Isn't the subtraction of deprecation and amortization redundant in the calculation of Owner's Earnings?
"This formula is not calculating ""Earnings"".  Instead, it is calculating ""Free Cash Flow from Operations"". As the original poster notes, the ""Earnings"" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization.  The ""Free Cash Flow from Operations"" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:"
There are a few ways to look at this question. Assumptions. Per the original post's assumptions, this answer: In other words, if the owner paid the mortgage on its original schedule, the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for $ 200,000 of equity after 30 years.  Or the deal could boil down to a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for a $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years. While the owner is paying down the mortgage, the return on equity is the principal payment divided by the equity.  The principal payment is the net rent minus non-financing costs and interest, so it is actually a profit. The initial return on equity is 6.321 % APR, or 6.507 % APY.  This is calculated by dividing the $ 210.70 monthly principal payment by the initial $ 40,000 equity, and converting from monthly return to annual return. After 30 years, the return on equity is 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY.  This is calculated by dividing the $ 810.70 monthly cash flow (which is no longer reduced by mortgage payments) by the $ 200,000 equity after 30 years, and converting from monthly return to annual return. The cap rate is the same as the return on equity in the absence of debt.  In this example, 4.864 % APR, or 4.974 % APY. The return on equity declines from 6.507 % APY initially to 4.974 % APY after 30 years. This is because the cap rate exceeds the note rate (4.974 % APY vs. 4.594 % APY), and the leverage decreases from 5x to 1x. The weighted average compound annual growth rate of the equity during the 30 years is 5.511 % APY.  Per the original poster's answer, this is computed by taking the 30th root of the 5-fold increase in equity.  Because the owner made no extra principal payments (besides those already discussed), the relevant amounts are the initial $ 40,000 owner payment and the final $ 200,000 owner equity.  5.511 % APY corresponds to a 5.377 % APR. The internal rate of return if the owner never sells can be computed by treating the deal as a $ 40,000 up-front payment, in exchange for an $ 810.70 monthly payment starting in 30 years.  The internal rate of return (IRR) is not a very useful number, because it assumes that you can somehow reinvest the eventual dividends at the same rate.  In this example, the IRR is 5.172 % APR, or 5.296  % APY.  In this example, the IRR is calculated by (iteratively) finding an interest rate for which (initial investment) * (1 + IRR) ^ (number periods before dividends start) = (periodic dividend) / (IRR - growth rate of dividend).  For example: $ 40,000 * (1.004309687)^360 = $ 810.70 / (0.004309687 - 0) = $ 188,111 I then converted the 0.431 % monthly IRR to an annual IRR. The deal can be thought of as a return on equity, plus a return on paying down the mortgage. When computing the return from paying down the mortgage, the initial equity is irrelevant.  It does not matter whether you start with a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 160,000 property, a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 200,000 property, or a $ 160,000 mortgage on a $ 1,000,000 property.  All that matters is the note rate on the mortgage, which is the applicable compound interest rate. The return on paying down the mortgage equals the note rate of the mortgage.  For a 4.5% note rate, this works out to a 4.594% annual percentage yield (APY). You can confirm this by looking at your amortization schedule.  Suppose you have a $ 160,000 mortgage with a fixed 4.5% APR note rate for 360 months.  Your monthly payment is $ 810.70.  In the first month, $ 600 goes toward interest, and $ 210.70 reduces the principal.  In other words, the $ 210.70 principal payment eliminated the need for a $ 810.70 payment 30 years later.  Notice that: . $ 210.70 * (1 + 0.045 / 12)^360 = $ 210.70 * (1.00375)^360 = $ 210.70 * 3.8477 = $ 810.71 which is within rounding error of $ 810.70. The interest rate is 3/8 % per month, which is an APR of 4.5%, and an APY of 4.594 %. A simplistic answer would be that it's a multiplier on how much money per paycheck to subtract from your tax withholding (taxes per paycheck), then at the end of the year you will have paid taxes on your income minus the amount of your withholding allowances. If you get a decent (roughly 3% or more of your gross annual salary) refund you are letting the government withhold too much (and should increase your allowances), if you have to pay a decent amount of taxes at the end of the year then the amount withheld is not high enough (and should decrease your allowances).  I definitely recommend using the calculator that Stephen Cleary mentions, but I think it's just as easy to adjust it up or down by 1 or 2 each year based on whether you got a large refund, no refund, or paid taxes. If you are disciplined with your money many experts advise to increase withholding allowances, save the extra in a safe short term interest account so that you earn money on your money and not the government. No. It's perhaps a bit obvious, but with the shorter term loan you would be contractually obligated to pay the higher monthly payment. By paying double on the longer loan, you retain the flexibility to pay less. And you would pay less interest if you truly doubled your payment on the longer loan. This is because you'd be paying off more of the principal more quickly. (But you'd also be making a slightly higher payment than on the shorter term loan.) You can play with the amortization calculator at Bankrate to understand this. This will be a complex issue and you will need to sit down with a professional to work through the issues: When the house was put up for rent the initial year tax forms should have required that the value of the house/property be calculated. This number was then used for depreciation of the house. This was made more complex based on any capital improvements. If the house wasn't the first he owned, then capital gains might have been rolled over from previous houses which adds a layer of complexity.  