Table of Contents

Pro Forma

Pro forma, a Latin phrase meaning “as a matter of form,” refers to a method of presenting financial information based on certain assumptions and projections about events that have not actually occurred, or that have been adjusted to exclude certain real-world transactions. Think of it as a “what if” financial statement. Unlike standard reports that must follow strict GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) or IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards), pro forma statements allow a company to paint a picture of its financial results under a different set of circumstances. For example, a company might show what its earnings would have been without a one-time restructuring cost, or what the combined earnings of two companies would look like following a proposed merger. While potentially insightful, these figures are not audited and represent management's view, which requires a healthy dose of skepticism from any prudent investor.

Why Do Companies Use Pro Forma Statements?

Companies use pro forma financials primarily for storytelling. They want to present their business in the best possible light, either to highlight underlying performance or to illustrate a future potential that isn't yet reflected in the official numbers.

Showcasing Future Events

The most legitimate use of pro forma statements is to model a significant future event.

"Cleaning Up" the Numbers

This is where investors need to pay close attention. Companies often use pro forma results to exclude certain expenses they deem “non-recurring” or “unusual.” The goal is to present a smoother, more attractive picture of core business operations. Common adjustments include:

By removing these lumpy, often negative items, the resulting “pro forma earnings” will almost always look better than the official GAAP/IFRS net income.

A Value Investor's Skeptical Eye

When a company emphasizes pro forma results over its official GAAP/IFRS figures, alarm bells should ring for a value investor. It’s a signal that management wants you to focus on their version of reality, not the one dictated by standardized accounting rules. As Warren Buffett has famously warned, investors should be deeply suspicious of adjusted earnings. When you read “pro forma earnings,” it's wise to mentally translate it to “earnings before all the bad stuff.” These figures are a form of spin, and your job is to see through it.

The Investigation Checklist

Pro forma numbers aren't useless; they are a starting point for investigation. Always ask:

  1. What exactly was excluded? A company's press release will typically include a “reconciliation table” that bridges the gap between the GAAP/IFRS number and the pro forma number. This table is where the truth is hidden. Study it carefully.
  2. Is the “one-time” expense truly a one-off? Some companies seem to have a “once-in-a-lifetime” restructuring charge every single year. This isn't a one-time event; it's a recurring cost of doing business that management is trying to sweep under the rug.
  3. What's the trend? Is the gap between pro forma earnings and real, audited earnings growing over time? A widening gap is a massive red flag, suggesting that operational problems are being consistently papered over.

For example, if a company reports a GAAP net income of $100 million but a pro forma net income of $150 million, you must find that $50 million difference. If it's an asset write-down from a failed factory expansion, it tells you something important about management's capital allocation skills—a crucial insight you'd miss by only looking at the rosy pro forma number.

The Bottom Line

Pro forma financials can offer a helpful glimpse into a company's potential future, particularly in the context of a merger or a significant change in its capital structure. However, they should never be taken at face value. They are an unaudited, management-crafted narrative designed to persuade you. Always start your analysis with the official GAAP or IFRS statements, and only then turn to the pro forma figures as a tool for asking deeper, more critical questions. The difference between the two is often where a value investor finds the most valuable insights—or the biggest red flags.