DOCSLIB.ORG

ŠKODA AUTO VYSOKÁ ŠKOLA O.P.S. Valuation of Netflix, Inc. Diploma

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ŠKODA AUTO VYSOKÁ ŠKOLA O.P.S. Valuation of Netflix, Inc. Diploma ŠKODA AUTO VYSOKÁ ŠKOLA o.p.s. Course: Economics and Management Field of study/specialisation: Corporate Finance in International Business Valuation of Netflix, Inc. Diploma Thesis Bc. Alena Vershinina Thesis Supervisor: doc. Ing. Tomáš Krabec, Ph.D., MBA 2 I declare that I have prepared this thesis on my own and listed all the sources used in the bibliography. I declare that, while preparing the thesis, I followed the internal regulation of ŠKODA AUTO VYSOKÁ ŠKOLA o.p.s. (hereinafter referred to as ŠAVŠ), directive OS.17.10 Thesis guidelines. I am aware that this thesis is covered by Act No. 121/2000 Coll., the Copyright Act, that it is schoolwork within the meaning of Section 60 and that under Section 35 (3) ŠAVŠ is entitled to use my thesis for educational purposes or internal requirements. I agree with my thesis being published in accordance with Section 47b of Act No. 111/1998 Coll., on Higher Education Institutions. I understand that ŠAVŠ has the right to enter into a licence agreement for this work under standard conditions. If I use this thesis or grant a licence for its use, I agree to inform ŠAVŠ about it. In this case, ŠAVŠ is entitled to demand a contribution to cover the costs incurred in the creation of this work up to their actual amount. Mladá Boleslav, Date ......... 3 I would like to thank doc. Ing. Tomáš Krabec, Ph.D., MBA for his professional supervision of my thesis, advice, and information. I also want to thank the ŠAVS management for their support of the students’ initiative. 4 Contents List of Abbreviations and Symbols ......................................................................... 8 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10 1 Theoretical Essence of Business Valuation ................................................... 12 1.1 Valuation Standards ............................................................................... 12 1.1.1 International Valuation Standards ................................................... 12 1.1.2 European Valuation Standards ....................................................... 12 1.2 Basic Definitions..................................................................................... 13 1.3 Imperfections During the Valuation ........................................................ 14 1.4 Business Valuation Purposes................................................................. 15 1.5 Bases of Value ....................................................................................... 17 1.5.1 Market Value ................................................................................... 18 1.5.2 Market Rent .................................................................................... 19 1.5.3 Equitable Value ............................................................................... 19 1.5.4 Investment Value ............................................................................ 19 1.5.5 Synergistic Value ............................................................................ 20 1.5.6 Liquidation Value ............................................................................ 20 1.5.7 Fair Value........................................................................................ 20 1.6 Valuation Measures ............................................................................... 21 1.6.1 Equity Value .................................................................................... 21 1.6.2 Enterprise Value ............................................................................. 22 1.7 Recommended Valuation Steps ............................................................. 22 1.8 Data Analysis ......................................................................................... 23 1.8.1 Strategic Analysis ........................................................................... 23 1.8.2 Financial Analysis ........................................................................... 26 1.9 Valuation Approaches Overview ............................................................ 27 1.10 Comparable Companies Method............................................................ 30 1.10.1 Step 1. Select the Universe of Comparable Companies ................. 30 1.10.2 Step 2. Locate the Necessary Financial Information ....................... 31 1.10.3 Step 3. Spread Key Statistics, Ratios, and Trading Multiples ......... 33 1.10.4 Step 4. Benchmark the Comparable Companies ............................ 38 1.10.5 Step 5. Determine Valuation ........................................................... 38 1.11 Discounted Cash Flow Method .............................................................. 39 1.11.1 Step 1. Study the Target and Determine Key Performance Drivers 40 1.11.2 Step 2. Project Free Cash Flow ...................................................... 40 5 1.11.3 Step 3. Calculate Weighted Average Cost of Capital ...................... 47 1.11.4 Step 4. Determine Terminal Value .................................................. 