DOCSLIB.ORG

Corporate Valuation, Standard Recapitalization Strategies and the Value of Tax Savings in Textbook Valuation Formulas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Corporate Valuation, Standard Recapitalization Strategies and the Value of Tax Savings in Textbook Valuation Formulas R & D CORPORATE VALUATION, STANDARD RECAPITALIZATION STRATEGIES AND THE VALUE OF TAX SAVINGS IN TEXTBOOK VALUATION FORMULAS by B. SCHWETZLER* 2000/46/FIN * Professor, Chair of Financial Management, Leipzig Graduate School of Management (HHL), Jahnalle 59, D-04109 Leipzig, FRG Visiting Scholar, INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau Cedex, France. A working paper in the INSEAD Working Paper Series is intended as a means whereby a faculty researcher’s thoughts and findings may be communicated to interested readers. The paper should be considered preliminary in nature and may require revision. Printed at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Corporate Valuation, Standard Recapitalization Strategies and the Value of Tax Savings in Textbook Valuation Formulas Bernhard Schwetzler* * Professor, Chair of Financial Management, Leipzig Graduate School of Management (HHL), Jahnalle 59, D-04109 Leipzig, FRG Visting Scholar, INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau, CEDEX e-Mail: [email protected]; 2 Abstract Typically, in finance and valuation textbooks three different formulas, known as the weighted average cost of capital (WACC)-, the adjusted present value (APV)- and the flow to equity (FTE)- approach are proposed to calculate the present value of a levered firm. Recent results in research suggest that these formulas imply different types of recapitalization strategies, predetermining either absolute future debt levels or capital structures in future periods (D-strategy and L- strategy) leading to different tax shields and firm values if future firm values are uncertain. This paper will show that one of these two strategies attributed with riskless tax savings (the D-strategy) is not admissible in the expectations adaption regime necessary to apply risk adjusted CAPM-based rates of return on multiperiod uncertain cash flows. In contrast, the recapitalization strategy leading to riskier tax savings (L-strategy) is admissible. Standard valuation formulas that imply riskless tax savings thus overstate the tax benefits of debt financing. This result adds another possible explanation to the phenomenon that the effects of tax considerations upon capital structure decisions to be observed empirically are substantially smaller than suggested by standard corporate finance formulas. 3 1. Introduction Since the pathbreaking work of Modigliani and Miller (1963) financial researchers have been puzzled by the effects of debt-related tax savings upon optimal capital structure and firm value. Recent findings by Inselbag and Kaufold (1997) and Kruschwitz and Löffler (1998), building on earlier work of Miles and Ezzel (1981), suggest that the tax advantage attributed to debt financing depends on the debt policy, more precisely: on the recapitalization strategy of the firm, if future firm values are uncertain. - If companies predetermine absolute levels of outstanding debt for every future period the absolute amount of debt, interest payments and tax savings attributed to these savings are known with certainty. I will refer to this policy as the „D-policy“ henceforth. - Companies following an „L-Policy“ predetermine their capital structure (leverage) L (to be measured in market values) as debt-to-firm-value for every future period. Whenever future firm values are uncertain, future debt levels are uncertain too. The tax benefits attributed to debt under the L-policy are more risky and hence less valuable to investors than those under the D-policy.1 Since Fama (1977) and Myers and Turnbull (1977) it is well known that using a single period CAPM-based risk adjusted rate of return for multiperiod capital budgeting and valuation, as proposed in valuation and finance textbooks, requires a particular expectations adaption process. Market participants are assumed to adjust their expectations of future operating cash flows of the firm relatively to the deviation of the currently realized cash flow to its expected value. This revision of expectations puts future market values of the firm under the same risk as its operating cash flows. Using standard textbook formulas for valuation purposes implies risky future market values of the firm and thus makes the distinction between the two different debt policies an important issue in corporate valuation. In this paper the implications of the expectations adaption process for the two different policies outlined above are analyzed. It will be shown that the D-policy collides with the assumptions of the multiperiod revised expectations model. As expectations revisions may drive future firm values down and debtholders may face risk of default, their reaction will prevent the firm from maintaining a predetermined debt level under all circumstances. Debtholders may force the firm to repurchase debt or may charge higher rates of return. Future (expected) interest payments and the risk attributed to these payments thus cannot remain unchanged. Riskless interest payments and therefore riskless tax savings are not achievable under the expectations adaption regime assumed by standard valuation formulas. The L-policy does not collide with the revised expectations model, if debtholders choose the amount of debt in order to avoid default risk. As debt levels are assumed to be permanently 1 Note that it is the uncertainty about the level of debt outstanding that puts risk upon the tax benefits. The debt itself may still be riskless. 