Finance Exam 3

In the constant dividend growth model, what is the highest reasonable growth rate for a stock's dividend?

A reasonable limit for the growth rate is the growth rate of the economy, which in the U.S. has historically been about 3 to 3.5 percent (after accounting for inflation). As we will see in a later chapter, inflation has historically averaged about 3 percent, so 6 to 6.5 percent (before accounting for inflation) would be a reasonable limit.

If a project with conventional cash flows has a payback period less than its life, can you definitively state the algebraic sign of the NPV? Why or why not?

A payback period less than the project's life means that the NPV is positive for a zero discount rate, but nothing more definitive can be said. For discount rates greater than zero, the payback period will still be less than the project's life, but the NPV may be positive, zero, or negative, depending on whether the discount rate is less than, equal to, or greater than the IRR.

Is it possible for a company to pay dividends when it has a negative net income for the year? Could this happen for longer periods?

For a particular year, this can (and often does) happen. Going back to the cash flow identity, the dividend payments depend on operating cash flow, capital spending, the change in net working capital, and the cash flow to creditors. The firm could have positive operating cash flow with negative earnings, sell fixed assets, reduce net working capital, or raise cash from creditors in order to pay dividends. While this is possible in the short term, as a practical matter over the longer term, the company would probably need to have a positive net income (at least on average) in order to maintain a dividend.

A project has perpetual cash flows of C per period, a cost of I, and a required return of R. What is the relationship between the project's payback and its IRR? What implications does your answer have for long-lived projects with relatively constant cash flows?

For a project with future cash flows that are an annuity: Payback = I / C And the IRR is: 0 = - I + C / IRR Solving the IRR equation for IRR, we get: IRR = C / I Notice this is just the reciprocal of the payback. So: IRR = 1 / Payback For long-lived projects with relatively constant cash flows, the sooner the project pays back, the greater is the IRR.

Suppose a project has conventional cash flows and a positive NPV. What do you know about its payback? Its profitability index? Its IRR? Explain.

If a project has a positive NPV for a certain discount rate, then it will also have a positive NPV for a zero discount rate; thus the payback period must be less than the project life. If NPV is positive, then the present value of future cash inflows is greater than the initial investment cost; thus the PI must be greater than 1. If NPV is positive for a certain discount rate R, then it will be zero for some larger discount rate R*; thus the IRR must be greater than the required return.

In the chapter, we mentioned that many companies have been under pressure to declassify their boards of directors. Why would investors want a board to be declassified? What are the advantages of a classified board?

In a declassified board, every board seat is up for election every year. This structure allows investors to vote out a director (and even the entire board) much more quickly if investors are dissatisfied. However, this structure also makes it more difficult to fight off a hostile takeover bid. In contrast, a classified board can more effectively negotiate on behalf of stockholders, perhaps securing better terms in a deal. Classified boards are also important for institutional memory. If an entire board were voted out in a single year, there would be no board members available to evaluate the company's direction with regards to previous decisions.

Referring to the previous questions, under what circumstances might a company choose not to pay dividends?

In general, companies that need the cash will often forgo dividends since dividends are a cash expense. Young, growing companies with profitable investment opportunities are one example; another example is a company in financial distress. This question is examined in depth in a later chapter.

A substantial percentage of the companies listed on the NYSE and the NASDAQ dont pay dividends, but investors are nonetheless willing to buy shares in them. How is this possible given your answer to the precious question?

Investors believe the company will eventually start paying dividends (or be sold to another company).

Some companies, such as Google, have created classes of stock with little or no voting rights at all. Why would investors buy such stock?

Investors buy such stock because they want it, recognizing that the shares have no voting power. Presumably, investors pay less for such shares than they would otherwise.

Is it unfair or unethical for corporations to create classes of stock with unequal voting rights?

It wouldn't seem to be. Investors who don't like the voting features of a particular class of stock are under no obligation to buy it.

Evaluate the following statement: Managers should not focus on the current stock value because doing so will lead to an overemphasis on short-term profits at the expense of long-term profits

Presumably, the current stock value reflects the risk, timing, and magnitude of all future cash flows, both short-term and long-term. If this is correct, then the statement is false.

One of the less flattering interpretations of the acronym MIRR is "meaningless internal rate of return." Why do you think this term is applied to MIRR?

The MIRR is calculated by finding the present value of all cash outflows, the future value of all cash inflows to the end of the project, and then calculating the IRR of the two cash flows. As a result, the cash flows have been discounted or compounded by one interest rate (the required return), and then the interest rate between the two remaining cash flows is calculated. As such, the MIRR is not a true interest rate. In contrast, consider the IRR. If you take the initial investment, and calculate the future value at the IRR, you can replicate the future cash flows of the project exactly.