53 1.11.5 Step 5. Calculate Present Value and Determine Valuation ............. 54 2 Strategic Analysis of Netflix, Inc. .................................................................... 57 2.1 Historical Development of Netflix, Inc. .................................................... 57 2.2 Business Model Canvas ......................................................................... 59 2.2.1 Key Partners ................................................................................... 59 2.2.2 Key Activities ................................................................................... 60 2.2.3 Key Resources ................................................................................ 61 2.2.4 Value Propositions .......................................................................... 61 2.2.5 Customer Relationships .................................................................. 62 2.2.6 Customer Segments ....................................................................... 62 2.2.7 Cost Structure ................................................................................. 62 2.2.8 Revenue Streams ........................................................................... 63 2.3 PESTLE Analysis ................................................................................... 64 2.3.1 Political Factors ............................................................................... 64 2.3.2 Economic Factors ........................................................................... 65 2.3.3 Social Factors ................................................................................. 66 2.3.4 Technological Factors ..................................................................... 67 2.3.5 Legal Factors .................................................................................. 68 2.3.6 Environmental Factors .................................................................... 69 2.4 Porter's Five Forces Analysis ................................................................. 70 2.4.1 Competition in the Industry ............................................................. 70 2.4.2 Power of Suppliers .......................................................................... 73 2.4.3 Power of Customers ....................................................................... 73 2.4.4 Potential of New Entrants into the Industry ..................................... 74 2.4.5 The Threat of Substitute Products .................................................. 74 2.5 SWOT Analysis ...................................................................................... 74 2.5.1 Strengths......................................................................................... 74 2.5.2 Weaknesses ................................................................................... 75 2.5.3 Opportunities ................................................................................... 75 2.5.4 Threats ............................................................................................ 76 2.6 Financial Analysis .................................................................................. 76 2.6.1 Assets Vertical & Horizontal Analysis ............................................. 76 2.6.2 Liabilities Vertical & Horizontal Analysis.......................................... 77 2.6.3 Income Statement Vertical & Horizontal Analysis ........................... 77 6 2.6.4 Ratios Analysis ............................................................................... 77 3 Valuation of Netflix, Inc. ................................................................................. 81 3.1 Comparable Companies Method............................................................ 81 3.2 Discounted Cash Flow Method .............................................................. 84 3.2.1 Value Drivers Projections ................................................................ 84 3.2.2 Financial Plan Projections ............................................................... 95 3.2.3 Free Cash Flow Calculation ............................................................ 96 3.2.4 WACC Calculations ........................................................................ 97 3.2.5 Determine Valuation ....................................................................... 99 3.2.6 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................101 3.2.7 Final
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Netflix Prize Contest