4 adjusted in accordance to changes in total firm value, debtholders may not face a change of default risk over time. As the amount of outstanding debt and the interest payments are certain only for the next period, the tax savings will be certain only for the next period, too. The expectations adaption process under the L-policy puts future debt levels following the next period under the same risk as the operating cash flows. Miles and Ezzel (1981) have shown that the risk adjusted rate of return for the unlevered firm is the correct rate for further discounting and for determining the present value of the tax benefit. For the purpose of corporate valuation disadvantages of debt financing (costs of financial distress, agency costs of debt) are rarely explicitly taken into account. The reason for this may be that financial theory offered only little guidance to practitioners in order to accurately quantify these effects. The possible differentiation between the two strategies imposes a considerable degree of uncertainty on corporate valuations in practice: The D-policy will lead to higher tax benefits and hence higher firm values, but is not admissible under the asssumend expectations adaption regime. The L-policy fits into the expectations adaption model but leads to lower firm values. As it is just the announcement of the future recapitalization policy that accounts for the difference in value, the differentiation between the two strategies may be expected to become a major issue of debate in price negotiations. The results of this paper add another argument to the discussion about the magnitude of tax effects upon optimal capital structure. If capital market participants recognize that a D-policy is not achievable within the expectations adaption framework markets use for valuation purposes they may not give too much credit on the announcement and promise of a company to follow this strategy. Capital markets might then perceive the L-strategy as more credible and thus will attribute less value to future tax benefits than implied by the standard valuation models that assume the D-policy to hold. If the announcement of different recapitalization strategies (as D- and L-policy) is assumed to be the only difference between a D- and an L- company under analysis, marginal and average disadvantages of debt financing as costs of financial distress and agency costs may, at best, only slightly differ for the two strategies. If bankruptcy costs and other disadvantages of debt are assumend to be independent from the announced debt recapitalization strategy, the L-policy leads to substantially lower optimal debt levels D* than the D-strategy (if perceived to be achievable): lower marginal tax benefits have to outweigh unchanged marginal disadvantages of debt. Maximum firm value at optimal debt level is higher for the D-firm than for the L-firm. If capital markets attribute lower values to future tax savings than the D-model implies, the standard valuation formulas used in finance theory overstate the value of the tax shield. Optimal debt levels based on the assumptions of riskless tax savings thus appear to be too high. The differentiation between the two recapitalization strategies and the non- achieveability of riskless tax savings implied by the standard valuation formulas thus might add another explanation to the phenomenon that empirically observed amounts of debt and leverage ratios are significantly lower than predicted by standard valuation models. 5 Related work concentrating on the risk of future debt and the magnitude of tax effects upon firm value in a multiperiod setting has been done by Lewellen and Emery (1986), Lewis (1990) and Berens and Cuny (1995). The model developed by Berens and Cuny optimizes corporate debt by outweighing marginal tax advantages of uncertain tax savings on corporate level against the marginal disadvantage of additional riskless tax payments on bondholder level. As they assume risk neutral investors and independent identically distributed future cash flows (pp. 1193) they ignore the expectations adaption process implied by the standard valuation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adjusted Present Value
    Adjusted Present Value A study on the properties, functioning and applicability of the adjusted present value company valuation model Author: Sebastian Ootjers BSc Student number: 0041823 Master: Industrial Engineering & Management Track: Financial Engineering & Management Date: September 26, 2007 Supervisors (University of Twente) ir. H. Kroon prof. dr. J. Bilderbeek Supervisors (KPMG) dr. J. Weimer drs. F. Siblesz Educational institution: University of Twente Department: FMBE Company: KPMG Corporate Finance ABCD Foreword This research report is the result of five months of research into the adjusted present value company valuation model. This master thesis serves as a final assignment to complete the Master Industrial Engineering & Management (Financial Engineering & Management Track). The research project was performed at KPMG Corporate Finance, located in Amstelveen, from May 21, 2007 up until September 28, 2007, under supervision of Jeroen Weimer (Partner KPMG Corporate Finance), Frank Siblesz (Manager KPMG Corporate Finance), Jan Bilderbeek (University of Twente) and Henk Kroon (University of Twente). The subject of this master assignment was chosen after deliberation with the supervisors at KPMG Corporate Finance on the research needs of KPMG Corporate Finance. It is implicitly assumed in this research report that the reader has been educated or is active in the field of corporate finance. It is also assumed that the reader is aware of existence of (company) valuation as part of the corporate finance working field. Any comments, questions or remarks that come forth from reading this research report can be directed to me through the contact information given below. The only thing remaining is to wish the reader a pleasant time reading this report and to hope that this report provides the reader with a clear insight in the adjusted present value model.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper-18: Business Valuation Management
