What Is an Asset-Based Approach?

An asset-based approach is a type of business valuation that focuses on a company’s net asset value. The net asset value is identified by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. There is some room for interpretation in terms of deciding which of the company’s assets and liabilities to include in the valuation and how to measure the worth of each.

Understanding an Asset-Based Approach

Identifying and maintaining awareness of the value of a company is an important responsibility for financial executives. Overall, stakeholder and investor returns increase when a company’s value increases, and vice versa.

There are a few different ways to identify a company’s value. Two of the most common are the equity value and enterprise value. The asset-based approach can also be used in conjunction with these two methods or as a standalone valuation. Both equity value and enterprise value require the use of equity in the calculation. If a company does not have equity, analysts may use the asset-based valuation as an alternative.

Many stakeholders will also calculate the asset-based value and use it comprehensively in valuation comparisons. The asset-based value may also be required for private companies in certain types of analysis as added due diligence. Furthermore, the asset-based value can also be an important consideration when a company is planning a sale or liquidation.

Calculating Asset-Based Value

In its most basic form, the asset-based value is equivalent to the company’s book value or shareholders’ equity. The calculation is generated by subtracting liabilities from assets.

Often, the value of assets minus liabilities differs from the value reported on the balance sheet due to timing and other factors. Asset-based valuations can provide latitude for using market values rather than balance sheet values. Analysts may also include certain intangible assets in asset-based valuations that may or may not be on the balance sheet.

Adjusting Net Assets

One of the biggest challenges in arriving at an asset-based valuation is adjusting net assets. An adjusted asset-based valuation seeks to identify the market value of assets in the current environment. Balance sheet valuations use depreciation to decrease the value of assets over time. Thus, the book value of an asset is not necessarily equivalent to the fair market value.

Other considerations for net asset adjustments may include certain intangibles that are not fully valued on the balance sheet or included on the balance sheet at all. Companies might not find it necessary to value certain trade secrets. However, since an adjusted asset-based approach looks at what a company could potentially sell for in the current market, these intangibles are important to consider.

In an adjusted net asset calculation, adjustments can also be made for liabilities. Market value adjustments can potentially increase or decrease the value of liabilities, which directly affects the calculation of adjusted net assets.

What Is the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis?

The 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis was a contentious debate in Congress that occurred in July 2011 regarding the maximum amount of debt the federal government should be allowed.

Understanding the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

The federal government has rarely achieved a balanced budget, and its budget deficit ballooned following the 2007-08 Financial Crisis. In the 2008 fiscal year, the deficit stood at $458.6 billon, widening to $1.4 trillion in 2009 as the government engaged in a massive fiscal policy response to the economic downturn.

Between 2008 and 2010, Congress raised the debt ceiling from $10.6 trillion to $14.3 trillion. In 2011, as the economy showed early signs of recovery and federal debt approached its limit once again, negotiations began in Congress to balance spending priorities against the ever-rising debt burden. 

Heated debate ensued, pitting proponents of spending and debt against fiscal conservatives. Pro-debt politicians argued that failing to raise the limit would require immediate cuts to spending already authorized by Congress, which could result in late, partial, or missed payments to Social Security and Medicare recipients, government employees, and government contractors.

Moreover, they asserted the Treasury could suspend interest payments on existing debt rather than withhold funds committed to federal programs. The prospect of cutting back on already promised spending was labeled a crisis by debt proponents.

On the other hand, the specter of a technical default on existing Treasury debt roiled financial markets. Fiscal conservatives argued that any debt limit increase should come with constraints on the growth of federal spending and debt accumulation.

Outcome of the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

Congress resolved the debt ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which became law on August 2, 2011. This act allowed the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.4 trillion in two phases, or installments.

In the first phase, a $400 billion increase would occur immediately, followed by another $500 billion unless Congress disapproved it. The second phase allowed for an increase between $1.2 trillion and $1.5 trillion, subject to Congressional disapproval as well. In return, the act included $900 billion in slowdowns in planned spending increases over a 10-year period. It also established a special committee charged with finding at least $1.5 trillion in additional savings.

In effect, the legislation incrementally raised the debt ceiling from $14.3 trillion to $16.4 trillion by January 27, 2012.

Following the passage of the act, Standard & Poor’s took the radical step of downgrading the United States long-term credit rating from AAA to AA+, even though the U.S. did not default. The report says, “The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” The credit rating agency cited the unimpressive size of deficit reduction plans relative to the likely future prospects for politically driven spending and debt accumulation.

Debt Approval Process Leading to the 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to borrow money. Before 1917, this power was exercised by Congress authorizing the Treasury to borrow specified amounts of debt to fund limited expenses, such as war-time military spending, which would be repaid after the end of hostilities. This kept the national debt directly linked to authorized spending.

In 1917, Congress imposed a limit on federal debt as well as individual issuance limits. In 1939, Congress gave the Treasury more flexibility in how it managed the overall structure of federal debt, giving it an aggregate limit. However, by delegating debt management authority to the Treasury, Congress was able to break the direct connection between authorized spending and the debt that finances it. 

While allowing greater flexibility to raise spending, this practice also created a need for Congress to repeatedly raise the debt limit when spending threatens to overrun available credit. Due to occasional political resistance to the idea of continually expanding the federal debt, this process of raising the debt limit has at times engendered controversy, which occurred during the 2011 Debt Ceiling Crisis.

The Bottom Line

Following the 2007-08 Financial Crisis, in an effort to slow down the severe recession as well as the persistently high unemployment rate, the government increased federal spending. As a result, the federal debt reached its limit on multiple occasions from 2008 to 2011 which led to a series of increases of the debt limit. In 2011, the Treasury asked for its borrowing capacity to be extended.