    1) New Paths to New Machine Learning Science 2) How an Unruly Mob Almost Stole the Grand Prize at the Last Moment Jeff Howbert University of Washington February 4, 2014 Netflix Viewing Recommendations Recommender Systems DOMAIN: some field of activity where users buy, view, consume, or otherwise experience items PROCESS: 1. users provide ratings on items they have experienced 2. Take all < user, item, rating > data and build a predictive model 3. For a user who hasn’t experienced a particular item, use model to predict how well they will like it (i.e. predict rating) Roles of Recommender Systems y Help users deal with paradox of choice y Allow online sites to: y Increase likelihood of sales y Retain customers by providing positive search experience y Considered essential in operation of: y Online retailing, e.g. Amazon, Netflix, etc. y Social networking sites Amazon.com Product Recommendations Social Network Recommendations y Recommendations on essentially every category of interest known to mankind y Friends y Groups y Activities y Media (TV shows, movies, music, books) y News stories y Ad placements y All based on connections in underlying social network graph, and the expressed ‘likes’ and ‘dislikes’ of yourself and your connections Types of Recommender Systems Base predictions on either: y content‐based approach y explicit characteristics of users and items y collaborative filtering approach y implicit characteristics based on similarity of users’ preferences to those of other users The Netflix Prize Contest y GOAL: use training data to build a recommender system, which, when applied to qualifying data, improves error rate by 10% relative to Netflix’s existing system y PRIZE: first team to 10% wins $1,000,000 y Annual Progress Prizes of $50,000 also possible The Netflix Prize Contest y CONDITIONS: y Open to public y Compete as individual or group y Submit predictions no more than once a day y Prize winners must publish results and license code to Netflix (non‐exclusive) y SCHEDULE: y Started Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons Learned from the Netflix Contest Arthur Dunbar
    Lessons Learned from the Netflix Contest Arthur Dunbar Background ● From Wikipedia: – “The Netflix Prize was an open competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm to predict user ratings for films, based on previous ratings without any other information about the users or films, i.e. without the users or the films being identified except by numbers assigned for the contest.” ● Two teams dead tied for first place on the test set: – BellKor's Pragmatic Chaos – The Ensemble ● Both are covered here, but technically BellKor won because they submitted their algorithm 20 minutes earlier. This even though The Ensemble did better on the training set (barely). ● Lesson one learned! Be 21 minutes faster! ;-D – Don't feel too bad, that's the reason they won the competition, but the actual test set data was slightly better for them: ● BellKor RMSE: 0.856704 ● The Ensemble RMSE: 0.856714 Background ● Netflix dataset was 100,480,507 date-stamped movie rating performed by anonymous Netflix customers between December 31st 1999 and December 31st 2005. (Netflix has been around since 1997) ● This was 480,189 users and 17,770 movies Background ● There was a hold-out set of 4.2 million ratings for a test set consisting of the last 9 movies rated by each user that had rated at lest 18 movies. – This was split in to 3 sets, Probe, Quiz and Test ● Probe was sent out with the training set and labeled ● Quiz set was used for feedback. The results on this were published along the way and they are what showed upon the leaderboard ● Test is what they actually had to do best on to win the competition.
    [Show full text]
  • Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network
    Syracuse University SURFACE Dissertations - ALL SURFACE May 2016 Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network Laura Osur Syracuse University Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/etd Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Osur, Laura, "Netflix and the Development of the Internet Television Network" (2016). Dissertations - ALL. 448. https://surface.syr.edu/etd/448 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the SURFACE at SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations - ALL by an authorized administrator of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract When Netflix launched in April 1998, Internet video was in its infancy. Eighteen years later, Netflix has developed into the first truly global Internet TV network. Many books have been written about the five broadcast networks – NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and the CW – and many about the major cable networks – HBO, CNN, MTV, Nickelodeon, just to name a few – and this is the fitting time to undertake a detailed analysis of how Netflix, as the preeminent Internet TV networks, has come to be. This book, then, combines historical, industrial, and textual analysis to investigate, contextualize, and historicize Netflix's development as an Internet TV network. The book is split into four chapters. The first explores the ways in which Netflix's development during its early years a DVD-by-mail company – 1998-2007, a period I am calling "Netflix as Rental Company" – lay the foundations for the company's future iterations and successes. During this period, Netflix adapted DVD distribution to the Internet, revolutionizing the way viewers receive, watch, and choose content, and built a brand reputation on consumer-centric innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Introduction James Bennett Charles Elkan Bing Liu Netflix Department of Computer Science and Department of Computer Science 100 Winchester Circle Engineering University of Illinois at Chicago Los Gatos, CA 95032 University of California, San Diego 851 S. Morgan Street La Jolla, CA 92093-0404 Chicago, IL 