    Group-IV : Paper-18 : Business Valuation Management [ December ¯ 2011 ] 33 Q. 20. X Ltd. is considering the proposal to acquire Y Ltd. and their financial information is given below : Particulars X Ltd. Y Ltd. No. of Equity shares 10,00,000 6,00,000 Market price per share (Rs.) 30 18 Market Capitalization (Rs.) 3,00,00,000 1,08,00,000 X Ltd. intend to pay Rs. 1,40,00,000 in cash for Y Ltd., if Y Ltd.’s market price reflects only its value as a separate entity. Calculate the cost of merger: (i) When merger is financed by cash (ii) When merger is financed by stock. Answer 20. (i) Cost of Merger, when Merger is Financed by Cash = (Cash - MVY) + (MVY - PVY) Where, MVY = Market value of Y Ltd. PVY = True/intrinsic value of Y Ltd. Then, = (1,40,00,000 – 1,08,00,000) + (1,08,00,000 – 1,08,00,000) = Rs. 32,00,000 If cost of merger becomes negative then shareholders of X Ltd. will get benefited by acquiring Y Ltd. in terms of market value. (ii) Cost of Merger when Merger is Financed by Exchange of Shares in X Ltd. to the shareholders of Y Ltd. Cost of merger = PVXY - PVY Where, PVXY = Value in X Ltd. that Y Ltd.’s shareholders get. Suppose X Ltd. agrees to exchange 5,00,000 shares in exchange of shares in Y Ltd., instead of payment in cash of Rs. 1,40,00,000. Then the cost of merger is calculated as below : = (5,00,000 × Rs.
    [Show full text]
  • Intra-Year Cash Flow Patterns: a Simple Solution for an Unnecessary Appraisal Error
    Intra-year Cash Flow Patterns: A Simple Solution for an Unnecessary Appraisal Error By C. Donald Wiggins (Professor of Accounting and Finance, the University of North Florida), B. Perry Woodside (Associate Professor of Finance, the College of Charleston), and Dilip D. Kare (Associate Professor of Accounting and Finance, the University of North Florida) The Journal of Real Estate Appraisal and Economics Winter 1991 Introduction The appraisal and academic communities have spent much time and effort in recent years developing and refining appraisal techniques to make them as theoretically correct and practically applicable as possible. As a result, income appraisal techniques such as discounted cash flow and capitalization of earnings are commonly used in the appraisal of income producing real property and closely held businesses. These techniques are theoretically sound and have become the primary valuation methods for many appraisers. However, the high degree of difficulty of forecasting future revenues, expenses, profits and cash flows result in some unavoidable application problems. Actual results almost always deviate from forecasts to some degree because of unforeseeable events and conditions, changing relationships between costs and revenues, changes in government policy and other factors. Many of these problems are unavoidable and the appraiser’s task is to limit errors as much as possible through analysis. Whatever their theoretical soundness, there is one error built into most appraisal tools as they are commonly applied. This error concerns the intra-year timing of cash flows and returns. Appraisal techniques such as capitalization of earnings, Ellwood formulae and discounted cash flow as they are most often applied inherently assume that income or cash flows occur at the end of each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Appraisal: a Critical Review of the Adjusted Present Value (APV) Method from a South African Perspective
    Investment appraisal: A critical review of the adjusted present value (APV) method from a South African perspective APienaar Abstract Since first developed by S C Myers, the adjusted present value (APV) approach has gained wide recognition as an acceptable method of discounting cash flows. Although a number of assumptions have to be made, there is merit in using the APV method as an alternative to the NPV method of project appraisal. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the appropriateness of the APV method for investment appraisal purposes in the South African context. The major advantage of the APV method is that it separates the NPV rendered by the project if it were aU-equity financed, from the side-effects of financing. This allows the advantage of project­ specific financing to be taken into account in a very direct way when a project is evaluated, which is especially helpful when the weight or cost of financing differs from the rest of the company. Within the South African context, and specifically against the background of South African taxation legislation, certain principles underlying APV is questionable. The major point of critique is that the existence of the tax shield under South African taxation legislation is not proven. The second point of critique is that the different formulae used to determine the Ku, the cost of equity in an ungeared project, only render the same answer when the cost of debt is equal to the risk-free rate. In this regard a suggestion is made to adjust Ku for the premium on the risk-free rate in the case where the cost of debt exceeds the risk-free rate.
