Аннотация и ключевые слова
Аннотация (русский):
Owing to the managerial concept of the company, the fundamental objective of an enterprise’s existence is the shareholder value. The owners of the company require managers to fulfil the objectives of its owners - that is to increase shareholder value. This is done through the growth of the value of the owners‘ shares in the company or figuratively in the form of growth of dividends or profit shares owners. Therefore, managers are faced with a problem of how to incorporate proprietary objectives into business objectives - to survive, to realize a profit. A pyramidal overview of economic value added compiled from the perspective of the owners brings a possible solution. Economic value added not only quantitatively expresses the increase in the shareholder value, but it also makes it possible to identify key absolute indicators for the company management and their decomposition to the level of strategic, tactical and operational objectives of the company.

Ключевые слова:
economic value added, pyramidal overview, shareholder value, owner, manager, planning
Introduction Many contemporary authors such as Ballow, Burgman, Molnar [1] argues that the main objective of business is to deliver value for the owner rather than make profit. A discussion as such can bring up a number of views as well as raise even more questions. An enterprise is defined as a set of tangible and intangible assets, people and information systems that operate in interaction and act outwardly as a whole. A fundamental objective of an enterprise’s existence, as stipulated by law, is the generation of profits. Looking at an enterprise as a live entity, we agree with the legislators to a certain extent. An enterprise as a whole primarily tries to survive and gain power (in the market, business environment, etc.). Profit is then used as a tool to achieve that. However, an enterprise does not act in a vacuum and must operate with regard to the interests of stakeholders. This includes state, local government, company employees, suppliers, customers, creditors, owners and others. Also, each of them takes concern in the firm working and bringing benefits. The state and cities expect tax payments as a contribution to their budgets. Employees expect a stable environment and secure earnings in the form of wages. Suppliers patrol the consumption of the enterprise and its ability to pay for goods and consumed products. Consumers get products to meet their needs. To some extent, owners are specific shareholders. Their interest is strongly supported by their share of the company’s business management. Consequently, this brings about a discussion over managerial theories. Simply put, these theories argue that managers‘ interests and goals are different from those of owners‘. Therefore, owners must find a mechanism to convince the enterprise's managers to meet the objectives of the owners. A logical path leads through the interests of managers. If the objectives of the owners are met (i. e., increase in shareholder value in the form of dividend payments or share value growth), the needs and requirements of business managers can be satisfied subsequently [2]. In this case, a simple means to achieve this is primarily a management contract between the owners and specific managers featuring variable pay for a manager who will fulfil the objectives of its owners. Shareholder Value in Enterprise Activity Plans However, it is often difficult for the manager to find a suitable way to apply a management system to meet the owners‘ objectives. Sometimes the problem remains unresolved and the managers only follow their intuition. Sometimes, on the contrary, they try to plan, yet the effect reached remains arguable. The aim of this paper is to propose and introduce a suitable management concept for a company trying to satisfy the objectives of the owner. The paper will be based primarily on the analysis of the objectives of business owners and evaluation of their preferences. Following that, a system of business planning and management built on the support of peak indicators achievement will be presented. The business owner, i.e., the holder and owner of a share in a company, provides the business with capital in return for remuneration. In addition to the owner, the business also gains capital from another investor, the creditor. In the first case, the capital is owned by the company. From the company’s perspective, its advantage is that it is invested into the company and it will never be removed under standard company operation [3]. It is only removed once a company is closing down and is being dissolved. In this case, as long as bankruptcy assets are sufficient, the owner is satisfied similarly as the creditor in the standard operation of the company. From the company’s perspective, the equity is viewed as a perpetuity, i. e., infinite annuity. The specific nature of the equity is determined by the business owner’s participation in business management in the form of votes at the General Meeting. On the other hand, foreign capital is usually invested in a company, albeit for remuneration, only for a limited period of time. After the expiry of the period, it is returned to the creditor in the agreed amount with a due reward for its use in the enterprise. Foreign capital is generally appreciated by the creditor as the sum of the net present value of cash flows and the returned principal (i. e., a specific amount of foreign capital). The creditor is entitled to participate in business management under standard conditions. E. g., in practice debt securities may be turned into shares of the company or insolvency committees may be formed at the time of insolvency to influence the behaviour of the enterprise. It is the share of the business management of the company that determines the interest and objectives of the company. The manager, in order not to be removed by the general meeting and to fulfil his/her objectives, tries to plan and then fulfil the objectives defined by the company owners. As part of their analyses, Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic offers the INFA benchmarking system. Its purpose is to compare the performance of the company with the relevant sector of the economy, as classified by the CZ-NACE classification. Although the system designed by Mr. and Mrs. Neumaier [4], is primarily intended to analyse the business performance compared to the rest of the market, its individual parameters are suitable for the planning and management of a particular company as a whole. This is due to the fact that it provides EVA (economic value added) as the peak indicator. Unlike Brealey, Myers and Allen [5], EVA is calculated as the economic value added for shareholders. To give an example, let us compare the calculation’s starting points. First, let us study the Brealey, Myers and Allen [5] approach, as applied by