Valuing A Brand Name

Valuing A Brand Name

Last week, the business news was all on ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ ๐•๐š๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ž. First, the IT services firms had rankings on brand value; further, the ๐†๐ฅ๐จ๐›๐š๐ฅ ๐Ÿ“๐ŸŽ๐ŸŽ ๐ซ๐ž๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐›๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ซ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ came up with their rankings and declared Appleย as the most valuable global brand.

๐‡๐จ๐ฐ ๐๐จ๐ž๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง๐ž ๐ฏ๐š๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ž ๐š ๐…๐ข๐ซ๐ฆ’๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐š๐ง๐?
Every company in their marketing pitch declares itself as a famous brand to acquire new business. Further, the accountants do not report the brand’s value on the balance sheet, making it more challenging for an analyst valuing the company to assess if the brand affects its value.

1643604906600

For instance,ย The Coca-Cola Company‘s most significant intangible asset – brand value does not get reported in the balance sheet, and the same applies toย McDonald’s,ย PepsiCo, andย Wrigley.

๐™’๐™–๐™ง๐™ง๐™š๐™ฃ ๐˜ฝ๐™ช๐™›๐™›๐™š๐™ฉ ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง๐™ข๐™จ ๐™ž๐™ฉ ๐™ก๐™ž๐™ ๐™š ๐™– ๐™ข๐™ค๐™–๐™ฉ, ๐™ฌ๐™๐™ž๐™˜๐™ ๐™ž๐™จ ๐™– ๐™จ๐™ž๐™œ๐™ฃ๐™ž๐™›๐™ž๐™˜๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™›๐™–๐™˜๐™ฉ๐™ค๐™ง ๐™ฌ๐™๐™š๐™ฃ ๐™๐™š ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™ซ๐™š๐™จ๐™ฉ๐™จ ๐™ž๐™ฃ ๐™– ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ข๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฎ.

I have seen analysts adding a brand premium at the top of intrinsic value to justify the valuation. I believe it is wrong as DCF valuation should capture the brand value.

In my view, a brand should give a company a ๐™™๐™ช๐™ง๐™–๐™—๐™ก๐™š ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ข๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™ซ๐™š ๐™–๐™™๐™ซ๐™–๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™–๐™œ๐™š ๐™›๐™ค๐™ก๐™ก๐™ค๐™ฌ๐™š๐™™ ๐™—๐™ฎ ๐™ก๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™œ-๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ง๐™ข ๐™š๐™–๐™ง๐™ฃ๐™ž๐™ฃ๐™œ ๐™ฅ๐™ค๐™ฌ๐™š๐™ง. A firm with high brand value should have the following:

โ€ขPricing power
โ€ขCost advantage
โ€ขHigh growth period
โ€ขHigher ROIC and low reinvestment needs

To substantiate my hypothesis, i took two companies in the smartphone segment –ย Appleย andย Xiaomi Technology and valued them byย DCF.

โ€ขApple’s ๐‘๐Ž๐ˆ๐‚ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ.๐Ÿ“๐Ÿ“% after capitalising on their R&D expenses, and for Xiaomi, it is ๐Ÿ๐Ÿ“.๐Ÿ”๐Ÿ%
โ€ขXiaomi is reinvesting far more than Apple, reflected in its EBIT growth rate.

If I keep all things constant, and ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฒ ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ’๐˜€ ๐—ฅ๐—ข๐—œ๐—– ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐˜„๐—ถ๐˜๐—ต ๐—ซ๐—ถ๐—ฎ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—ถ’๐˜€, ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—น๐—ฒ’๐˜€ ๐˜ƒ๐—ฎ๐—น๐˜‚๐—ฒ ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ๐˜‚๐—ฐ๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐Ÿฏ.๐Ÿฒ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ผ ๐Ÿฎ ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—น๐—น๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป.

If i assume that 30% of this difference is due to Apple’s brand and 70% is due to its technological superiority, i arrive at ๐€๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ž’๐ฌ ๐›๐ซ๐š๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐š๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ž ๐š๐ญ $๐Ÿ’๐Ÿ•๐Ÿ’ ๐›๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง.

Companies likeย The Coca-Cola Companyย andย Wrigley can assume 100% brand value because their products do not differentiate from their competition.



Leave a Reply