MT482 Unit 5 DuPont Return on Equity Breakdown Example

Margin, Not Turnover or Debt: An MT482 Unit 5 DuPont Breakdown of a Billboard Company's Return on Equity

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

MT482: Financial Statement Analysis

Unit 5 Return on Equity Breakdown

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Wabash Outdoor and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.

Why Break Return on Equity Apart

Return on equity tells shareholders what the company earned on their capital, but not how. A higher return can come from better margins, from using assets more intensively or from borrowing more, and those sources differ in quality. The DuPont decomposition separates them. The analysis uses average balances for assets and equity, because profit accumulates over twelve months while a balance sheet is a single day's snapshot. The company is Wabash Outdoor, studied here for 2024 and 2025.

The Three-Step Table

The three-step version multiplies three ratios that between them measure profitability on sales, efficiency in using assets and reliance on borrowed money. In 2024, net margin was 9.49 percent, asset turnover 0.201 and the equity multiplier 3.41, giving a return on equity of 6.52 percent. In 2025, net margin rose to 13.35 percent, asset turnover edged up to 0.212 and the equity multiplier slipped to 3.35, giving 9.45 percent.

The multiplier fell slightly as debt was repaid, so borrowing did not raise returns. Turnover improved a little, as digital faces earned more revenue from the same structures. Nearly all of the 2.93-point rise came from margin.

The Five-Step Table

The five-step version splits net margin into three parts: the tax burden, net income over pretax income; the interest burden, pretax income over operating income; and operating margin, operating income over revenue.

The tax burden held at 0.76 in both years, so taxes explain nothing. Operating margin rose from 25.23 percent to 27.97 percent, as digital faces, which carry less ground rent per dollar of revenue, grew as a share of the business. The interest burden rose sharply, from 0.495 to 0.628: in 2024 interest consumed about half of operating income, in 2025 only about three-eighths.

A nearly fixed interest bill spread over a larger operating profit did as much for returns as the better operating margin.

Two things drove the interest burden. Interest itself fell slightly, from $45.2 million to $44.1 million, as debt was repaid. And operating income grew from $89.6 million to $106.25 million, spreading that nearly fixed bill over a larger base. Penman (2013) calls this the effect of financial structure on returns: when operating profit grows, a fixed interest charge falls as a share of it.

The One-Time Gain

The interest burden also absorbs the $4.6 million profit from selling old structures, which raised pretax income without coming from operations. Without it, pretax income would have been $62.2 million, the interest burden 0.585 and net income about $47.3 million. Return on equity would then have come to roughly 8.81 percent rather than 9.45. The underlying improvement, from 6.52 to about 8.81 percent, is still large, but about a fifth of the reported gain came from a sale that will not repeat.

Reading the Result

The breakdown shows a company whose returns improved for good reasons. Operating margin rose because of a strategic shift toward digital faces, and the interest burden fell because profit grew faster than debt cost. Neither came from taking on more risk, which is the reassuring part of the result for a shareholder. Soliman (2008) found that changes in profit margin and asset turnover carry different information about future profitability, and here the margin change rests on a lasting shift in the product mix.

Comparing With the National Peer

The same decomposition for the national peer from Unit 3 helps place Wabash's result. The peer earns a higher operating margin, 33.7 percent, and a better interest burden, because it borrows less relative to its earnings, but it turns its assets more slowly because acquisitions have loaded its balance sheet with goodwill. Its return on equity is close to Wabash's despite the higher margin. The comparison suggests Wabash's path to higher returns runs through operating margin, the selling and overhead costs Unit 3 identified, rather than through more borrowing or faster asset turnover, both of which have little room left.

What to Watch

Two risks sit inside the result. The interest burden is sensitive to rates: if Wabash refinances at higher rates, interest will rise and the burden will worsen even if operations hold. And the equity multiplier of 3.35, while slightly lower, still means assets are more than three times equity, so a fall in operating income would hit returns hard, as Unit 4's stress case showed. Fridson and Alvarez (2022) caution that returns driven by borrowing are the least durable kind, though in Wabash's case the multiplier did not drive this year's gain.

Limits

Average balances smooth the year but can hide a large transaction made near year end. The analysis also relies on the company's classification of the gain; if structures are sold routinely, some analysts would treat such gains as part of operations.

References

Fridson, M. S., & Alvarez, F. (2022). Financial statement analysis: A practitioner's guide (5th ed.). Wiley.

Penman, S. H. (2013). Financial statement analysis and security valuation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Soliman, M. T. (2008). The use of DuPont analysis by market participants. The Accounting Review, 83(3), 823-853. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2008.83.3.823