put at risk in the firm and upon which they expect to accrue some returns. In this way, capital-related items are turned into a more accurate measure of capital that better reflects the financial base on which investors expect to accrue their returns. Also, revenue- and expense-related equity equivalent adjustments are included in NOPAT which is a more realistic measure of the actual cash yield generated for investors from recurring business activities.
<35> recommends making an adjustment only in cases that pass four tests:
- Is it likely to have a material impact on EVA ?
- Can the managers influence the outcome ?
- Can the operating people readily grasp it ?
- Is the required information relatively easy to track and derive ?
Knowledge-items like R&D expenditures are an example of an equity equivalent adjustment. Under accounting conventions, outlays for R&D are charged off in the period in which they are incurred. These immediate charge-offs as operating expenses say there is no future value to be derived from R&D. As a result, the company’s profits are reduced, and its capital is undervalued. For EVA purposes, all outlays over the life of successful R&D projects should be removed from the income statement, be capitalized into the balance sheet, and amortized against earnings over the period benefiting from the successful R&D efforts. Thus, in calculating EVA, knowledge as R&D is seen as an investment, and amounts spent for it must be included in a firm’s capital base to reflect accurately the true amount of capital employed. Only the portion of knowledge as R&D that no longer has future value should be charged to the income statement in order to properly reflect the costs (and profit) of a period.
Other examples of EEs are the LIFO and Deferred Income Tax Reserves. In periods of rising prices, companies save taxes by using a LIFO basis of inventory costing.
Under LIFO, recently acquired goods are expensed, and the costs of prior periods are accumulated in inventory resulting in an understatement of inventory and equity. A LIFO reserve account captures the difference between the LIFO and FIFO value of the inventory and indicates the extent that the LIFO inventories are understated in value.
Adding the LIFO reserve to capital as an equity equivalent converts inventories from a LIFO to a FIFO basis of valuation, which is a better approximation of current replacement cost. Also, adjusting NOPAT for the change in the LIFO reserve brings into earnings the current period effect of unrealized gain attributable to holding inventories that appreciated in value.
Action(s) to be taken for an equity equivalent adjustment for a LIFO reserve are:
Add to capital: amount to the LIFO reserve
Add to (deduct from) NOPAT: the amount of increase (decrease) in the LIFO reserve
Changes in the LIFO reserve also can be viewed as a difference between LIFO and FIFO cost of goods sold. Including this change in reported profits converts a LIFO cost of goods sold expense to FIFO, but LIFO’s tax benefit is retained. Thus, the overall effect of treating a LIFO reserve as an equity equivalent is to produce a FIFO balance sheet and income statement but preserve the LIFO tax benefit.
Deferred taxes arise from a difference in the timing when revenues and expenses are recognized for financial reporting versus when they are reported for tax purposes. The difference between the accounting provision for taxes and the tax amount paid is accumulated in the reserve for deferred income tax amounts. If long-term assets that give rise to tax deferrals are replenished, a company’s deferred tax reserve increases, which is the equivalent of permanent equity. Adjusting NOPAT for the change in the deferred tax reserve results in NOPAT being charged only with the taxes actually paid instead of the accounting tax provision. This calculation provides a clearer picture of the true cash-on-cash yield actually being earned in the business. Action(s) to be taken for an equity equivalent adjustment for a deferred tax reserve are:
Add to capital: amount of the deferred tax reserve
Add to (deduct from) NOPAT: amount of increase (decrease) in the deferred tax reserve
Table 4 shows additional examples of equity equivalents and their effect on capital and NOPAT.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 4: Equity Equivalent Adjustments For Calculating EVA (adapted from <35>)
Approach of Transformation to Knowledge
If we assume that knowledge, as an intangible good, has similar properties and effects in the value chain of the „production process“ of services as inventories of tangible goods have in the industrial production process of commodities, then can we apply the LIFO-accounting principle to the accounting of knowledge. It can be assumed that pioneer and new knowledge is a competitive advantage and so has the highest market value and price. But it can be devalued by loosing its effect of competitive advantage which is often caused by time and increase of use. So recently acquired knowledge items are expensed, and the accumulated costs of prior knowledge periods are devalued in their assets, resulting in an understatement of the knowledge assets and equity. A „knowledge reserve account“ captures the difference between the „pioneer knowledge value“ and the „generic knowledge value“ and indicates the extent in which the „pioneer knowledge value“ are understated in value. Adding the pioneer reserve to capital as an equity equivalent converts knowledge assets from a pioneer knowledge value to a generic knowledge basis of valuation, which is a better approximation of current replacement cost.