Suppose a company has a preferred stock issue and a common stock issue. Both have just paid a $2 dividend. Which do you think will have a higher price, a share of the preferred or a share of the common?

The common stock probably has a higher price because the dividend can grow, whereas it is fixed on the preferred. However, the preferred is less risky because of the dividend and liquidation preference, so it is possible the preferred could be worth more, depending on the circumstances.

In the context of the dividend growth model, is it true that the growth rate in dividends and the growth rate in the price of the stock are identical?

The dividend growth model makes the implicit assumption that the stock price will grow at the same constant rate as the dividend. What this means is that if the cash flows on an investment grow at a constant rate through time, the value of that investment grows at the same rate as the cash flows.

Under what two assumptions can we use the dividend growth model presented in the chapter to determine the value of a share of stock? Comment on the reasonableness of these assumptions.

The general method for valuing a share of stock is to find the present value of all expected future dividends. The dividend growth model presented in the text is only valid (i) if dividends are expected to occur forever; that is, the stock provides dividends in perpetuity, and (ii) if a constant growth rate of dividends occurs forever. A violation of the first assumption might be a company that is expected to cease operations and dissolve itself some finite number of years from now. The stock of such a company would be valued by the methods of this chapter by applying the general method of valuation. A violation of the second assumption might be a start-up firm that isn't currently paying any dividends, but is expected to eventually start making dividend payments some number of years from now. This stock would also be valued by the general dividend valuation method of this chapter.

What are the difficulties in using the PE ratio to value stock?

The major difficulty in using price ratio analysis is determining the correct benchmark PE ratio. In a previous chapter, we showed how the sustainable growth rate is determined, and in a future chapter we will discuss the required return. Although not exact measures, the growth rate and required return have a solid economic basis. With the PE ratio, like any other ratio, it is difficult to determine what the ratio should be. Since a small difference in the PE ratio can have a significant effect on the calculated stock price, it is easy to arrive at an incorrect valuation.

What are some of the difficulties that might come up in actual applications of the various criteria we discussed in this chapter? Which one would be the easiest to implement in actual applications? The most difficult?

The single biggest difficulty, by far, is coming up with reliable cash flow estimates. Determining an appropriate discount rate is also not a simple task. These issues are discussed in greater depth in the next several chapters. The payback approach is probably the simplest, followed by the AAR, but even these require revenue and cost projections. The discounted cash flow measures (NPV, IRR, and profitability index) are really only slightly more difficult in practice.

It is sometimes stated that "the internal rate of return approach assumes reinvestment of the intermediate cash flows at the internal rate of return." Is this claim correct? To answer, suppose you calculate the IRR of a project in the usual way. Next, suppose you do the following: Calculate the future value (as of the end of the project) of all the cash flows other than the initial outlay assuming they are reinvested at the IRR, producing a single future value figure for the project. Calculate the IRR of the project using the single future value calculated in the previous step and the initial outlay. It is easy to verify that you will get the same IRR as in your original calculation only if you use the IRR as the reinvestment rate in the previous step.

The statement is incorrect. It is true that if you calculate the future value of all intermediate cash flows to the end of the project at the IRR, then calculate the IRR of this future value and the initial investment, you will get the same IRR. However, as in the previous question, what is done with the cash flows once they are generated does not affect the IRR. Consider the following example: Project A: CO=-$100 C1=$10 C2=$110 IRR=10% Suppose this $100 is a deposit into a bank account. The IRR of the cash flows is 10 percent. Does the IRR change if the Year 1 cash flow is reinvested in the account, or if it is withdrawn and spent on pizza? No. Finally, consider the yield to maturity calculation on a bond. If you think about it, the YTM is the IRR on the bond, but no mention of a reinvestment assumption for the bond coupons is suggested. The reason is that reinvestment is irrelevant to the YTM calculation; in the same way, reinvestment is irrelevant in the IRR calculation. Our caveat about blocked funds applies here as well.

It is sometimes stated that "the net present value approach assumes reinvestment of the intermediate cash flows at the required return." Is this claim correct? To answer, suppose you calculate the NPV of a project in the usual way. Next, suppose you do the following: Calculate the future value (as of the end of the project) of all the cash flows other than the initial outlay assuming they are reinvested at the required return, producing a single future value figure for the project. Calculate the NPV of the project using the single future value calculated in the previous step and the initial outlay. It is easy to verify that you will get the same NPV as in your original calculation only if you use the required return as the reinvestment rate in the previous step.

