{"id":54403,"date":"2019-06-04T07:45:27","date_gmt":"2019-06-04T06:45:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/?p=54403"},"modified":"2019-06-04T09:09:21","modified_gmt":"2019-06-04T08:09:21","slug":"amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As we all know, companies often provide their own view on performance measures which not rarely differ quite a lot from IFRS measures. In some cases this choice of measure is due to the idea of managing and allowing to analyse the company in a better way (good reason), in other cases it is rather for generating some flexibility in investor communication (bad reason, see https:\/\/valuesque.com\/doms-underlying-earnings-definition-the-profit-before-cost-financial-analysis-problem\/<\/strong><\/a>). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if it\nis not about IFRS numbers but rather about some non-GAAP standard financial measure\n\u2013 such as the Free Cash Flow \u2013 then variation seems to be even more delectable\nfor companies. This has been the case now for a long time with companies\nsometimes including interest pay-outs into their Free Cash Flow calculations\nand sometimes not. But the introduction of IFRS 16 now aggravates the relevance\nof this topic further. What we can see from first experiences is a motley\nFCF-calculation-hodgepodge \u2013 with Amadeus IT Group S.A. clearly leading the\npack in terms of audacity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be honest: there is no one hard definition for Free Cash Flow. But there are of course some rules of consistency, or put differently: some rules on how Free Cash Flow must be calculated if you want to make a certain statement. For business valuation reasons, for example, there is an absolute clear relationship between the free cash flow definition, the cost of capital definition and the dimension of the enterprise value (for more information with regard to IFRS 16 see: <\/strong>https:\/\/valuesque.com\/deutsche-post-more-debt-same-equity-value-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-1\/<\/strong><\/a>). Similar is the case for credit analysis or for leveraged-buy-out (LBO) models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Companies,\nhowever, do not have to care about consistency. They can define the free cash\nflow as they want or as it best fits to their management needs (if they define\nit at all), with the question of inclusion or non-inclusion of financial\ncharges being the main \u2013 but not the only \u2013 point of differentiation. And\ninvestors have to live with this communication non-uniformity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nintroduction of IFRS 16 (Lease Accounting, see the Deutsche-Post-link above for\nmore information) has now brought new challenges to companies\u2019 Free Cash Flow\ncalculations with regard to former IAS 17 operating lease payments. This is the\ncase as while annual lease payments had been clearly seen as an operating cash component\nunder the old IAS 17, they are now split into a lease liability repayment and\nan interest expense on the lease liability \u2013 both of which rather sound like\nfinancial components at first glance. But should this accounting-only change\nreally impact the way how companies look at the Free Cash Flow? In particular\nas their choice of Free Cash Flow definition should have had purely economic drivers\nin an ideal world (again: no IFRS standard forced them to go this way)? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For answering these questions we have a look at a small selection of real world examples of how companies deal with this issue. This sample is non-exhaustive, it is put together based on typical outcome scenarios \u2013 there are for most of the scenarios many more companies around who behave the same way. As we will see, there are some no-changers, some soft-changers and also some soldiers of fortune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biggest\npositive surprise in our sample was Ahold Delhaize. The company did not only\nannounce to include all former operating lease payments into the Free Cash Flow\ncalculation (i.e. making the new lease liability interest expenses and the\nlease liability repayments being part of the Free Cash Flow) they also freshly\nincluded the old IAS 17 financial lease payments \u2013 which were not included so\nfar \u2013 into their calculation grid. This makes sense from both a consistency and\nan economic point of view \u2013 even at the cost of a now lower disclosed Free Cash\nFlow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The rational economic IFRS 16 adopter in our sample is logistics group DSV. They didn\u2019t change anything in their economic view on Free Cash Flows. They simply counter the fact that lease payments are now treated differently from an accounting point of view with a little adjustment in their Free Cash Flow calculation. A very smart and subtle way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The award\nfor the dogmatic adopter goes to another logistics giant (and future partner of\nDSV): Panalpina Welttransport Holding AG. The company sticks to their original\ncalculation grid \u2013 whatever happens. And when the standard setters want to\nreclassify some items, then they simply show up in a new place in their\ncalculation grid. Part of the lease payments is now debt repayment (i.e.\nfinancial)? Then it no longer feeds into the Panalpina Free Cash Flow\ncalculation. This is the easy way to deal with this topic, but it does not represent\na highly economic view on things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similar to Panalpina, but a with some uncertainties on how it will be concretely applied in practice is Fuchs Petrolub SE. The company commented in the 20 March 2019 Financial Year 2018 results conference call on the development of the 2019 Free Cash Flow (information taken from the transcript provided by Thomson Reuters Streetevents) that \u201c\u2026there is very minor special effect out of the accounting for this IFRS 16 leasing standard, which will give us, I don\u2019t know, \u20ac8 million or \u20ac7 million higher free cash flow\u2026\u201d. But it is not possible to see where exactly these numbers come from. Is it only the reclassification of the lease liability repayments or also some interest expenses on the lease liability? From the pure numbers (rental and lease payments totaled \u20ac18 million in 2018, but Fuchs Petrolub also stated that they will make use of exemptions for short-term leases and leases for low-value assets in their new IFRS 16 accounting) no inference is possible. Here we have to wait and see what the concrete outcome will be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And finally,\nthe award for the soldier of fortune goes to Amadeus IT Group S.A. This 2018\nearly-adopter company made use of the IFRS 16 accounting change to seemingly hide\naway roughly \u20ac4.9 million of lease interest payments (about 42% of its IFRS 16\nadjusted Free Cash Flow growth in 2018) from its Free Cash Flow calculation \u2013 all\nthis without a single clear comment on it in the 2018 reports! Let\u2019s have a closer\nlook below on how they did it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, some more information on the IFRS 16 impact on Amadeus balance sheet and P&L is necessary. The company follows a Modified Retrospective Approach, meaning that it does not have to restate its earlier years\u2019 accounts (more information on the different transformation approaches: https:\/\/valuesque.com\/shells-skyrocketing-discount-rates-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-2\/<\/strong><\/a>).