60607-7053 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Padhraic Smyth Domonkos Tikk Department of Computer Science Department of Telecom. & Media Informatics University of California, Irvine Budapest University of Technology and Economics CA 92697-3425 H-1117 Budapest, Magyar Tudósok krt. 2, Hungary [email protected] [email protected] INTRODUCTION Both tasks employed the Netflix Prize training data set [2], which The KDD Cup is the oldest of the many data mining competitions consists of more than 100 million ratings from over 480 thousand that are now popular [1]. It is an integral part of the annual ACM randomly-chosen, anonymous customers on nearly 18 thousand SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and movie titles. The data were collected between October, 1998 and Data Mining (KDD). In 2007, the traditional KDD Cup December, 2005 and reflect the distribution of all ratings received competition was augmented with a workshop with a focus on the by Netflix during this period. The ratings are on a scale from 1 to concurrently active Netflix Prize competition [2]. The KDD Cup 5 (integral) stars. itself in 2007 consisted of a prediction competition using Netflix Task 1 (Who Rated What in 2006): The task was to predict which movie rating data, with tasks that were different and separate from users rated which movies in 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • When Diversity Met Accuracy: a Story of Recommender Systems †
    proceedings Extended Abstract When Diversity Met Accuracy: A Story of Recommender Systems † Alfonso Landin * , Eva Suárez-García and Daniel Valcarce Department of Computer Science, University of A Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain; [email protected] (E.S.-G.); [email protected] (D.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-881-01-1276 † Presented at the XoveTIC Congress, A Coruña, Spain, 27–28 September 2018. Published: 14 September 2018 Abstract: Diversity and accuracy are frequently considered as two irreconcilable goals in the field of Recommender Systems. In this paper, we study different approaches to recommendation, based on collaborative filtering, which intend to improve both sides of this trade-off. We performed a battery of experiments measuring precision, diversity and novelty on different algorithms. We show that some of these approaches are able to improve the results in all the metrics with respect to classical collaborative filtering algorithms, proving to be both more accurate and more diverse. Moreover, we show how some of these techniques can be tuned easily to favour one side of this trade-off over the other, based on user desires or business objectives, by simply adjusting some of their parameters. Keywords: recommender systems; collaborative filtering; diversity; novelty 1. Introduction Over the years the user experience with different services has shifted from a proactive approach, where the user actively look for content, to one where the user is more passive and content is suggested to her by the service. This has been possible due to the advance in the field of recommender systems (RS), making it possible to make better suggestions to the users, personalized to their preferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Binary Principal Component Analysis in the Netflix Collaborative Filtering Task
    BINARY PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS IN THE NETFLIX COLLABORATIVE FILTERING TASK Laszl´ o´ Kozma, Alexander Ilin, Tapani Raiko Helsinki University of Technology Adaptive Informatics Research Center P.O. Box 5400, FI-02015 TKK, Finland firstname.lastname@tkk.fi ABSTRACT teams. Among the popular ones are nearest neighbor meth- ods on either users, items or both, and methods using matrix We propose an algorithm for binary principal component decomposition [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. It seems that no single method analysis (PCA) that scales well to very high dimensional can provide prediction accuracy comparable with the cur- and very sparse data. Binary PCA finds components from rent leaders in the competition. The most successful teams data assuming Bernoulli distributions for the observations. use a blend of a high number of different algorithms [3]. The probabilistic approach allows for straightforward treat- Thus, designing methods that may not be extremely good ment of missing values. An example application is collabo- in the overall performance but which look at the data at a rative filtering using the Netflix data. The results are compa- different angle may be beneficial. rable with those reported for single methods in the literature and through blending we are able to improve our previously obtained best result with PCA. The method presented in this work follows the matrix decomposition approach, which models the ratings using 1. INTRODUCTION a linear combination of some features (factors) character- izing the items and users. In contrast to other algorithms Recommendation systems form an integral component of reported in the Netflix competition, we first binarize the many modern e-commerce websites.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Bag-Of-Concepts As a Movie
