top of page

Can CAPEX Be Positive? Exploring Its Nature and Impact on Valuation

"Can CAPEX be positive?" The confusion often stems from how we present capital expenditures in cash flow statements, where they typically appear as negative numbers. But the reality is more nuanced than a simple yes or no answer.


Understanding CAPEX: The Foundation

Capital expenditures represent investments in long-term assets that will benefit a company for more than one year. Think of it as the money a company spends to acquire, upgrade, or maintain physical assets like buildings, machinery, equipment, or technology infrastructure.

In accounting terms, CAPEX is always positive in its absolute value – it represents real money flowing out of the company. However, in cash flow statements, we show it as a negative because it reduces the company's cash position.

Oil rig silhouette with industrial background. Text: "Can CAPEX Be Positive? Exploring Its Nature and Impact on Valuation." Reds and grays.

The Mathematical Reality: CAPEX in Cash Flow Analysis

Let's examine how CAPEX appears in a typical free cash flow calculation:

Free Cash Flow = Operating Cash Flow - Capital Expenditures

Here's a practical example using Apple Inc.'s simplified financials:

Apple Inc. - Simplified Cash Flow (in billions)

  • Operating Cash Flow: $104.0

  • Capital Expenditures: $(10.7)

  • Free Cash Flow: $93.3


The parentheses around the CAPEX figure indicate it's a cash outflow, but the underlying expenditure amount ($10.7 billion) is inherently positive.


When CAPEX Appears "Positive" in Financial Statements

There are specific scenarios where CAPEX might appear as a positive number in cash flow statements:

1. Asset Disposals Exceeding Purchases

Consider a company that sells $50 million in old equipment while purchasing only $30 million in new assets:

Asset Purchases: $(30) million
Asset Sales: +$50 million
Net CAPEX: +$20 million

This creates a positive cash flow from capital activities, though we'd typically separate purchases and sales for clarity.


2. Sale-Leaseback Transactions

A retail company might sell its store properties for $100 million and lease them back:

Property Sale: +$100 million
Ongoing Lease Payments: (Operating Expense)
Net Effect: Positive cash flow, reduced CAPEX

3. Business Restructuring

During downsizing, a company might liquidate more assets than it acquires, creating temporary positive net CAPEX.

Case Study: Tesla's CAPEX Evolution

Let's examine Tesla's capital expenditure patterns to understand the valuation implications:

Tesla CAPEX Analysis (2019-2023)

Year

CAPEX ($ billions)

Revenue ($ billions)

CAPEX/Revenue

2019

$1.3

$24.6

5.3%

2020

$3.2

$31.5

10.2%

2021

$7.3

$53.8

13.6%

2022

$7.2

$81.5

8.8%

2023

$8.9

$96.8

9.2%

Valuation Impact Analysis:

Tesla's heavy CAPEX investment during 2020-2021 (the "Gigafactory expansion phase") temporarily reduced free cash flow but enabled massive revenue growth. The market rewarded this strategy because:

  1. Future Cash Flow Potential: Higher CAPEX today meant higher production capacity tomorrow

  2. Market Share Capture: Early investment secured competitive positioning

  3. Operating Leverage: Fixed cost investments would yield higher margins at scale


The Valuation Paradox: When Higher CAPEX Increases Value

This brings us to a fascinating valuation paradox. Traditional DCF models might suggest that higher CAPEX reduces value by lowering free cash flow. However, growth-oriented investors often view increased CAPEX positively when it:

Creates Competitive Moats

Amazon's massive warehouse and logistics CAPEX created an insurmountable competitive advantage. Their 2022 CAPEX of $63.4 billion seemed enormous, but it reinforced their market dominance.


Enables Network Effects

Meta's data center investments (CAPEX of $30+ billion annually) power their social networks and advertising algorithms, creating value far exceeding the initial investment.


Drives Innovation Leadership

TSMC's semiconductor fab investments require $40+ billion annually, but they maintain technological leadership worth hundreds of billions in market value.


