NETFLIX FIT: CASE ANALYSIS

Aswath Damodaran
Discrete and Continuous Time

2
Summary of Conclusions

¨ On a stand-alone basis, this project is a value-adding project in the finite life case,
albeit only marginal, but with the synergy benefits counted in, it does do better.
¨ The average return on capital, in the finite life case, is 10.76%, without synergy and about
14.08% with synergy. The latter is higher than the cost of capital for Netflix Fit, which is 8.01%.
¤ The net present value of the cash flows on Netflix Fit, using a cost of capital of 8.01%
n Is $106 million, under the finite life assumption of a of 10 years. Adding the present value
of the side benefits to Netflix Entertainment, the NPV is +$483 million.
n Is $ 346 million, under the assumption of an infinite life. Adding the present value of the
side benefits of the stories, the NPV is $1,055 million.
n The IRR is 8.69% (11.17%) with a 10-year life and 8.97% (11.53%) with the infinite life, with
the number in brackets representing the IRR with synergy counted in.
¨ All of the numbers in the case are based upon the assumption that existing users
stay on as existing users, i.e., that the renewal rate is close to 100%. If we lower
that renewal rate, the cash flows decrease and so does the NPV. While extending
the life does make the investment better, technology is a fickle advantage.
¨ We would recommend that Netflix leave this business to players like Peloton,
companies that serve a niche market, unless you can find a way to increase the
side benefits to the entertainment business.

3
Cost of Capital: Your numbers

5
Netflix Fit: Operating Income &
Incremental Operating Income
Operating Income

Incremental Operating Income

6
Return on Capital Computation

BV of capital = Undepreciated portion of original investment

+ BV of Studio + Non-cash Working capital

7
Some Thoughts on Operating Income...

¨ There are a number of allocation mechanisms that

can be used to compute operating income, and the
return on capital is affected by decisions on
allocation.
¨ Your choices on depreciation have profound effects
on return on capital. Using a more accelerated
depreciation method would raise your return on
capital substantially.
¨ Note that the operating income is computed after
marginal taxes (Why?) and does not include the tax
savings due to interest expenses (Why?).
8
Your findings: Return on Capital

9
Finite Life case assumptions

¨ Incremental Effects
¤ When analyzing the cost of studio expansion, we consider the cost of the
system in year 4 ($ 520 million) but we show the savings in year 8 ($ 541
million). Similarly, for depreciation, we show the depreciation on the existing
system of $ 52 million from year 5-8, but show the differential depreciation of
-$2 million between the two systems in years 9 & 10.
¤ Since we are planning on wrapping up the business in 10 years, there is no
need for significant capital maintenance expenditures.
¨ Both working capital investments and capital investments are assumed to
occur at the start of the year and are therefore shown at the end of the
previous year.

10
Incremental Cash Flows - Finite Life

11
The Side Benefits for Netflix Entertainment

12
Finite Life NPV

13
The Value Effect: NPV

14
Explanations for Infinite Life Case

¨ When extending the project life to infinity, I did make some

changes to the assumptions about capital maintenance.
¤ Made the capital expenditure exceed depreciation by 1% (the inflation
rate) all through the 10 years. Essentially, I am assuming that whatever
depletion occurs in book value because of depreciation is made up by
new capital maintenance expenditures in that year, with the inflation
adjustment.
¤ Set capital expenditures higher than depreciation, using the inflation
adjustment for 10 years (= 200*1.0110), in year 11, to allow for the fact
that in perpetuity, I would have to keep stores looking pristine to have
growth of 1% a year forever.
¨ The synergy benefits now continue in perpetuity as well.

15
Incremental Cash Flows- Infinite Life

16
The terminal value: Assumptions and
Calculation
¨ After year 10, I assume that the number of subscribers is
level, but subscription prices grow at the inflation rate of 1%
a year.
¨ My cash flow in year 11 is much lower than my cash flow in
year 10, because I no longer have add on subscribers.
¨ Terminal Value
= CF in year 11/ (Cost of capital –g)
= 244.33/(.0801-.01) = $ 3,486 million

17
Finite versus Infinite: The Cash Flow Trade off

Year Finite Perpetual Differential

0 $ (2,500.00) $ (2,500.00) $ -
1 $ 132.94 $ (35.19) $ (168.13)
2 $ 200.68 $ 30.87 $ (169.81)
3 $ 272.66 $ 101.15 $ (171.51)
4 $ (171.29) $ (344.51) $ (173.22)
5 $ 459.60 $ 284.65 $ (174.95)
6 $ 944.35 $ 757.25 $ (187.10)
7 $ 442.58 $ 264.38 $ (178.20)
8 $ 484.43 $ 304.45 $ (179.99)
9 $ 528.60 $ 346.81 $ (181.79)
10 $ 1,143.52 $ 3,917.23 $ 2,773.71

18
Value Added: NPV of Infinite Life Case

19
Consistency in growth and investment
assumptions
After year 15 Capital Expenditure Assumption
Project ends No (or very low) capital maintenance
Let assets run down towards end of life
Infinite life; g=0% Capital maintenance = Depreciation
Maintain invested capital at base level
Infinite life; g= inflation Capital maintenance > Depreciation
Capital invested has to grow at inflation rate
Infinite life; g> inflation Capital investment to increase capacity
Capital maintenance > Depreciation
Capital invested has to grow to reflect real
growth

20
Your findings: Infinite Life

NPV Perpetual Life

8

0
< -500 -500 To 0 0 To 500 500 To 1,000 1,000 To 2,000 2,000 To 3,000 3,000 To 4,000 4,000 To 5,000 5,000 To 10,000 >10,000

21
Final Conclusions

¨ Of the 45 groups that turned in numbers on this project, 17

decided that it should be rejected.
¨ 28 groups suggested that the investment be made…
¨ If you did accept or reject, is it possible that the six weeks
since the case was written might have changed your views.
¤ Why or why not?
¤ If the events of the last few weeks changed your views, what would you do
other than express regrets?

22