Lease Accounting and a Cross-Atlantic Multiples Comparison
You are valuing Brenner Foods, a Frankfurt-listed grocer reporting under IFRS, against a US peer set reporting under US GAAP. Brenner's IFRS 16 EBITDA is €1,150m; lease depreciation is €300m and lease interest €100m. Annual cash rent under the old standard would have been €400m. Other depreciation is €250m, so EBIT is €600m, and pre-tax profit is unchanged by the standard. The lease liability is €2.4bn. Net financial debt excluding leases is €1.6bn, and there are 500m shares at €7.20. The US peers trade at a median 8.0x EV/EBITDA, where EBITDA is stated after rent and EV excludes lease liabilities. A junior analyst applies 8.0x to Brenner's €1,150m EBITDA, deducts total net debt of €4.0bn and derives equity of €5,200m, or €10.40 per share - 44% above the market price - and recommends Buy.
1. Recompute the valuation using two internally consistent routes, and quantify the analyst's error.
Read the worked answer
Route A - pre-lease basis, matching the peers. EBITDA after rent = 1,150 − 400 = €750m. At 8.0x that is €6,000m EV, which excludes lease liabilities; deduct only net financial debt of €1,600m → equity €4,400m, or €8.80 per share.
Route B - IFRS 16 basis. EV must then include the lease liability: 6,000 + 2,400 = €8,400m, and 8,400/1,150 = 7.3x. Applying 7.3x to 1,150 gives 8,400; less total net debt of 4,000 gives 4,400 → €8.80. Identical, as it must be.
So the lease-adjusted equivalent of the peers' 8.0x is 7.3x, not 8.0x.
The error. The analyst applied a pre-lease multiple to a post-lease EBITDA and deducted the lease liability. The lease is counted twice: once in the numerator (EBITDA is €400m higher because rent is no longer deducted) and once in the bridge (the €2.4bn liability). His 8.0 × 1,150 = 9,200 − 4,000 = 5,200 overstates equity by €800m, or 18%, and the target by €1.60 per share. Every euro of the apparent 44% upside is accounting.
Reality check on the market price: market capitalisation is 500 × 7.20 = €3,600m; pre-lease EV = 5,200m; 5,200/750 = 6.9x versus 8.0x for peers. The market is already applying a 14% discount that needs an operating or governance explanation.
2. Explain why the multiple falls from 8.0x to 7.3x, and state which other multiples are and are not distorted by the lease standard.
Read the worked answer
The relationship is mechanical. EV_post = 8.0 × EBITDA_pre + L = 8.0 × (EBITDA_post − rent) + L. Substituting Brenner's numbers: 8.0 × 750 + 2,400 = 8,400 = 7.3 × 1,150.
The multiple falls because the capitalised rent (€2,400m) is smaller than the multiple applied to rent (8 × €400m = €3,200m). The lease liability is a stock discounted at the borrowing rate over the remaining term - here 6x rent - while the peer multiple is an enterprise-value-to-flow ratio. If the liability happened to equal the multiple times rent, the two bases would give the same number. Any debt-like item treated this way - pensions, minorities, securitisation, preferred stock - follows the same rule: whatever is deducted in the bridge must first be reflected in the numerator of the multiple, and vice versa.
Other multiples:
- EV/EBIT is distorted but less: pre-lease 6,000/500 = 12.0x; post 8,400/600 = 14.0x, a 17% distortion versus 30% for EBITDA, because EBIT captures the €300m of depreciation on the leased asset. Still not comparable without adjustment.
- P/E is essentially unaffected: pre-tax profit is unchanged, since rent of €400m is replaced by depreciation of €300m plus interest of €100m. Any P/E gap against peers is operating, not accounting. This is why P/E is often the cleanest cross-standard comparison in retail.
3. Set out how you would actually value Brenner against this peer set, and what cross-checks you would demand before publishing €8.80.
Read the worked answer
Framework. Never mix bases. Either restate Brenner to a pre-lease basis (subtract rent from EBITDA and keep the lease out of the bridge) or restate the US peers onto IFRS 16 (add back rent, add the lease liability). For grocers the pre-lease or EV/EBITDAR route is usually better, because lease intensity varies enormously - own versus lease, sale-and-leaseback, turnover rents - and the peers' 8.0x embeds their own lease profile.
A secondary cross-check: 6.9x pre-lease versus 8.0x peers. Before calling that a 14% discount, explain it - growth, margin, leverage, family control, liquidity, index weight. If no explanation exists, 6.9x may be the right multiple and there is no upside at all.
Cross-checks before publishing €8.80:
- Is the €400m rent the current cash rent or a normalised figure? Step-ups and turnover-linked rents change both the add-back and the liability.
- Confirm the lease liability term and discount rate; a short remaining term means the liability understates the true obligation.
- Peer comparability: fiscal year-ends, property ownership, franchise versus owned stores, working-capital conventions (grocers run negative working capital).
- Debt-like items outside the €1.6bn: pension deficit, minorities, supplier financing, contingent consideration.
- EBITDA quality: one-off property gains, supplier rebates, and whether the €1,150m includes any capitalised or reclassified items.
Finally, the junior analyst's third error is process, not arithmetic: a 44% upside driven entirely by a mechanical adjustment should have triggered a reconciliation against the market price before the Buy rating was written.