Kislingerová [6]: - economic value added: where EVA – means economic value added; EBIT earnings before interest and taxes; t – income tax rate; C – capital provided for remuneration; it is the sum of the nominal capital and long-term bank loans (or bonds); WACC – weighted average cost of capital; - the weighted average cost of capital: where E – represents nominal capital; D – long-term bank loans (or bonds); re – alternative cost of nominal capital, where the following formula applies: , rd – expense of (interest) long-term bank loans; - alternative cost of nominal capital: where – is Expected stock return; rf – risk-free yield (determined at the level of the interest rate on government bonds. These are generally considered risk-free because complete coupon payments will be made and the principal is returned to the holder); β – systematic risk (the risk arising from the development of the economy); – risk bonus (a sort of a bonus shareholders receive on the capital market). Now, for comparison, we turn attention to the calculation of economic value added using modular method [7 ]: - economic value added: where ROE – means the return on equity; - the weighted average cost of capital: rbusiness – indicator function characterizing creation of productive forces, rFinStab – indicator function characterizing the relationship between assets and liabilities; - alternative cost of nominal capital: , where A – represents total assets (i. e., balance sheet total). The comparison shows that in their calculation Brealey, Myers and Allen [5] include all capital provided to the company for remuneration, i. e., equity and foreign capital. In contrast, the Neumaiers [8, 9] focus purely on equity. Therefore, the economic value added can be related to the owners of the company only. In this form, EVA provides an opportunity to compare business performance with the performance of the market and to break the peak indicator down into individual sub-indicators, i.e., business plans. It allows us to manage the individual components of the business in the short and long term and to control the performance of the company as a whole. A breakdown of EVA peak indicator assembled using the modular method is shown in Fig. 1. Focusing on the individual components, we start with equity. In general, the concept of capital in corporate finance is understood differently by economic science. Economics rather regards capital as capital goods, i. e., business assets (long-term and short-term assets). Corporate finance views capital as information about the source of corporate assets. Equity includes items such as nominal capital (deposits for business owners), a statutory enterprise funds, reserve enterprise funds and profit for the current and prior periods. Equity is understood as information on the financing of a part of the company’s assets. EVA Spread (ROE - re) Equity ROE re EAT/EBT ROA (EBIT / A) E / A ED / A Interest rate Risk-free rate (rf) Liquidity L3 Other influences on re EBIT / T T / A VA / T LC / T DA / T (Other R-C) / T Fig. 1. Breakdown of EVA Generally, capital structure is primarily controlled with one goal – to minimize costs associated with the use of capital (minimizing the share of paid dividends and interest). One of the options for optimizing the use of capital is the weighted average cost of capital according to the formula laid down by Brealey, Myers and Allen [5]. Another indicator influencing the development of EVA in addition to equity is the spread, which is calculated as the difference between the return on equity and alternative cost of equity. Return on equity (ROE) is normally determined as a share of Earnings after Taxes (EAT) and equity. In addition to EVA as a peak indicator, ROE can also be used to calculate the increased value of equity invested in the company and for comparison with other investment alternatives (from the perspective of the business owner). However, the advantage of EVA is evaluation of investment options at different levels of risk, which is not possible with ROE. The degree of risk is inserted into the model through alternative cost of equity; the modular method uses the weighted average cost of capital for calculation. Cost of equity in the model is referred to as alternative as it is based on the classification of the degree of risk, not on actual dividends or profit shares paid to the owners of the company. Neither ROE nor EVA are directly managed indicators. Their calculation is determined by several other indicators: - EAT/EBT: the share of profit after tax and profit before tax. The difference is due to tax rate on corporate income. The indicator's size is determined by law. Therefore, its value cannot be effectively managed by the company. Only minor corrections can be made in the framework defined by the Income Tax Act and Accounting Act (e. g., working with accounts accruals, amortization and provisions). International companies may influence the indicator through tax havens and investment incentives provided by some states. - ROA: in this case it is calculated as a share of earnings before interest and tax and business assets (EBIT/A). Following the principle of the balance sheet, where assets equal liabilities, return on assets represents total liabilities profitability, i. e., profitability of all involved resources (both resources acquired for remuneration and free resources). The calculation is carried out using earnings before interest and tax because in the Czech Republic the interest on the use of foreign capital is deducted from the income tax base. In contrast, the costs for the use of equity are not tax-deductible. The indicator further breaks down into the following indicators of lower order: - EBIT/T: the indicator includes earnings before interest and tax and the turnover from the business activities. This indicator does not manage business directly either and it further breaks down as follows: - VA/T: the indicator is calculated as a share of value added and the company’s turnover. The turnover is given by the total amount of the company’s revenue. The turnover can be controlled, at least at the level of polity business enterprise. It used as a base (base unit conversion) for lower-level indicators due to the design of EBIT/T indicator. The value added includes absolute indicators, which can be managed directly: margin (difference between revenues from goods sold and cost of goods sold); performance (sales of own products and services, changes in inventories and activation); power consumption (consumption of materials and energy, utilities). - LC/T: a share of personnel costs and turnover. Personnel costs consist of the following items: - wages and salaries: an enterprise can effectively influence their amount through the number of workers hired and the wage rate used to calculate the total wages of its employees. The indicator can be controlled, but the company is limited