The statement is incorrect. It is true that if you calculate the future value of all intermediate cash flows to the end of the project at the required return, then calculate the NPV of this future value and the initial investment, you will get the same NPV. However, NPV says nothing about reinvestment of intermediate cash flows. The NPV is the present value of the project cash flows. What is actually done with those cash flows once they are generated is not relevant. Put differently, the value of a project depends on the cash flows generated by the project, not on the future value of those cash flows. The fact that the reinvestment "works" only if you use the required return as the reinvestment rate is also irrelevant simply because reinvestment is not relevant in the first place to the value of the project. One caveat: Our discussion here assumes that the cash flows are truly available once they are generated, meaning that it is up to firm management to decide what to do with the cash flows. In certain cases, there may be a requirement that the cash flows be reinvested. For example, in international investing, a company may be required to reinvest the cash flows in the country in which they are generated and not "repatriate" the money. Such funds are said to be "blocked" and reinvestment becomes relevant because the cash flows are not truly available.

Based on the dividend growth model, what are the two components of the total return on a share of stock? Which do you think is typically larger?

The two components are the dividend yield and the capital gains yield. For most companies, the capital gains yield is larger. This is easy to see for companies that pay no dividends. For companies that do pay dividends, the dividend yields are rarely over five percent and are often much less.

Why does the value of a share of stock depend on dividends?

The value of any investment depends on its cash flows; i.e. what investors will actually receive. The cash flows from a share of stock are the dividends.

In a previous chapter, we discussed the yield to maturity (YTM) of a bond. In what ways are the IRR and the YTM similar? How are they different?

The yield to maturity is the internal rate of return on a bond. The two concepts are identical with the exception that YTM is applied to bonds and IRR is applied to capital budgeting.

In October 2011, automobile manufacturer Daimler AG announced plans to invest $350 million to manufacture an entirely new Mercedes-Benz model at its Alabama plant. Daimler AG apparently felt that it would be better able to compete and create value with U.S-based facilities. Other companies such as Fuji Film and Swiss chemical company Lonza have reached similar conclusions and taken similar actions. What are some of the reasons that foreign manufacturers of products as diverse as automobiles, film, and chemicals might arrive at this same conclusion?

There are a number of reasons. Two of the most important have to do with transportation costs and exchange rates. Manufacturing in the U.S. places the finished product much closer to the point of sale, resulting in significant savings in transportation costs. It also reduces inventories because goods spend less time in transit. Higher labor costs tend to offset these savings to some degree, at least compared to other possible manufacturing locations. Of great importance is the fact that manufacturing in the U.S. means that a much higher proportion of the costs are paid in dollars. Since sales are in dollars, the net effect is to immunize profits to a large extent against fluctuations in exchange rates. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the chapter on international finance.

Are the capital budgeting criteria we discussed applicable to not-for-profit corporations? How should such entities make capital budgeting decisions? What about the U.S. government? Should it evaluate spending proposals using these techniques?

Yes, they are. Such entities generally need to allocate available capital efficiently, just as for-profits do. However, it is frequently the case that the "revenues" from not-for-profit ventures are not tangible. For example, charitable giving has real opportunity costs, but the benefits are generally hard to measure. To the extent that benefits are measurable, the question of an appropriate required return remains. Payback rules are commonly used in such cases. Finally, realistic cost/benefit analysis along the lines indicated should definitely be used by the U.S. government and would go a long way toward balancing the budget!

Concerning NPV: a. Describe how NPV is calculated and describe the information this measure provides about a sequence of cash flows. What is the NPV criterion decision rule? b. Why is NPV considered to be a superior method of evaluating the cash flows from a project? Suppose the NPV for a project's cash flows is computed to be $2,500. What does this number represent with respect to the firm's shareholders?

a. NPV is simply the sum of the present values of a project's cash flows. NPV specifically measures, after considering the time value of money, the net increase or decrease in firm wealth due to the project. The decision rule is to accept projects that have a positive NPV, and reject projects with a negative NPV. b. NPV is superior to the other methods of analysis presented in the text because it has no serious flaws. The method unambiguously ranks mutually exclusive projects, and can differentiate between projects of different scale and time horizon. The only drawback to NPV is that it relies on cash flow and discount rate values that are often estimates and not certain, but this is a problem shared by the other performance criteria as well. A project with NPV = $2,500 implies that the total shareholder wealth of the firm will increase by $2,500 if the project is accepted

