Avaliação de empresa pelos métodos do fluxo de caixa descontado e múltiplos : qual deles se aproxima mais da avaliação de mercado? um estudo aplicado às empresas do setor de educação negociadas na BM & FBOVESPA

Abstract

The aim of this research was to evaluate if there are significant differences between the results generated by the discounted cash flow and multiples valuation methods when applied to the education sector companies in relation to their market values. As for its typology, this was characterized as an exploratory-descriptive research, using bibliographical and documentary procedures, with a quantitative approach, through the use of descriptive and inferential statistics. The sample of the research was composed by the companies belonging to the education sector contained in the BM & FBOVESPA, the data of secondary source were obtained through documentary collection. For the analysis of the variables, the regression econometric model with panel data was used as inferential statistics, using data in a time series with a cross-section, using the econometric software EViews. The explanatory power of the models based on adjusted R2 resulted in: 66.35% net profit model, 77.74% equity model, EBITDA model 58.13% and discounted cash flow model 99.99%. All models demonstrate an AIC <0, considered to be good models for comparison purposes. Considering the assumptions adopted, the estimates that most approached the market value were those resulting from the multiples, corresponding to the companies ANIM3, ESTC3 and KROT3, only the company SEER3 obtained the estimated discounted cash flow method as the one that most approached the its market value. The closest estimate of the market value was that of the company ANIM3, which had a market value of 1,077,648 billion and the estimate of the EBITDA multiple of 1,099,217 billion. Already the most distant estimate of the market value was also that of the company ANIM3, with a market value of 1,077,648 billion and an estimate of the profit multiple of 284,879 million. Given this results, the hypotheses adopted were not rejected, since there were estimates that were very close to the market value, as well as estimates that far distanced themselves, presenting percentage differences considered as not significant and significant. However, when comparing the methods with each other, there were significant differences between one method and the other, as described by Damodaran (1997), who states that significant differences may exist between one method and another.