in its decision-making by the Labour Code and its implementing regulations; - remuneration to members of statutory bodies of the company/association: this absolute indicator can also be controlled by the company. However, the decision is mostly made by the supreme body of the company - general meeting (composed of business owners), or association members’ meeting (also composed of association members – owners). Thus, the indicator is limited by the owners, even though the management would prefer not to affect its amount; - the cost of social security and health insurance: rates for the calculation are given in the relevant legislation of the Czech Republic. The total amount of statutory payments for employees is the product of the individual rates and the employees’ gross salary. The costs of social security and health insurance are governed through labour costs and rewards to members of statutory bodies; - social costs: they are purely at the discretion of the management of the company. Businesses use them to reduce the differences among their social workers. Workers' social benefits are issued on the basis of performance of the whole company, regardless of the performance of individual employees. To some extent this is a motivational element in the management. A "cafeteria system" is currently very popular with workers receiving a sort of a checkbook with a specific value which may be "cashed" in the form of social, cultural and sporting activities (concert, gym, etc.). - DA/T: a share of depreciation (and amortization) and turnover. Depreciation is an expense representing the consumption of fixed assets. For accounting purposes, companies in the Czech Republic may determine its amount (or period) by themselves with respect to the actual wear of fixed assets. Depreciation is based on the specific category of property and life of the particular item. It is by setting the life span that companies may affect indicators placed higher in the hierarchy. - Other (R – C)/T: by default it is a proportion of the difference between the remaining proceeds not yet included in the calculation and costs not yet included in the calculation and the company’s turnover. Thus, if we consider the above-mentioned indicators of the same level, the situation can be expressed as follows: EBIT/T – VA/T – LC/T. In particular, we include revenues and expenses in the financial and extraordinary level of the business results. Individual items of the financial level can be managed by the company. However, it is not the case for the unlike extraordinary level. - T/A: another indicator for managing the profitability of total assets is asset turnover (share of turnover and assets of the company). As mentioned above, turnover and assets can be effectively managed. - E/A: referred to as Equity Ratio. It determines the equity’s share in financing the company's assets. Equity and the degree of its application for funding the company is determined by the cost of equity and cost of foreign capital (i. e., using the weighted average cost of capital). - ED/A: the indicator determines how large a part of the company's assets is financed through capital gained for remuneration – namely nominal capital and long-term and short-term bank loans. Primarily, the indicator amount can be controlled indirectly, e. g., through the payout ratio (i. e., the proportion of earnings retained refinance the company) and by determining the share premium in second and other issues of shares. - Interest rate: the result of negotiations between the company and the bank in case of long-term and short-term loans. Its value is determined as the result of a compromise built on the risk of default by the company (assessing the credit risk, corporate debt, interest coverage and liquidity of the company). - Risk free rate: represents yield that the investor receives almost entirely in a particular investment. In the Czech Republic a risk-free investment refers to ten-year government bonds where the state guarantees a hundred-percent return on investment. Risk free rate is determined by the interest rate of these bonds. - Liquidity L3: calculation of the indicator differs slightly from the Schmallenbach (to be completed) method. It is defined as follows: current assets (short-term liabilities + short-term bank loans). An absolute indicator, which is in contrast to the original established shape, is short-term bank loans. However, what can be managed effectively are the individual components of the calculation: - Current assets in the form of inventories, receivables, short-term receivables and short-term financial assets. Generally, the company has to try to minimize the current (i.e., short-term) assets. The lower the company’s share of the company assets, the more efficiently the company uses them, assuming the same performance. - Short-term liabilities. - Short-term bank loans. - Other influences: they are more or less a statistical variation in determining peak indicators and should not exceed 5 % of the total result. The analysis of the EVA breakdown implies that the company should primarily control the following absolute indicators in order to achieve a positive result: capital structure (ratio of equity and foreign capital), profit (the difference between revenues and costs), short-term liabilities (mainly short-term trade liabilities), short-term bank loans, assets (as a whole), inventories, receivables, short-term financial assets, margin (difference between revenues from goods sold and cost of goods sold), performance (sales of own products and services, changes in inventories and activation), power consumption (consumption of materials and energy, utilities), wages and salaries, remuneration to members of statutory bodies, social costs, depreciation, interest rate. Viewing the whole issue through the prism of performance planning, we can lay out the financial plan structure or the company performance plan structure in a diagram shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 2. Company plan layout During the planning process, the company always uses its own vision, which is generally defined as a condition which the company intends to reach within an unspecified period of time. The vision is further elaborated into the company’s individual missions. Missions provide the best description of the company’s individual activities, pillars on which the company stands. In order for the company to achieve and maintain its visions, its core objectives – strategic objectives – need to be planned. Unlike visions, objectives are quantified and expressed in selected units. In their case, it is relatively easy to deduce the degree of compliance. Strategic objectives are quantified for at least five years. This does not mean, however, that even after this relatively long period a strategic objective can not be repeated. Company plans strategic objectives in individual areas of its