Calculating a firm’s EVA, <35> recommends two methods for calculating the productivity of capital employed in the business: an Operating Approach and a Financing Approach.
The Financing Approach builds up the rate of return on capital from the standard return on equity in three steps: eliminating financial leverage, eliminating financial distortions, and eliminating accounting distortions. As a result of the first two steps, NOPAT is a sum of the returns attributable to all providers of funds to the company, and the NOPAT return is completely unaffected by the financial composition of capital. The financial form in which the capital has been obtained isn’t the matter but the productivity of the capital employed is the core question.
The Operating Approach starts by deducting operating expenses-including depreciation-from sales, but other non-cash-book-keeping entries are ignored. Next, EE reserve adjustments are made. Interest expense, because it is a financing charge, is ignored, but other (operating) income is added to get pretax economic profits or Net Operating Profit Before Taxes (NOPBT).
In the final step, an estimate of the taxes payable in cash on these operating profits is subtracted leaving NOPAT at the same amount as in the financing approach.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 5: Sample of Calculation EVA and MVA <adapted by 14>
A disadvantage of EVA and MVA is that they consider only certain conditions in the environment of investment in their calculation and that they do not account for the real options of growth opportunities. However, the market value of corporate securities reflects the market’s knowledge and perception of the value of those growth opportunities. EVA does not reflect this information - thus EVA will be better for firms with substantial assets in place in mature industries with few growth opportunities (public utilities for instance). However, for companies with fewer assets in place and substantial growth opportunities, year-to-year changes in EVA are less likely to explain changes in corporate value.
Companies in the technology, knowledge economy, and biotech sectors, for instance, would fall into the latter category. This problem can be avoided by refocusing the company on the present value of expected future EVA instead of on year-to-year changes in EVA. However, doing so would eliminate the essential factors (simplicity and ease of use) that caused EVA to be preferred to NPV.
By focusing on MVA, we can capture the growth opportunities inherent in companies. Because MVA is constructed off the market value of a company’s securities, it reflects the market’s expectations of future opportunities for the corporation. Using both EVA and MVA to evaluate performance allows companies to account for both the year-to-year and long-term changes in value.
Beside EVA, other performance metrics exists - such as NPV, CFROI, and RI. CFROI (cash flow return on investment) is a rate of return measure calculated by dividing the inflation-adjusted cash flow from the investment by the inflation-adjusted amount of the cash investment. While CFROI does adjust for inflation, it fails to account for risk and the appropriate required return on the project. In a sense, CFROI is similar to the internal rate of return (IRR), hence it measures the investment’s return as opposed to the wealth created or destroyed by the investment.
EVA comes closest in theory and construct to net present value (NPV). The information requirements for both approaches is similar . For both approaches you need an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital. To determine the NPV of an investment decision, you need estimates of expected future cash flow. Similarly, to determine the economic value of the decision, you need the present value of expected future EVA’s that are based on expected future cash flows of the company. Thus, the NPV of an asset is simply the present value of the expected future EVA from the asset. Consequently, the notion of increasing or maximizing EVA each year is consistent with the goal of shareholder wealth maximization.
The general question is to put scarce capital to its most promising uses. To increase their company’s stock price, managers must perform better than those with whom they compete for capital. Then, once they get the capital, they must earn rates of return on it that exceed the return offered by other - equally risky - seekers of capital funds. If they accomplish this goal, value will have been added to the capital that their company’s investors placed at their disposal - if they don’t accomplish that goal, there will be a misallocation of capital, and the company’s stock will sell at a price that discounts the sum total of the resources employed.
EVA measures the amount of value a company creates during a defined period through operating decisions it makes to increase margins, improve working capital management, efficiently use its production facilities, and re-deploy underutilized assets. Thus, EVA can be used to hold management accountable for all economic outlays whether they appear in the income statement, on the balance sheet or in the financial statement’s footnotes. EVA creates one financial statement that includes all the costs of being in business, including the carrying cost of capital.
Another very subtle benefit to a company that adopts EVA is that it creates a common language for making decisions, especially long term decisions; resolving budgeting issues; evaluating the performance of its organizational units and its managers so it is also measuring the value-creating potential of its strategic options. An extension of such an environment is that the quality of management also improves as managers begin to think like owners and adopt a view with a longer time horizon. Having access to such a meaningful measure, and one that is linked strongly to share price performance, clarifies a manager’s options and, in conjunction with MVA, provides a meaningful target to pursue for both internally and externally oriented decisions.