    [Show full text]
  • Real Options
    1 CHAPTER 8 REAL OPTIONS The approaches that we have described in the last three chapters for assessing the effects of risk, for the most part, are focused on the negative effects of risk. Put another way, they are all focused on the downside of risk and they miss the opportunity component that provides the upside. The real options approach is the only one that gives prominence to the upside potential for risk, based on the argument that uncertainty can sometimes be a source of additional value, especially to those who are poised to take advantage of it. We begin this chapter by describing in very general terms the argument behind the real options approach, noting its foundations in two elements – the capacity of individuals or entities to learn from what is happening around them and their willingness and the ability to modify behavior based upon that learning. We then describe the various forms that real options can take in practice and how they can affect the way we assess the value of investments and our behavior. In the last section, we consider some of the potential pitfalls in using the real options argument and how it can be best incorporated into a portfolio of risk assessment tools. The Essence of Real Options To understand the basis of the real options argument and the reasons for its allure, it is easiest to go back to risk assessment tool that we unveiled in chapter 6 – decision trees. Consider a very simple example of a decision tree in figure 8.1: Figure 8.1: Simple Decision Tree p =1/2 $ 100 -$120 1-p =1/2 Given the equal probabilities of up and down movements, and the larger potential loss, the expected value for this investment is negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Version FTA Final Presentation Webinar #2 17 July 2018
    APPLIED FINANCE CENTRE Fac ulty of B us ines s and E conom ics FTA Webinar Weighted Average Cost of Capital: Part 2 17 July, 2018 Presented by: To n y C ar l t o n Associate Professor & Program Director, Corporate Finance Macquarie Applied Finance Centre APPLIED FINANCE CENTRE 1 Tony Carlton Applied Finance Centre, Macquarie University Associate Professor & Program Director, Corporate Finance To n y is responsible for managing the Corporate Finance stream in the prestigious Master of Applied Finance. Prior to joining the Applied Finance Centre To n y had over 25 years' experience in the manufacturing, resource and agricultural industries. His experience includes all aspects of corporate finance and strategy, including project evaluation, strategic portfolio analysis and restructuring, and the development and execution of growth strategies. He managed a number of large acquisitions and divestments both in Australia and overseas, and a number of large scale balance sheet restructurings. In the Masters of Applied Financ e program, To n y presents the Core Corporate Finance course, and elective subjects including Advanced Valuation, Managing Shareholder Value and Corporate Fin ancial Strategy. He completed his PhD at Macquarie University in 2015. APPLIED FINANCE CENTRE 2 1 Agenda Part 2 ü Recap of Part 1 q Challenges in applying WACC (continued) q WACC and Financial Strategy q Issues in estimating WACC q Sources of information for calculating WACC APPLIED FINANCE CENTRE 3 Recap of Part 1 WACC measures the returns required by investors in an asset q Used in Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) valuations q The WACC is determined by the characteristics of the cash flows being valued – primarily risk and debt capacity q Operating Free Cash Flows discounted at WACC to give Enterprise (or Asset) Value q Enterprise Value = Equity + Debt q When using WACC, Equity Value is determined as a Residual i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Structure and Sources of Funds with Particular Reference to Portuguese Industrial Companies
