Jet Lin A
-
Upload
kweku-nhyira-awuku -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Jet Lin A
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
1/6
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
CORPORATE FINANCE
GROUP ASSIGNMENT
MEMBERS INDEX NUMBERS
JOSHUA LAMPTEY ECS/08/01/0052
SUSUANA ODOI ECS/08/01/0038
ASIAMA REXFORD K. ECS/08/01/0047
HAROLD OPOKU ECS/08/01/0063
JAMILA ZAKARI ECS/08/01/0034
JOYCE DENTEH ECS/08/01/0042
Q: DISCUSS THE MM THEORY OF CAPITAL STRUCTURE WITH NO
TAXES.
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
2/6
The M&M theorem-no taxes, also called the Capital Structure Irrelevance Principle or the
Net Operating Income Approach, forms the basis of modern thinking for capital structure. It is
the fundamental framework or model for the analysis of capital structure, with considerations
made for taxes thereof, which was developed in 1958. The traditional theory of capital structure
existed before and was questioned by two Nobel Prize laureates, Franco Modigliani and Merton
Miller, hence the nameM&M.
Miller and Modigliani wrote the article that gave birth to this theory when they were both
professors at the Graduate School of Industrial Administration (GSIA) of Carnegie Mellon
University. It is through the article that the theorem was derived. Miller and Modigliani were set
to teach corporate finance for business students and despite the fact that they had no prior
experience in corporate finance. When they read the material that existed, they found it
inconsistent so they sat down together and tried to figure it out. The result of this was the article
in theAmerican Economic Review and what has now come to be known as the M&M theorem.
The M&M theorem is in two parts. But our consideration is on the propositions made by
Miller and Modigliani that involve no tax, otherwise referred to as the M&M theorem-no taxes.
The theorem makes a number of assumptions that help in drawing the conclusions that are made
by the propositions. These include:
y All investors are price takers, i.e. no individual can influence market prices bythe scale of his/her transactions.
y All market participants, firms and investors, can lend or borrow at the same risk-free rate.
y There are neither personal nor corporate income taxes.y There are no brokerage or other transactions charges.y Investors are all rational wealth seekers.y Firms can be grouped into homogenous risk classes such that the market seeks
the same return from all member firms in each group.
y Investors formulate similar expectations about future company earnings. Theseare described by a normal probability distribution.
y The assets of an insolvent firm can be sold at full market values.
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
3/6
Following the assumptions that are presented above, the book Corporate Finance and
Investment Decisions and Strategies shows that Miller and Modigliani made three propositions
that describe this theorem. Our first consideration is below:
Proposition I:
The central proposition is that a firms Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is
independent of its debt-equity ratio and equal to the cost of capital that the firm would have
with no gearing in its capital structure. In other words, the appropriate capitalization rate for a
firm is the rate applied by the market to an ungeared company in the relevant risk category, i.e.
that companys cost of equity.
This proposition as we have stated above is also known as the Pie Model in the book
Essentials ofCorporate Finance. Under this, one way to illustrate the M&M proposition is to
imagine any two firms that are identical on the left hand side of the balance sheet. Their assets
and operations are exactly the same. The right hand sides are different because the two firms
financed their operations differently. In this case we can view the capital structure question in
terms of a pie model. Consider two firms A and B. According to proposition I, the value of the
two firms should be the same irrespective of their capital structure. Firm A has 40% stock and
60% bonds in its capital structure. Firm B has 60% stock and 40% bonds in their capital
structure. Even though the two firms have different sizes of bonds and stocks, or have their pie
slices differently, the value of their assets is the same. This is precisely what Proposition I states:
the size of the pie doesnt depend on how it is sliced.
Firm A Firm
B
However, the arbitrage mechanism will operate to equalize the values of any two companies
whose values are temporarily out of line with each other.
Stocks
40% Bonds
60%
Stocks
60%
Bonds
40%
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
4/6
If we have determined that any two firms A and B, as in our example, have the same value
irrespective of their capital structure, their returns of equity may differ as well as their return on
debt. Even though their values are the same, the two firms experience different values on their
returns of their equity and their debt, hence the need for the next proposition made by Miller and
Modigliani.