However, another important question is “ does it consider the risk correctly by estimating the cost of capital“?. Unfortunately, EVA and the other financial tools most widely relied on to estimate the value of a strategy such as a discounted-cash-flow (DCF) valuation , assumes that we will follow a predetermined plan, regardless of how events unfold.
A better approach to valuation would incorporate both the uncertainty inherent in business and the active decision making required for a strategy to succeed. It would help managers think strategically and use their knowledge and experience on their feet by capturing the value of doing just that - of managing actively rather than passively. Options can deliver that extra insight. Advances in both computing power and knowledge management and our understanding of option pricing over the last years make it feasible now to begin analyzing business strategies as chains of real options.
As a result, knowledge and the creative activity of strategy formulation can be informed by valuation analyses. Financial insight may actually contribute to shaping strategy, rather than being relegated to an after-the-fact exercise of „checking the numbers“.
More about the valuation of strategic investments under uncertainty (real options) and total risk will be explained in chapter 4..
In an economy of transition from the industrial business to the knowledge business and society new business realities are dominated by a world of uncertainty in decision making.
The current set of approaches for valuation and decision-making tools led by the discounted-cash-flow (DCF) approach is not t sufficient for decision making. In the foreground there are strategic investments with lots of uncertainty and huge capital requirements; projects that must adapt to evolving conditions; complex asset structures through partnerships, licenses, and joint ventures; and the relentless pressure from the financial markets for value-creating strategies.
In financial terms, a business strategy is much more like a series of options than a series of static cash flows. Executing a strategy almost always involves making a sequence of major decisions. Some actions can be taken directly, while others are deliberately deferred, so that managers can optimize a strategy as circumstances evolve. The strategy sets the framework within which future decisions will be made, but at the same time it leaves room for learning from ongoing developments and for discretion to act based on what has been learned. Knowledge management and enabling will become the important tool to master in the „New Economy“ and real options is an important way of thinking about valuation and strategic decision making. , The power of this approach is starting to change the economic „equation“ of many business branches.
In summarizing the facts for sufficient decision making, we can create two independent metrics, each of which captures a different part of the value associated with being able to defer an investment. The first metrics contains all the usual data captured in net present value (NPV) but adds the time value of being able to defer the investment. This metric is defined as the value of the underlying assets that we intend to build or acquire divided by the present value of the expenditure required to build or buy them. It is a ratio of value to cost and the value-to-cost metrics refer only to the project’s assets, not to the option on those assets.
If the value-to-cost metric varies between zero and one, the project’s worth is less than it costs; if the value-to-cost metric is greater than one, the project is worth more than the present value of what it costs.
The second metric measures how much things can change before an investment decision must finally be made. It depends both on how uncertain, or risky, the future value of the assets in question is and on how long we can defer a decision. There we have two important bits of information for decision, the former is a statistical measure of the volatility and captured by the variance per period of asset returns and the latter is the time period in which the decision have to be done, it is the option’s time to expiration.
Thus an important economical value of option thinking is the opportunity to wait with an investment decision and to analyze and consider new information and knowledge for the decision.
Traditional corporate finance gives us only one metric -NPV- for evaluating projects, and only two possible actions: invest or don’t invest. With real options we have two metrics: value-to-cost metric and volatility metric; and six possible actions: invest now, invest maybe now, invest probably later, invest maybe later, probably never and invest never.
Knowledge is very important for managing under uncertain conditions and to balances chances and risks of the future. The option value of an investment will determined by knowledge. Presented below are some definitions and sources of knowledge which have to be considered when making decisions:
Knowledge consists of facts, truths, and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how.
Knowledge can be accumulated and integrated and is held over long periods, readily available to be applied against specific situations and problems.
Information consists of facts and data that are organized to describe a particular situation or condition.
Knowledge is subsequently applied to interpret the available information about a particular situation and to decide how to manage it. We use knowledge to determine what a particular situation means. <43>
Table 6: Forms and Types of Knowledge (adapted by <43>)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
In business creation and from a cognitive perspective, we use knowledge on four conceptual levels:
i) Goal-setting or idealistic knowledge or vision and paradigm knowledge. We use this knowledge to identify what is possible and to create our goals and values. A part of this knowledge is well known to us and explicit because we work consciously with it. Most of it, e.g. our visions, is not well known, however; instead it is tacit and only accessible non-consciously.
The question is „Knowledge of WHY“ the ideal is desirable and obtainable.
ii) Systematic knowledge or system, schema, and reference methodology knowledge. We use this knowledge to analyze and reason in-depth and to synthesize new approaches and alternatives. It means our theoretical knowledge of underlying systems, general principles, and related problem-solving strategies is to a large extent explicit and well known to us.
