Finding Value When None Exists: Pitfalls in Using APV And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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. This latter approach maintaining a fixed debt ratio or a fixed dollar is commonly referred to as the flows to equity (FTE) amount of debt.3 This distinction has been picked method. Both the WACC and FTE frameworks have up by a number of researchers, who have demon- been in use for many years. strated the advantages of APV by focusing on In 1963, Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller highly-leveraged transactions (HLTs) like LBOs (M&M) first analyzed how corporate income taxes and leveraged recapitalizations.4 Some have even interact with a firms financing choices to create gone so far as to assert that using the weighted value. They showed that, under certain assumptions, average cost of capital (WACC) is obsolete...One the value of a firm with debt was equal to the value alternative, called adjusted present value, is espe- of the firm without debt plus the value of the tax cially versatile and reliable, and will replace shields from using tax-deductible debt financing. WACC as the DCF [discounted cash flow] method- Stewart Myers subsequently showed how the M&M ology of choice among generalists.5 1. S. Myers, Interactions of Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions - 4. I. Inselbag and H. Kaufold, How to Value Recapitalizations and Leveraged Implications for Capital Budgeting, Journal of Finance (March 1974), pp. 1-25. Buyouts, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Vol. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 87-93; 2. R. Taggart, Capital Budgeting and the Financing Decision: An Exposition, idem, Two DCF Approaches for Valuing Companies under Alternative Financing Financial Management (Summer 1977), pp. 59-64. Strategies (and How to Choose Between Them), Journal of Applied Corporate 3. J. Miles and J. Ezzell, The Weighted Average Cost of Capital, Perfect Capital Finance, Vol. 10 (Spring 1997), pp. 114-122; E. Arzac, Valuation of Highly Markets and Project Life: A Clarification, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Leveraged Firms, Financial Analysts Journal (July/August 1996); and T. Luehrman, Analysis, Vol. 15 (September 1980), pp. 719-730; L. Booth, Capital Budgeting Using APV: A Better Tool for Valuing Operations, Harvard Business Review (May- Frameworks for the Multinational Corporation, Journal of International Business June 1997), pp. 2-10, (Fall 1982), pp. 113-123. 5. Luehrman (1997), cited above. 8 JOURNAL OF APPLIED CORPORATE FINANCE The goal of this paper is to examine the relative project or acquisition is similar to the firms existing advantages of these frameworks and offer guidance projects, so that the firm can use its current cost of as to when each is likely to be most useful. In this capital. In other words, business risk is held constant. respect this paper is similar to the recent paper by Isik In the WACC framework, the cost of capital captures Inselbag and Howard Kaufold that appeared in this the financing of the firm in the discount rate: journal.6 Unlike previous work, however, my focus is on how to implement the three valuation frame- E D K = K + K (1 − T ) works and on theproblems that are likely to arise in a e V d V actual applications. The key recommendation of this paper is to where K is the weighted average of the equity cost a caution against the use of APV: it is frequently K and the after-tax debt cost K (1 T), with the e d unreliable and should only be used in conjunction weights determined by the debt (D/V) and equity (E/ with more conventional valuation frameworks. In V) ratios based on market values. The critical as- particular, it only has general applicability in trans- sumption is that the firm estimates the debt and actions that involve a structured financing, like equity costs from current capital market data and leveraged buyouts (LBOs), project financing, and uses its optimal or target capital structure to deter- real estate financing. Even in these cases, however, mine the financing mix. its use depends on theoretical concepts that in Using the perpetuity formula, the overall enter- practical applications have a wide margin of error. prise (or project) value is simply THE CLASSIC VALUATION FRAMEWORK: EBIT(1 − T ) V = WACC K a There are several layers of difficulty in using We will illustrate how the methods differ in applica- valuation techniques, and sometimes hidden as- tions, so lets start with a firm (or project) with sumptions creep in. For this reason, we will start with expected EBIT of $20 million. If the firms tax rate is the simplest possible case, which is the standard 50%, the perpetuity free cash flows are $10 million. M&M perpetuity framework. The main assumptions With a target capital structure of 50% debt, and debt of this model will then be relaxed. But, as will and equity costs of 10% and 15%, respectively, then become clear, most of the insights of the M&M model K = 10%. In this case, the total enterprise value is a continue to hold in the more complicated frame- $100 million ($20mm × 50%/10%). works. At this point it is important to note the implicit To start out, the firm has a series of expected free assumption of the WACC approach. The perpetuity cash flows. These are estimated in the normal way formula uses the sum of an infinite series, with both as after-tax operating earnings, calculated as earn- the expected free cash flows and the discount rate ings before interest and taxes multiplied by one assumed to be constant (in addition to the normal minus the tax rate [EBIT × (1 T)], plus non-cash assumptions of constant tax rates, interest rates, and charges, minus changes in net working capital and business risk premiums). For the WACC to be capital expenditures. Since we are dealing with a constant, one of two assumptions must be made: perpetuity, the depreciation cash flows fund capital either debt financing has no impact on the WACC, expenditures and there are no net changes in which is the original M&M irrelevance argument;7 or working capital. As a result, the free cash flows are the debt ratio, and thus the financial risk, is constant simply the expected after-tax operating cash flows. through time. If debt financing affects the WACC and The next step is to determine a discount rate and the future debt ratio is expected to change, then the a valuation framework, which is where differences WACC will no longer be constant and thus techni- in extant approaches arise. Lets assume that the cally we cannot use the perpetuity formula.8 Of 6. Inselbag and Kaufold (1997), cited earlier. 8. There will still be a number that discounts the expected free cash flows and 7. See F. Modigliani and M. Miller, The Cost of Capital, Corporate Finance and gives the correct market value, but it will not be the current WACC. the Investment Decision, American Economic Review (June 1958), pp. 261-297; M. Miller, Debt and Taxes, Journal of Finance (May 1977), pp. 261-275. 9 VOLUME 15 NUMBER 1 SPRING 2002 course, temporary deviations from the optimal capi- of the acquisition itself, which belongs to the equity tal structure will occur over time. These deviations holders who own the project. In a fundamental do not invalidate the WACC approach, as long as sense, the financing follows from the valuation of the they are not expected at the time of the analysis. project or acquisitionafter it is acceptedand not Now lets consider how we implement the from its direct cost.10 In this way the frameworks for WACC approach. Suppose, for example, the free valuing a standard project or an acquisition are both cash flows in the example are from a project conceptually identical. requiring an initial investment of $60 million. In this Understanding how the debt decision is treated case, the projects net present value is $40 million in the WACC approach is critical for understanding ($100mm $60mm). For a standard project, this is all the differences between standard project valuation the operating manager needs to know: that the NPV and the valuation of stand-alone investments.