Their disclosed Free Cash Flow number is further defined after paid interest charges:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Amadeus now states that IFRS 16 drove upward EBITDA by \u20ac47.4 million, and simultaneously interest expenses also upward by \u20ac4.9 million. This means (assuming this is all cash-relevant) that the new accounting outflow from debt repayment should amount to 47.4 – 4.9 = \u20ac 42.5 million. So far, so unspectacular. However, only some lines below this comment, Amadeus states that there was a debt repayment of \u20ac47.4 million due to IFRS 16 \u2013 the same amount as the EBITDA increase. This should now \u2013 according to Amadeus \u2013 balance the cash effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: Amadeus Directors Report 2018, page 14.
<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

But how is this possible? This debt repayment number differs from my calculation exactly by \u20ac4.9 million (the same as the interest expense). Some further investigation is obviously necessary. Below is a short version of the 2018 Cash Flow Statement of Amadeus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: Amadeus Directors Report 2018, page 37. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The relevant number is here the Full Year 2018 Free Cash Flow (\u20ac976 million) and the way how the company determined it. We checked every position, in particular the EBITDA of \u20ac2,013.5 million (here is no interest expense included, as already stated by the company above [Amadeus splits the IFRS-16-effect in the P&L into an EBITDA impact and an interest expense impact]) and the Interest & financial fees paid (here is also no IFRS 16 interest impact included, see table below [the \u20ac5.3 million difference would have been commented differently if this position was included]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Source: Amadeus Directors Report 2018, page 40. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

So, where\nis the interest expense? There are basically only two explanations for it:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. The\nhighly probable explanation: The lease interest expenses are part of the obscure\n\u201cDebt payment\u201d position (\u20ac1,373.8 million) below the Free Cash Flow Calculation\nin the short Cash Flow Statement. Unfortunately, it is not possible to retrace\nthis number from the information given in the long IFRS Cash Flow Statement. But\nif the interest expense is really hidden there then also the comment on the\nbalancing of the \u20ac47.4 million EBITDA increase by the \u201cdebt repayments\u201d stated\nin the IFRS-16-impact-comments above would make sense (take care of the\ndifferent wording in the comment and the table: payment vs. repayment!). I also\nchecked the \u201cCash flow from non-operating and extraordinary items\u201d position but\ncould not find any indication that the interest expenses are part of it.<\/li>
  2. The\nhighly improbable explanation: There was a non-cash component to the 2018 operating\nlease expenses exactly by the same amount of the accounting interest expense.\nBut what a coincidence this would be? Why should there be a non-cash component?\nAnd then incidentally exactly by this amount? I highly doubt that this is the\ncase. And I couldn\u2019t find any indication in the lease asset valuation that this\nshould be the case.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    So it\nclearly seems as if Amadeus has hidden the \u20ac4.9 million lease interest expense\nwithin the debt repayments (where it definitely does not belong to). As the\ncompany normally determines the Free Cash Flow after cash financial interest charges,\nthe financial charges from the lease liability are now excluded! The potential argument\nthat this expense is not a cash interest outflow to a third-party because\nAmadeus does not pay interests to the lessor but only contractual lease\npayments would not make any sense neither: It is a cash outflow, and it belongs\nto the normal Free Cash Flow calculation grid of Amadeus, however you look at\nit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    So what?\nFree Cash Flow is not an IFRS measure. Amadeus can state it as it wants. But\n(1) the proceeding does not follow any logic, and (2) Amadeus could have made clear\nin the Annual Report that it follows this strange differentiation of non-lease\ninterest expenses and lease interest expenses. They didn\u2019t do it [presumably\nbecause they didn\u2019t want to get some uncomfortable questions from investors]\nand by this they managed to improve the Free Cash Flow by \u20ac4.9 million \u2013 not\nmuch in absolute terms but a lot in terms of year-on-year change (more than 40%\nof the IFRS-16-adjusted Free Cash Flow difference as compared to 2017).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For\ninvestors such proceeding (or at least the suspicion of it) should raise some\nmore questions. E.g. the Amadeus management remuneration is linked to the\npre-tax adjusted free cash flow (see below), a measure which is admittedly not\nimpacted by this obscure interest expense classification, but perhaps impacted\nby the IFRS-16-change per se. So it would be very interesting to know what this\n\u201cadjusted\u201d really means in practice. Is the one-time-IFRS-16-accounting effect\nfrom the higher EBITDA here subject to an adjustment or not? Me as an investor,\nI would be highly interested if a company that follow such non-transparent\nproceedings with regard to the whole Free Cash Flow also follows similar\nprocedures with the remuneration-relevant part of the cash flow. But I have no\nanswer on it yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    Source: Amadeus Consolidated Annual Accounts 2018, page 78. <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