activities (marketing, sales, production, finance, etc.), or cross-sectionally throughout the company. EVA characterizes a cross-sectional strategic objective, which reflects the whole business activity. Tactical goals are based on the breakdown of EVA into modifiable indicators. Determining the indicator affecting the overall result, it would be possible to set a target for almost any item of financial statements. This, however, is not appropriate as such objectives may conceal priority. For this reason, it is good to focus on items in a pyramidal decomposition. To determine them based on the pyramidal decomposition is convenient for managers for several reasons. First, the system is very clear and makes graphical view possible, thus providing a very quick overview of the degree of fulfilment of individual goals. It is also possible to perform quality controlling as well as sensitivity analyses and risk management. An indisputable advantage for managers must be seen in the fact that the objectives set under the pyramidal decomposition automatically comply with the SMART goal setting method. These objectives are: - specific – in other words, it is absolutely clear what is to be achieved; - measurable – the amount of a given indicators can be easily measured or calculated; - acceptable – this is the only factor dependent on whether employees will accept such objectives. Thanks to benchmarking it is possible to simply prove that the given objectives can be achieved and therefore the employees should not have any difficulties accepting these objectives; - relevant – relevance due to the vision and mission of the company is given by the pyramid principle and the relationship of individual indicators on the peak indicator; - time specific – in terms of tactical objectives in corporate practice there is usually a one-year deadline. Compliance with the indicator and any changes to the operational objectives are then monitored throughout the year so that the tactical objective is fulfilled. Operative objectives are determined to directly or indirectly influence degree of fulfilment of tactical objectives on which they are directly based. Operative objectives are usually determined for shorter periods of time, one month or less. Their implementation, monitoring and active controlling then directly determines the degree of fulfilment of tactical objectives. For clarity, it is possible to monitor the degree of fulfilment of the objective using "traffic lights" which may be applied in the management software. This method consists in a depiction of whether the tactical objective is fulfilled with reserve - green colour, without reserve - orange colour, or not fulfilled - red colour. Thus, the manager can quickly get an idea of bottlenecks and take appropriate measures. The form of setting goals and plans to achieve such goals is different for each indicator and the length of this paper does not allow for it to be dealt with in detail. A few possible examples are given here for illustration. The most planned areas in companies include sales. This certainly is a crucial indicator. The amount of annual sales (tactical objective) is determined based on historical data, market research and, to some extent, on the experience of responsible managers. The resulting value is then transferred to individual months taking into account the seasonality of sales (operational objectives). A company-wide plan, including the amount of sales, is usually determined for the following year a few months before the start of the year, which has a slightly derogatory effect on the statics of the plan. Even a top-quality marketing research may not reveal all facts affecting the resulting revenues. Therefore, sales are forecasted monthly, 3–6 months in advance, depending on the branch - the operational objectives are modified based on the current situation in the market. The amount of sales is directly related for direct costs, which are mainly represented by the material (or goods). Costs, or their objectives, are determined using a similar method and modified in the same way (based on forecasts). However, the cost determination reveals a benefit of the pyramidal decomposition. With a narrow view of the matter, the manager might focus on the fact that material costs only affect the business results. Thanks to the pyramidal decomposition we may clearly see, for example, that the average amount of material affects the liquidity and consequently the level of risk for the company bankruptcy and hence the cost of equity. Other operational objectives may include the liquidity management based on Miller-Orr method, the gradual introduction of Just-in-time methods for inventory management to reduce the value of current liquidity and to improve the return rate. They may also include gradual corrections of the capital structure to increase the leverage effect or to decrease this value to reduce risk. Regardless of the determination of a specific tactical or operational objective, these goals must be determined systematically rather than randomly, which is ensured by the pyramidal decomposition. Conclusion Pyramidal decompositions has long been used to perform a thorough financial analysis. These decompositions make it possible to take into account the individual links and thus can identify weaknesses and strengths of the company and effectively compare them with the competition. The result is not just a number (as is the case with bankruptcy and credibility models) as many independent indicators are elaborated and evaluated while all based on the principle of the company’s basic objective [10]. If we cease to view the INFA pyramid decomposition used by the Ministry of Industry and Trade merely as a tool of financial analysis and start considering it a management tool, we can take a more objective approach towards the management by objectives. As a result, irrelevant objectives will not be set and important goals will not be overlooked in favour of the negligible ones, etc. As for tactical and operational objectives, the clear structure makes it possible to determine slightly multi-criteria benchmarks to which a given indicator must conform in order to fulfil the company’s top objective. For example, the cost of the material must comply with liquidity, the amount of profit and asset structure. A great benefit of this method can be seen in the controlling as the analysis of relevant data and bottlenecks is done very quickly here which makes it possible to take rapid action that may subsequently mitigate any negative impacts. This method can also be made use of in large trusts with hundreds of companies. The quick overview that can be compiled based on a computer model using the sub-accounts makes it possible to carry out monthly controlling and active management of the individual companies from the perspective of the owner, i. e., the parent company.
Список литературы