The 2011 U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis was a contentious debate in Congress that occurred in July 2011 regarding the maximum amount of debt the federal government should be allowed. Congress resolved the debt ceiling crisis by passing the Budget Control Act of 2011, which became law on August 2, 2011. This act allowed the debt ceiling to be raised by $2.4 trillion in two phases, or installments.

What Is Annualized Income?

Annualized income is an estimate of the sum of money that an individual or a business generates over a year’s time. Annualized income is calculated with less than one year’s worth of data, so it is only an approximation of total income for the year. Annualized income figures can be helpful for creating budgets and making estimated income tax payments.

Understanding Annualized Income

Annualized income can be calculated by multiplying the earned income figure by the ratio of the number of months in a year divided by the number of months for which income data is available. If, for example, a consultant earned $10,000 in January, $12,000 in February, $9,000 in March and $13,000 in April, the earned income figure for those four months totals $44,000. To annualize the consultant’s income, multiply $44,000 by 12/4 to equal $132,000.

How Estimated Tax Payments Work

Taxpayers pay annual tax liabilities through tax withholdings and by making estimated tax payments each quarter. There are many sources of income that are not subject to tax withholding. Income from self-employment, interest and dividend income and capital gains are not subject to tax withholdings, along with alimony and some other sources of income that may be reported to a taxpayer on Form 1099. To avoid a penalty for tax underpayment, the total tax withholdings and estimated tax payments must equal to the lesser of 90% of the tax owed for the current year or the full tax owed the previous year.

Examples of Annualized Income That Fluctuates

Computing estimated tax payments is difficult if the taxpayer’s income sources fluctuate during the year. Many self-employed people generate income that varies greatly from one month to the next. Assume, for example, that a self-employed salesperson earns $25,000 during the first quarter and $50,000 in the second quarter of the year. The higher income in the second quarter indicates a higher total level of income for the year, and the first quarter’s estimated tax payment is based on a lower level of income. As a result, the salesperson may be assessed an underpayment penalty for the first quarter.

Factoring in the Annualized Income Installment Method

To avoid the underpayment penalties due to fluctuating income, the IRS Form 2210 allows the taxpayer to annualize income for a particular quarter and compute the estimated tax payments based on that amount. Schedule AI of Form 2210 provides a column for each quarterly period, and the taxpayer annualizes the income for that period and computes an estimated tax payment based on that estimate. Using the salesperson example, Form 2210 allows the taxpayer to annualize the $25,000 first quarter income separately from the $50,000 second quarter income.

What Is the After-Tax Real Rate of Return?

The after-tax real rate of return is the actual financial benefit of an investment after accounting for the effects of inflation and taxes. It is a more accurate measure of an investor’s net earnings after income taxes have been paid and the rate of inflation has been adjusted for. Both of these factors must be accounted for because they impact the gains an investor receives. This can be contrasted with the gross rate of return and the nominal rate of return of an investment.

Understanding the After-Tax Real Rate of Return

Over the course of a year, an investor might earn a nominal rate of return of 12% on his stock investment, but the real rate of return, the money he gets to put in his pocket at the end of the day, will be less than 12%. Inflation might have been 3% for the year, knocking his real rate of return down to 9%. And since he sold his stock at a profit, he will have to pay taxes on those profits, taking another, say 2%, off his return, for an after-tax real rate of return of 7%.

The commission he paid to buy and sell the stock also diminishes his return. Thus, in order to truly grow their nest eggs over time, investors must focus on the after-tax real rate of return, not the nominal return.

The after-tax real rate of return is a more accurate measure of investment earnings and usually differs significantly from an investment’s nominal (gross) rate of return, or its return before fees, inflation, and taxes. However, investments in tax-advantaged securities, such as municipal bonds and inflation-protected securities, such as Treasury inflation protected securities (TIPS), as well as investments held in tax-advantaged accounts, such as Roth IRAs, will show less discrepancy between nominal returns and after-tax real rates of return.

Example of the After-Tax Real Rate of Return

Let’s be more specific about how the after-tax real rate of return is determined. The return is calculated first of all by determining the after-tax return before inflation, which is calculated as Nominal Return x (1 – tax rate). For example, consider an investor whose nominal return on his equity investment is 17% and his applicable tax rate is 15%. His after-tax return is, therefore:
$0.17 \times (1 – 0.15) = 0.1445 = 14.45\%$0.17×(1−0.15)=0.1445=14.45%

Let’s assume that the inflation rate during this period is 2.5%. To calculate the real rate of return after tax, divide 1 plus the after-tax return by 1 plus the inflation rate, then subtract 1. Dividing by inflation reflects the fact that a dollar in hand today is worth more than a dollar in hand tomorrow. In other words, future dollars have less purchasing power than today’s dollars.

Following our example, the after-tax real rate of return is:

$\frac{(1 + 0.1445)}{(1 + 0.025)} – 1 = 1.1166 – 1 = 0.1166 = 11.66\%$(1+0.025)(1+0.1445)​−1=1.1166−1=0.1166=11.66%

That figure is quite a bit lower than the 17% gross return received on the investment. As long as the real rate of return after taxes is positive, however, an investor will be ahead of inflation. If it’s negative, the return will not be sufficient to sustain an investor’s standard of living in the future.

The Bottom Line

When you are assessing the value of your investments, it’s important to look at not just your nominal rate of return but also the after-tax real rate of return, which takes into account the taxes you’ll owe and inflation’s effect. The after-tax real rate of return can tell you if your nest egg investments will allow you to maintain your standard of living in the future.