Here, the question is „Knowledge THAT“ it is possible, methodologies exists, and it can be achieved.
iii) Pragmatic knowledge or decision-making and factual knowledge (know-how). We use this knowledge to perform our daily work and make explicit decisions. Decision-making knowledge is practical and mostly explicit; it is often based on scripts that we know well.
Here, the question is „Knowledge HOW“ it can be achieved.
iiii) Automatic knowledge or routine working knowledge. We use this to perform tasks automatically without conscious reasoning. We know this knowledge so well that we have automated it, most of it has become tacit.
The role of knowledge in business corresponds with the major goal for management of most organizations to direct and motivate the people to act intelligently during all routine tasks and in face of all challenges. Management’s fondest wish is that every individual, and therefore every department, and in the aggregate, the whole organization, would respond to every situation and challenge with the best insight of how to fulfill the organization’s short and long-term objectives to the fullest.
By acting intelligently, the organization will be both creative and vigilant in exploiting all relevant opportunities. Only when an organization acts in this manner will it become financially successful. It will increase its market share, maximize its short and long-term financial position, and become a leader.
However, the ability to act intelligently is not automatic. The major requirement is to have appropriate knowledge at each point of the action; first, to understand each and every situation from the most appropriate perspective and, second, to determine how to handle the situation in the best manner possible.
It is the objective of knowledge management to build the requisite knowledge, deploy it to all points-of-action, and to create a culture and an environment that are conductive to using the knowledge to act intelligently.<43>
We are moving towards a „global knowledge society“ and we are in the midst of a „knowledge value revolution“. <43>
<Karl Erik Sveiby> and <Tom Lloyd> discuss how different organizations have become what they term „know-how companies“. They distinguish between four types of organizations:
1.) The factory;
2.) the office;
3.) the agency;
4.) the professional organization.
Their point is that the worth of these organizations have shifted from the financial and physical assets to „knowledge resources“ or knowledge assets. They have become knowledge-intensive organizations.
As a result of these changes, business operations in manufacturing and service companies have become more streamlined, requiring increased knowledge to operate efficiently. <43>
There are four basic strategies to exploiting knowledge:
1.) Cash in on knowledge by selling it as services in the open market;
2.) sell knowledge outright as patents, licenses, or in other forms;
3.) embed knowledge in proprietary products and sell those in the open market and
4.) use proprietary knowledge to „work smarter“ to lower cost and improve quality of products and services.
Knowledge is the capacity to act.
Knowledge cannot be described in words because it is mainly tacit; we always know more than we can say. Knowledge is also both dynamic and static.
The concept of competence, which embraces factual knowledge, skill, experience, value judgements, and social networks, is the best way to describe knowledge in the business context.
Practical knowledge is based on rules that do not change easily.
Rules support the process-of-knowing but also restrict it. They allow us to act quickly but also tend to let us take things for granted.
New knowledge is always colored by the knowledge we already possess. We can articulate or communicate parts of our knowledge so that it can be respond to.
Explicit knowledge is independent of the individual that created it, but competence is not.
Human competence cannot be copied exactly. We all develop our own competence- through training, practice, mistakes, reflection, and repetition Competence is transferred by doing.
Human knowledge can be seen as a sort of hierarchy with ability at the bottom (being most common), competence next, and expertise at the top (being most rare).
Expertise is impossible to transfer. The power of expertise lies in the way that it influences how others think and behave.
Ausarbeitung, 47 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 17 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 20 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 15 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 31 Seiten
Ausarbeitung, 47 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 17 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 20 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 15 Seiten
Hausarbeit (Hauptseminar), 31 Seiten
Der GRIN Verlag hat sich seit 1998 auf die Veröffentlichung akademischer eBooks und Bücher spezialisiert. Der GRIN Verlag steht damit als erstes Unternehmen für User Generated Quality Content. Die Verlagsseiten GRIN.com, Hausarbeiten.de und Diplomarbeiten24 bieten für Hochschullehrer, Absolventen und Studenten die ideale Plattform, wissenschaftliche Texte wie Hausarbeiten, Referate, Bachelorarbeiten, Masterarbeiten, Diplomarbeiten, Dissertationen und wissenschaftliche Aufsätze einem breiten Publikum zu präsentieren.
Kostenfreie Veröffentlichung: Hausarbeit, Bachelorarbeit, Diplomarbeit, Dissertation, Masterarbeit, Interpretation oder Referat jetzt veröffentlichen!