Concerning payback: a. Describe how the payback period is calculated and describe the information this measure provides about a sequence of cash flows. What is the payback criterion decision rule? b. What are the problems associated with using the payback period as a means of evaluating cash flows? c. What are the advantages of using the payback period to evaluate cash flows? Are there any circumstances under which using payback might be appropriate? Explain.

a. Payback period is simply the break-even point of a series of cash flows. To actually compute the payback period, it is assumed that any cash flow occurring during a given period is realized continuously throughout the period, and not at a single point in time. The payback is then the point in time for the series of cash flows when the initial cash outlays are fully recovered. Given some predetermined cutoff for the payback period, the decision rule is to accept projects that payback before this cutoff, and reject projects that take longer to payback. b. The worst problem associated with payback period is that it ignores the time value of money. In addition, the selection of a hurdle point for payback period is an arbitrary exercise that lacks any steadfast rule or method. The payback period is biased towards short-term projects; it fully ignores any cash flows that occur after the cutoff point. c. Despite its shortcomings, payback is often used because the analysis is straightforward and simple. Materiality considerations often warrant a payback analysis as sufficient; maintenance projects are another example where the detailed analysis of other methods is often not needed. Since payback is biased towards liquidity, it may be a useful and appropriate analysis method for short-term projects where cash management is most important.

Concerning IRR: a. Describe how the IRR is calculated, and describe the information this measure provides about a sequence of cash flows. What is the IRR criterion decision rule? b. What is the relationship between IRR and NPV? Are there any situations in which you might prefer one method over the other? Explain. c. Despite its shortcomings in some situations, why do most financial managers use IRR along with NPV when evaluating projects? Can you think of a situation in which IRR might be a more appropriate measure to use than NPV? Explain.

a. The IRR is the discount rate that causes the NPV of a series of cash flows to be equal to zero. IRR can thus be interpreted as a financial break-even rate of return; at the IRR discount rate, the net value of the project is zero. The IRR decision rule is to accept projects with IRRs greater than the discount rate, and to reject projects with IRRs less than the discount rate. b. IRR is the interest rate that causes NPV for a series of cash flows to be zero. NPV is preferred in all situations to IRR; IRR can lead to ambiguous results if there are non-conventional cash flows, and also ambiguously ranks some mutually exclusive projects. However, for stand-alone projects with conventional cash flows, IRR and NPV are interchangeable techniques. c. IRR is frequently used because it is easier for many financial managers and analysts to rate performance in relative terms, such as "12%", than in absolute terms, such as "$46,000." IRR may be a preferred method to NPV in situations where an appropriate discount rate is unknown or uncertain; in this situation, IRR would provide more information about the project than would NPV.

Concerning AAR: a. Describe how the average accounting return is usually calculated and describe the information this measure provides about a sequence of cash flows. What is the AAR criterion decision rule? b. What are the problems associated with using the AAR as a means of evaluating a project's cash flows? What underlying feature of AAR is most troubling to you from a financial perspective? Does the AAR have any redeeming qualities?

a. The average accounting return is interpreted as an average measure of the accounting performance of a project over time, computed as some average profit measure due to the project divided by some average balance sheet value for the project. This text computes AAR as average net income with respect to average (total) book value. Given some predetermined cutoff for AAR, the decision rule is to accept projects with an AAR in excess of the target measure, and reject all other projects. b. AAR is not a measure of cash flows and market value, but a measure of financial statement accounts that often bear little semblance to the relevant value of a project. In addition, the selection of a cutoff is arbitrary, and the time value of money is ignored. For a financial manager, both the reliance on accounting numbers rather than relevant market data and the exclusion of time value of money considerations are troubling. Despite these problems, AAR continues to be used in practice because (1) the accounting information is usually available, (2) analysts often use accounting ratios to analyze firm performance, and (3) managerial compensation is often tied to the attainment of certain target accounting ratio goals.

Concerning the profitability index: a. Describe how the profitability index is calculated and describe the information this measure provides about a sequence of cash flows. What is the profitability index decision rule? b. What is the relationship between the profitability index and the NPV? Are there any situations in which you might prefer one method over the other? Explain

a. The profitability index is the present value of the future cash flows divided by the initial investment. As such, it is a benefit/cost ratio, providing a measure of the relative profitability of a project. The profitability index decision rule is to accept projects with a PI greater than one, and to reject projects with a PI less than one. b. PI = ( NPV + cost ) / cost = 1 + ( NPV / cost ). If a firm has a basket of positive NPV projects and is subject to capital rationing, PI may provide a good ranking measure of the projects, indicating the "bang for the buck" of each particular project.