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Bag-of-Concepts as a Movie Genome and Representation A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Computer Science by Colin Zhou Committee in charge: Professor Shlomo Dubnov, Chair Professor Sanjoy Dasgupta Professor Lawrence Saul 2016 The Thesis of Colin Zhou is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION For Mom and Dad iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page........................................................................................................... iii Dedication.................................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents....................................................................................................... v List of Figures and Tables.......................................................................................... vi Abstract of the Thesis................................................................................................ vii Introduction................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 1 Background............................................................................................... 3 1.1 Vector Space Models............................................................................... 3 1.1.1. Bag-of-Words........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Significance of the Netflix Challenge
    Statistical Science 2012, Vol. 27, No. 2, 202–231 DOI: 10.1214/11-STS368 c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2012 Statistical Significance of the Netflix Challenge Andrey Feuerverger, Yu He and Shashi Khatri Abstract. Inspired by the legacy of the Netflix contest, we provide an overview of what has been learned—from our own efforts, and those of others—concerning the problems of collaborative filtering and rec- ommender systems. The data set consists of about 100 million movie ratings (from 1 to 5 stars) involving some 480 thousand users and some 18 thousand movies; the associated ratings matrix is about 99% sparse. The goal is to predict ratings that users will give to movies; systems which can do this accurately have significant commercial applications, particularly on the world wide web. We discuss, in some detail, ap- proaches to “baseline” modeling, singular value decomposition (SVD), as well as kNN (nearest neighbor) and neural network models; temporal effects, cross-validation issues, ensemble methods and other considera- tions are discussed as well. We compare existing models in a search for new models, and also discuss the mission-critical issues of penalization and parameter shrinkage which arise when the dimensions of a pa- rameter space reaches into the millions. Although much work on such problems has been carried out by the computer science and machine learning communities, our goal here is to address a statistical audience, and to provide a primarily statistical treatment of the lessons that have been learned from this remarkable set of data. Key words and phrases: Collaborative filtering, cross-validation, ef- fective number of degrees of freedom, empirical Bayes, ensemble meth- ods, gradient descent, latent factors, nearest neighbors, Netflix contest, neural networks, penalization, prediction error, recommender systems, restricted Boltzmann machines, shrinkage, singular value decomposi- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Movie Recommendations Using Matrix Factorization
    DEGREE PROJECT IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, FIRST CYCLE, 15 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2016 Movie recommendations using matrix factorization JAKOB IVARSSON MATHIAS LINDGREN KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATION CSC KTH Movie recommendations using matrix factorization Jakob Ivarsson and Mathias Lindgren Degree Project in Computer Science DD143X Supervised by Arvind Kumar Examiner Orjan¨ Ekeberg 11 maj 2016 Abstract A recommender system is a tool for recommending personalized con- tent for users based on previous behaviour. This thesis examines the impact of considering item and user bias in matrix factorization for im- plementing recommender systems. Previous work have shown that user bias have an impact on the predicting power of a recommender system. In this study two different implementations of matrix factorization us- ing stochastic gradient descent are applied to the MovieLens 10M dataset to extract latent features, one of which takes movie and user bias into consideration. The algorithms performed similarly when looking at the prediction capabilities. When examining the features extracted from the two algorithms there was a strong correlation between extracted features and movie genres. We show that each feature form a distinct category of movies where each movie is represented as a combination of the categories. We also show how features can be used to recommend similar movies. Sammanfattning Ett rekommendationssystem ¨ar ett verktyg f¨or att rekommendera an- passat inneh˚allf¨or anv¨andare baserat p˚atidigare beteende hos anv¨andare. I denna avhandling unders¨oker vi hur ett system som anv¨ander matrisfak- torisering p˚averkas n¨ar man tar h¨ansyn till partiskhet.