    CAPITAL STRUCTURE AND SOURCES OF FUNDS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO PORTUGUESE INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES. MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION BIRMINGHAM BUSINESS SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM FINAL DISSERTATION AUTHOR: JOÃO ADELINO NEVES PEREIRA RIBEIRO DATE OF SUBMISSION: JANUARY 1992 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF WORDS: 10,500 FIRST PAGE To test the static trade-off theory and the pecking order theory in the publicly traded Portuguese industrial companies is the essential purpose of this project. By testing these two of the most important theories of capital structure, we will be able to better understand which criteria financial managers of these companies follow when they have to make financing decisions. This dissertation comprises four different parts. The first one includes the two first chapters: the chapter of introduction – where the general ideas about the project can be found – and the chapter addressing the methodology used. The second part constitutes the theoretical approach, including the chapter where the review of the relevant literature is addressed. The third part includes the chapter where the results of the field research are exposed. Finally, the fourth part includes the chapter where the conclusions reached by comparing the two theories analyzed in the second part with the results exposed in the third part are addressed, and also includes a checklist of factors managers should take into account when they face financing decisions. 1 SECOND PAGE By comparing the survey results exposed in the third part of the report with the static trade-off and pecking order theories analyzed in the second part, four main conclusions were reached: 1. Portuguese financial managers of publicly traded industrial companies are more likely to follow a financing hierarchy than to establish a target debt-to-equity ratio.
    [Show full text]
  • Investment, Dividend, Financing, and Production Policies: Theory and Implications
    Chapter 2 Investment, Dividend, Financing, and Production Policies: Theory and Implications Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the investment and financing policy is discussed; the role of interaction between investment, financing, and dividends the financing mix in analyzing investment opportunities will policy of the firm. A brief introduction of the policy receive detailed treatment. Again, the recognition of risky framework of finance is provided in Sect. 2.1. Section 2.2 dis- debt will be allowed, so as to lend further practicality to the cusses the interaction between investment and dividends pol- analysis. The recognition of financing and investment effects icy. Section 2.3 discusses the interaction between dividends are covered in Sect. 2.5, where capital-budgeting techniques and financing policy. Section 2.4 discusses the interaction be- are reviewed and analyzed with regard to their treatment of tween investment and financing policy. Section 2.5 discusses the financing mix. In this section several numerical compar- the implications of financing and investment interactions for isons are offered, to emphasize that the differences in the capital budgeting. Section 2.6 discusses the implications of techniques are nontrivial. Section 2.6 will discuss implica- different policies on the beta coefficients. The conclusion is tion of different policies on systematic risk determination. presented in Sect. 2.7. Summary and concluding remarks are offered in Sect. 2.7. Keywords Investment policy r Financing policy r Dividend policy r Capital structure r Financial analysis r Financial 2.2 Investment and Dividend Interactions: planning, Default risk of debt r Capital budgeting r System- The Internal Versus External Financing atic risk Decision Internal financing consists primarily of retained earnings and depreciation expense, while external financing is comprised 2.1 Introduction of new equity and new debt, both long and short term.