    As always,\nit might be that I didn\u2019t get everything right (then I would be very happy to\nlearn about the true nature of the Amadeus\u2019 dealing with the lease interest\nexpenses), and of course this is not an investment recommendation but only my\nsubjective analytical result. But whether I am right or wrong, there are\ndefinitely some lessons to be learned from all these cases discussed above in\nthis article:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    • Don\u2019t set much store by companies\u2019\nFree Cash Flow definitions. Some companies state it before, some after interest\nexpenses. Sometimes some specific operating expenses are excluded, sometimes\nnot. In the course of the IFRS 16 adoption some companies change their view,\nothers not. It might be that the stated measure is helpful for managing the\ncompany, it might be that it is only for investor impression reasons. Whatever\nit is: Use your own Free Cash Flow definition. It must fit to your valuation\nmodel. But discussing the reasons for the particular Free Cash Flow definition\nwith the management \u2013 and learning from this \u2013 is always a good approach. This\nis the only reasonable way of dealing with this non-GAAP measure provided by\ncompanies.<\/li>
    • Take care if Free Cash Flow (or\nother non-GAAP measures) are the basis of management remuneration schemes. Then\nwe can (and we have to) learn a lot on how management has an impact on\nperformance measurement and on how it is incentivised to do a good job.<\/li>
    • Similar to the last point, the\nintroduction of IFRS 16 is a very interesting case of looking deeper into\nmanagement\u2019s general philosophy. We have an accounting shift from operating to\nfinancial. And we can take a lot of information out of this shift and\nmanagement\u2019s reactions thereof on how the company is run in its very basic and\ncategorical terms.<\/li><\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      As we all know, companies often provide their own view on performance measures which not rarely differ quite a lot […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":54413,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[75],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-english-contributions"],"yoast_head":"\nAmadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"As we all know, companies often provide their own view on performance measures which not rarely differ quite a lot […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"VALUESQUE EN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-06-04T06:45:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-06-04T08:09:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1284\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"759\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Matthias Meitner\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Matthias Meitner\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/\",\"name\":\"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-04T06:45:27+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-06-04T08:09:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a40a4e2e2604a4ac97876a8cd0b8ed3a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png\",\"width\":1284,\"height\":759},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/\",\"name\":\"VALUESQUE EN\",\"description\":\"Unternehmensbewertung | Investment Consulting | Unternehmensberatung\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a40a4e2e2604a4ac97876a8cd0b8ed3a\",\"name\":\"Matthias Meitner\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4823f62b39b2cd41b183780791ad0005?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4823f62b39b2cd41b183780791ad0005?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Matthias Meitner\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/author\/matthias-meitner\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN","og_description":"As we all know, companies often provide their own view on performance measures which not rarely differ quite a lot […]","og_url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/","og_site_name":"VALUESQUE EN","article_published_time":"2019-06-04T06:45:27+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-06-04T08:09:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1284,"height":759,"url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Matthias Meitner","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Matthias Meitner","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/","url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/","name":"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3) - VALUESQUE EN","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png","datePublished":"2019-06-04T06:45:27+00:00","dateModified":"2019-06-04T08:09:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a40a4e2e2604a4ac97876a8cd0b8ed3a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2019\/06\/magichut.png","width":1284,"height":759},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/2019\/06\/04\/amadeus-magic-fcf-improvement-the-ifrs-16-financial-analysis-problem-part-3\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amadeus\u2019 Magic FCF Improvement: The IFRS-16-Financial Analysis Problem (Part 3)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/","name":"VALUESQUE EN","description":"Unternehmensbewertung | Investment Consulting | Unternehmensberatung","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/a40a4e2e2604a4ac97876a8cd0b8ed3a","name":"Matthias Meitner","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4823f62b39b2cd41b183780791ad0005?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4823f62b39b2cd41b183780791ad0005?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Matthias Meitner"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/valuesque.com"],"url":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/blog\/author\/matthias-meitner\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=54403"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54403\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/54413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/valuesque.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}