    [Show full text]
  • Ensemble Learning Featuring the Netflix Prize Competition And
    Introduction to Ensemble Learning Featuring Successes in the Netflix Prize Competition Todd Holloway Two Lecture Series for B551 November 20 & 27, 2007 Indiana University Outline • Introduction – Bias and variance problems • The Netflix Prize – Success of ensemble methods in the Netflix Prize • Why Ensemble Methods Work • Algorithms – AdaBoost – BrownBoost – Random forests 1-Slide Intro to Supervised Learning We want to approximate a function, Given examples, Find a function h among a fixed subclass of functions for which the error E(h) is minimal, Independent The distance Variance of the of h from of f predictions Bias and Variance Bias Problem – The hypothesis space made available by a particular classification method does not include sufficient hypotheses Variance Problem – The hypothesis space made available is too large for the training data, and the selected hypothesis may not be accurate on unseen data Bias and Variance Decision Trees • Small trees have high bias. • Large trees have high variance. Why? from Elder, John. From Trees to Forests and Rule Sets - A Unified Overview of Ensemble Methods. 2007. Definition Ensemble Classification Aggregation of predictions of multiple classifiers with the goal of improving accuracy. Teaser: How good are ensemble methods? Let’s look at the Netflix Prize Competition… Began October 2006 • Supervised learning task – Training data is a set of users and ratings (1,2,3,4,5 stars) those users have given to movies. – Construct a classifier that given a user and an unrated movie, correctly classifies that movie as either 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 stars • $1 million prize for a 10% improvement over Netflix’s current movie recommender/classifier (MSE = 0.9514) Just three weeks after it began, at least 40 teams had bested the Netflix classifier.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Learning, Fall 2014-15 Class Competition: Netflix Data
    Statistical Learning, Fall 2014-15 Class Competition: Netflix Data The Netflix Prize The Netflix Prize was a competition to predict user ratings of movies. Netflix provided ratings of 17770 movie titles by 480189 users, along with the date of each rating. The task was to predict ratings for 282000 user-movie-date triples that are not in the training set; all the users and movies in this test set appear in the training set. Netflix judged performance by root mean squared error on the test set and offered a $1,000,000 reward to the first team to improve the performance of their current system by more than 10%. The prize was won in 2009. Details of the Netflix Prize are available at: www.netflixprize.com Class Competition Because the Netflix Prize involves a very large data set and a non-standard problem (you could be asked to predict for any movie), the class competition will simplify the problem considerably. The training data provide the ratings of 10,000 users for 99 movies, along with the dates at which the ratings were made. The first 14 of these movies were rated by all users; the remaining 85 may have missing values. The outcome is the rating that each user gave to a further movie (”Miss Congeniality”,2000); you are also given the date that this rating was made. The task is to predict the rating for this movie by a further 2931 users in the test set. As with the training set, all users in the test set rated the first 14 movies, while the remaining 85 have missing values.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature Redactedn '- Patrick Hale, Director System Design and Management Program Abstract
    The Evolving Value Chain in the Television Industry Changes in Pay TV Delivery and Its Implications for the Future by MASSACHUSErTS INSriTMUE OF TECHNOLOGY Deepak Mohan JUN 2 6 2014 B. Eng., Electronics and Communication Nanyang Technological University (2002) LIBRARIES Submitted to the System Design and Management Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Engineering and Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology January 2014 ©2014 Deepak Mohan All Rights Reserved The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Signature of Author Deepak Mohan System Design and Management Program Signature redacte I Certified by_ NNMichael A M Davies Thesis Supervisor r,jglyri S3ms Division Accepted by Signature redactedN '- Patrick Hale, Director System Design and Management Program Abstract This report studies the television industry in the US, and the changes that have taken place in the industry in the last decade. Specifically, it looks at episodical TV content delivery and consumption - excluding movies, sports and live programming. The study uses 2005 as a reference point, marking the end of the pre-online video era. The industry followed a "content push" model, with channels programming the content for viewers based on their understanding of viewership, timings and preferences. The study shows that the large cable TV operators enjoyed the maximum value capture in the industry. This business had a high barrier for entry due to the expensive dedicated video delivery infrastructure, and this barrier prevented new entrants into the field.
    [Show full text]