    [Show full text]
  • Basics of Valuation Expressions of Value Models of Valuation In
    Basics of Valuation Expressions of Value Models of Valuation in Mergers and Acquisitions • Although evidence clearly indicates that the shareholders of a target profit from a merger or acquisition, the same cannot be said for the shareholders of the acquirer. • An abundance of studies show that the share price of almost all targets increases around the announcement of a merger or an acquisition • However, the share price of acquirers rarely follows the same trend; the average share price performance of acquirers around the announcement of a merger or an acquisition is slightly negative, and acquirers commonly experience a significant decrease in share price after announcing their intention to merge with or acquire another company. Valuation process • Analysts frequently refer to five types of value: book value, breakup value, liquidation value, fundamental value, and market value. • Book value refers to the accounting value of a company—that is, the value reported in the balance sheet. The book value of equity, also referred to as the company’s net worth, is equal to its total assets minus its total liabilities. • It represents a company’s residual value, assuming that assets can be sold for their reported values and that the proceeds are used to satisfy all liabilities at their recorded values. • Break-up value refers to the amount that could be realized if a company were split into saleable units that could be disposed of in a negotiated transaction. This concept is especially relevant for companies composed of a variety of individual business units, divisions, or segments. • Liquidation value refers to the amount that could be realized if a company were liquidated in a distress sale.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: Evidence from the Field
    Journal of Financial Economics 61 (2001) 000-000 The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field John R. Grahama, Campbell R. Harveya,b,* aFuqua School of Business, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA bNational Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA 02912, USA (Received 2 August 1999; final version received 10 December 1999) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract We survey 392 CFOs about the cost of capital, capital budgeting, and capital structure. Large firms rely heavily on present value techniques and the capital asset pricing model, while small firms are relatively likely to use the payback criterion. A surprising number of firms use firm risk rather than project risk in evaluating new investments. Firms are concerned about financial flexibility and credit ratings when issuing debt, and earnings per share dilution and recent stock price appreciation when issuing equity. We find some support for the pecking-order and trade-off capital structure hypotheses but little evidence that executives are concerned about asset substitution, asymmetric information, transactions costs, free cash flows, or personal taxes. JEL classification: G31, G32, G12 Key words: Capital structure; Cost of capital; Cost of equity; Capital budgeting; Discount rates; Project valuation; Survey ____________________________________________________________________________________ *Corresponding author, Tel: 919 660 7768, Fax: 919 660 7971 E-mail address: [email protected] We thank Franklin Allen for his detailed comments on the survey instrument and the overall project. We appreciate the input of Chris Allen, J.B. Heaton, Craig Lewis, Cliff Smith, Jeremy Stein, Robert Taggart, and Sheridan Titman on the survey questions and design. We received expert survey advice from Lisa Abendroth, John Lynch, and Greg Stewart.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Approach
    An analysis of discounted cash flow (DCF) approach to business valuation in Sri Lanka by Thavamani Thevy Arumugam Matriculation Number: 8029 This dissertation submitted to St Clements University as a requirement for the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Financial Management September 2007 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................5 1.1 Background.......................................................................................................5 1.1.1 wealth maximization ...............................................................................5 1.2 Concept of an investment ............................................................................6 1.3 Future/Present value of money ....................................................................7 1.4 Discounted cash flow (DCF)..........................................................................8 1.4.1 History of discounted cash flow (DCF) .................................................9 1.5 Risk in context ................................................................................................ 10 1.6 Valuation of a business................................................................................ 12 1.7 Problem discussion........................................................................................ 13 1.7.1 Why do these valuations differ? ......................................................... 13 1.7.2 How does one know which of these
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Value When None Exists: Pitfalls in Using APV And
    FINDING VALUE WHERE by Laurence Booth, NONE EXISTS: PITFALLS University of Toronto IN USING ADJUSTED PRESENT VALUE here are many different conceptually model could be used to examine interactions be- correct methods for valuing firms and tween the investment decision and the financing T projects. Perhaps the best known is the decision.1 This use of the M&M valuation framework weighted average cost of capital (WACC) has come to be called Adjusted Present Value (APV) approach, which involves discounting unlevered or the valuation-by-components method. The cen- (ie., pre-interest, but after-tax) cash flows at a rate tral idea is simply that the overall value of the firm that reflects a blend of the costs of the different can be unbundled into two separate components:its sources of finance. For example, the overall enter- debt-free or unlevered value and the value of its debt prise value can be calculated by discounting the tax shield. operating or unlevered cash flows to the firm as a Under normal simplifying assumptions, the whole at the firms weighted average cost of capital. WACC, FTE, and APV frameworks should all yield If desired, the firms equity value can then be the same answers if correctly implemented.2 But calculated by subtracting the value of the debt to the problem has always been interpreting what back out the equity value. Alternatively, the value correctly implemented means. The key issue is of the equity can be calculated directly by discount- in the assumption about the firms debt policy ing the cash flows to the equity holders at the equity that is, whether that policy is framed in terms of holders required rate of return.
    [Show full text]