Proposition II:
This proposition talks about the behavior of the relevant cost of capital concepts, in
particular, the rate of return required by shareholders. This is expressed in a statement the
expected yield of a share of equity is equal to the appropriate capitalization rate,K.e,for a pure
equity stream in the class, plus a premium related to the financial risk equal to the debt-equity
ratio times the spread between K.e andK.d.
This same statement is rephrased from another book previously mentioned, Essentials
ofCorporate Finance.According to it, although changing the capital structure of the firm may
not change the firms total value, it does cause important changes in the firms debt and equity.
The book states the proposition II as follows: a firms cost of equity capital is a positive linear
function of its capital structure.
We consider the example of a form that is both debt financed and equity financed and
see the effects when the debt/equity ratio is changed. Since we made the assumption that there
are neither personal nor corporate income taxes, the assumption is used for this analysis. The
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC)is the average return on a firms assets and has the
following formula:
WACC(K.o) = (E/V) * K.e + (D/V) * K.d
where V=D+E. Since the WACC is a rate, we have also represented it by the variable K.o.
If we rearrange the above equation to make K.e the subject, the following formula arises:
K.e = K.o + (K.o K.d) * (D/E) ----------- (1)
The equation above emphasizes the M&M proposition II and shows that the cost of equity
depends on three things: the required rate of return on the firms assets, K.o, the firms cost of
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
5/6
debt, K.d. and the firms debt-equity ratio (D/E). From the above equation, the firms cost of
equity is a positive linear function of the capital structure of the firm, i.e. the debt-equity ratio.
This formula is reaffirmed by the use of figures. Our example is that Firm A, as mentioned
earlier, has a weighted average cost of capital (K.o), ignoring taxes, of 12% and can borrow at
8%. Assuming that firm A has a target capital structure of 80% equity and 20% debt, the cost of
equity (K.e) is calculated as 0.12+ (0.12 0.08) * (0.02/0.08) = 0.13 or 13%. If the firm changes
its capital structure by raising the debt proportion to 50%, the debt-equity ratio becomes
0.5/0.5=1. Hence the return on equity/ cost of equity is calculated as 0.12 + (0.12 0.08) * (1) =
0.16 or 16 %.
Now the weighted average cost of capital (K.o) is calculated using its formula and referring
to the capital structure of 80% equity and 20% debt. The K.e of 13% and the K.d of 8% is used
to get the K.o of 0.12 or 12% under the capital structure of 80% equity and 20% debt. Also,
when the debt-equity ratio is changed to 50% debt and 50% equity, the weighted average cost of
capital (K.o) is calculated, using K.e of 16% and K.d of 8%, to give the same answer to be 0.12
or 12%.
The proposition II is established by K.e adjusting from 13% to 16% when the debt-equity
ratio moved from 0.2/0.8 to 0.5/0.5. This shows the positive relationship between the cost of
equity and the debt-equity ratio.
However, the firms return on assets remains unchanged by the K.o remaining at 12% even
when the capital structure (debt-equity ratio) and the return on equity (K.e) were changed. This
also re-emphasizes the M&M proposition I since the return on the companys assets, which is a
measure of the value of the firm, remains unchanged. A graph of this relationship is shown on
the next page. That means that the return/ cost on equity (K.e) will always adjust positively to the
debt-equity ratio (D/E) so that the return/cost on all the firms assets (K.o) will remain the same,
as long as all the assumptions hold.
-
8/6/2019 Jet Lin A
6/6
PROPOSTION III:
We conclude our work by considering the last proposition made by Miller and Modigliani.
Here, the cut-off rate for new investment will in all cases be K.o and will be unaffected by the
type of security used to finance the investment. Proposition I states that the WACC, Ko, is
constant and equal to the cost of equity in an equivalent ungeared company. Since Ko is
invariant to capital structure, it follows that however a project is financed, it must yield a returnof at least Ko, the overall minimum return required to satisfy stake holders as a whole
References:
Corporate Finance and Investment Decisions and Strategies, Richard Pilke and Bill Naele,
p. 523-526
Essentials of Corporate Finance, Stephen A. Ross, Randolph Westerfield, Bradford Jordan,
p. 361-363