Any capital improvements while the house was a rental will also have to be resolved because those were also depreciated since they were placed in service. The deprecation will be recaptured and will be a part of the calculation. You have nowhere near enough info to make a calculation at this time. Let's look at the logical extreme. Two people get a house, no money down, 10 year mortgage. One moves out the day after the closing, and the gal left pays the full mortgage. Why in the world would the one who left be entitled to a dime?  You offer no information about the downpayment or amount paid during the time both lived there. That's the data needed to do any math. The rev rec rule allows companies to fully restate transition years, but doesn't actually require it. It allows them to just do a one time adjustment to retained earning instead, which is what most companies are doing/will do.  Lots of huge companies have adopted earlier than they had to, so they clearly saw some benefit in doing so. I think some are absolutely considering the benefits of a superficial bump in the transition year.   Obviously not a huge shift in long term earnings though. For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance.  In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help. "From Wikipedia: Usage Because EV is a capital structure-neutral metric, it is useful when   comparing companies with diverse capital structures. Price/earnings   ratios, for example, will be significantly more volatile in companies   that are highly leveraged. Stock market investors use EV/EBITDA to compare returns between   equivalent companies on a risk-adjusted basis. They can then   superimpose their own choice of debt levels. In practice, equity   investors may have difficulty accurately assessing EV if they do not   have access to the market quotations of the company debt. It is not   sufficient to substitute the book value of the debt because a) the   market interest rates may have changed, and b) the market's perception   of the risk of the loan may have changed since the debt was issued.   Remember, the point of EV is to neutralize the different risks, and   costs of different capital structures. Buyers of controlling interests in a business use EV to compare   returns between businesses, as above. They also use the EV valuation   (or a debt free cash free valuation) to determine how much to pay for   the whole entity (not just the equity). They may want to change the   capital structure once in control. Technical considerations Data availability Unlike market capitalization, where both the market price and the   outstanding number of shares in issue are readily available and easy   to find, it is virtually impossible to calculate an EV without making   a number of adjustments to published data, including often subjective   estimations of value: In practice, EV calculations rely on reasonable estimates of the   market value of these components. For example, in many professional   valuations: Avoiding temporal mismatches When using valuation multiples such as EV/EBITDA and EV/EBIT, the   numerator should correspond to the denominator. The EV should,   therefore, correspond to the market value of the assets that were used   to generate the profits in question, excluding assets acquired (and   including assets disposed) during a different financial reporting   period. This requires restating EV for any mergers and acquisitions   (whether paid in cash or equity), significant capital investments or   significant changes in working capital occurring after or during the   reporting period being examined. Ideally, multiples should be   calculated using the market value of the weighted average capital   employed of the company during the comparable financial period. When calculating multiples over different time periods (e.g. historic   multiples vs forward multiples), EV should be adjusted to reflect the   weighted average invested capital of the company in each period. In your question, you stated: The Market Cap is driven by the share price and the share price is   determined by buyers and sellers who have access to data on cash and   debts and factor that into their decision to buy or sell. Note the first point under ""Technical Considerations"" there and you will see that the ""access to data on cash and debts"" isn't quite accurate here so that is worth noting. As for alternatives, there are many other price ratios one could use such as price/earnings, price/book value, price/sales and others depending on how one wants to model the company. The better question is what kind of investing strategy is one wanting to use where there are probably hundreds of strategies at least. Let's take Apple as an example. Back on April 23, 2014 they announced earnings through March 29, 2014 which is nearly a month old when it was announced. Now a month later, one would have to estimate what changes would be made to things there. Thus, getting accurate real-time values isn't realistic. Discounted Cash Flow is another approach one can take of valuing a company in terms of its future earnings computed back to a present day lump sum."