1. Ballow J. J., Burgman R., Molnar M. J. Managing for shareholder value: intangibles, future value and investment decisions. Journal of Business Strategy, 2004, vol. 25, no. 3, pp 26–34.

2. Walters D. The implications of shareholder value planning and management for logistics decision making. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 1999, vol. 29, no. 4, pp 240–258.

3. Vochozka M. Metody komplexního hodnocení podniku [Methods of Comprehensive Evaluation of Enterprise]. Prague, Grada Publishing, 2011. 246 p.

4. Neumaierová I., Neumaier I. Proč se ujal index IN a nikoli pyramidový systém ukazatelů INFA [Why I Index Succeeded Rather Than the INFA Indicators Pyramidal System: www: http:// www.ekonomikaamanagement.cz/getFile.php?fileKey=cejvb0nucadvceziu1vhb0miuumebavdvfvwq1vubavgq1vcxgqfberirejlyg==〈=cz>.

5. Brealey R. A., Myers S. C., Allen F. Principles of corporate finance. New York, McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2013, p.

6. Kislingerová E. Manažerské finance [Managerial Finance]. Prague, C. H. Beck, 2010.

7. Ministry of Industry and Trade. Finanční analýza průmyslu a stavebnictví 2012 [Financial analysis of industry and construction industry 2012]: http://download.mpo.cz/get/26487/29819/320515 /priloha004.pdf.

8. Neumaierová I. Řízení hodnoty [Value Management]. Prague, University of Economics in Prague. Faculty of Business Administration, 1998. 137 p.

9. Neumaierová I. Aplikace řízení hodnoty [Value Management Application]. Prague, University of Economics in Prague. Faculty of Business Administration, 2003. 95 p.

10. Vochozka M., Mulač P. Bankrotní modely v podmínkách České republiky [Bankruptcy Models in the Czech republic]. Littera Scripta, 2011, vol. 4, no. 1, pp 1–10.