Practical Valuation Adjustments for CAPEX

When valuing companies with significant CAPEX, I teach my students to consider these adjustments:

1. Maintenance vs. Growth CAPEX

Maintenance CAPEX: Required to maintain current operations Growth CAPEX: Investments to expand capacity or capabilities

Example Calculation:

Total CAPEX: $100 million
Depreciation: $60 million
Maintenance CAPEX: $60 million (assume equals depreciation)
Growth CAPEX: $40 million

For valuation purposes, we might add back growth CAPEX in mature periods, assuming it will decline as the company matures.


2. CAPEX Intensity Normalization

Compare companies within the same industry using CAPEX as a percentage of revenue:

Industry CAPEX Intensity Comparison:

  • Software Companies: 1-3% of revenue

  • Retail Companies: 2-4% of revenue

  • Manufacturing: 4-8% of revenue

  • Utilities: 8-12% of revenue

  • Oil & Gas: 15-25% of revenue


3. Terminal Value Adjustments

In DCF models, we typically assume CAPEX equals depreciation in the terminal value calculation:

Terminal FCF = Terminal EBITDA × (1 - Tax Rate) × (1 - Reinvestment Rate)

Where Reinvestment Rate = (CAPEX - Depreciation) / NOPAT


Real-World Valuation Example: Analyzing a Manufacturing Company

Let's value a hypothetical manufacturing company with the following characteristics:

ManuCorp Financial Projections (in millions)

Year

Revenue

EBITDA

CAPEX

Depreciation

FCF

2024

$1,000

$200

$(80)

$50

$95

2025

$1,200

$240

$(100)

$60

$108

2026

$1,400

$280

$(90)

$70

$133

2027

$1,600

$320

$(85)

$80

$171

2028

$1,800

$360

$(90)

$85

$189

Key Observations:

  1. CAPEX exceeds depreciation in growth years (2024-2025)

  2. The gap narrows as the company matures

  3. Free cash flow accelerates as CAPEX normalizes


Valuation Calculation:

Terminal Value = FCF2028 × (1 + g) / (WACC - g)
Where g = 3% (long-term growth), WACC = 10%
Terminal Value = $189 × 1.03 / (0.10 - 0.03) = $2,783 million

The Behavioral Finance Perspective

From a behavioral standpoint, investors often misinterpret CAPEX intensity. Growth investors may overvalue companies with high CAPEX (assuming all investment is productive), while value investors might undervalue them (focusing on current cash flow reduction).


The key is understanding the quality of CAPEX:


High-Quality CAPEX Characteristics:

  • Clear strategic rationale

  • Measurable return expectations

  • Competitive advantage creation

  • Management track record of successful deployment


Low-Quality CAPEX Red Flags:

  • Empire building without clear returns

  • Defensive investments in declining markets

  • Poor historical capital allocation

  • Lack of transparency in investment rationale


Industry-Specific CAPEX Considerations

Different industries require different approaches to CAPEX analysis:

Technology Companies

  • Focus on R&D vs. traditional CAPEX

  • Consider cloud infrastructure as strategic CAPEX

  • Evaluate network effects and scalability


Retail Companies

  • Distinguish between store expansion and maintenance

  • Consider e-commerce infrastructure investments

  • Analyze same-store sales productivity


Energy Companies

  • Separate development from exploration CAPEX

  • Consider reserve replacement ratios

  • Evaluate commodity price sensitivity

Conclusion: CAPEX as a Strategic Tool

To answer the original question: CAPEX is inherently positive in terms of economic value – it represents real investments in future cash flow generation. While it appears negative in cash flow statements (reducing current cash), its true value lies in future benefit creation.


As valuators, we must look beyond the accounting presentation to understand the strategic intent and likely returns from capital investments. The most successful companies are often those that can deploy capital at returns significantly exceeding their cost of capital, even if this temporarily reduces reported free cash flow.


The art of valuation lies in distinguishing between value-creating and value-destroying CAPEX, understanding the timing of returns, and properly reflecting this in our models. Whether CAPEX is "positive" or "negative" for valuation depends entirely on the quality of the investment and the returns it generates.


Remember: great companies are built through great capital allocation, and sometimes the best investments require the highest CAPEX. The key is ensuring that capital is deployed wisely, with clear strategic objectives and measurable returns.


What's your experience with evaluating CAPEX in your valuation work? Have you encountered situations where high CAPEX actually increased your valuation estimates? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.

Comments

bottom of page