1. Discuss the signaling effects for a firm associated with increasing leverage or implementing a stock repurchase.
Increasing leverage is increasing debt of the firm. Leverage is associated with net income/EBIT. In general the higher this ratio the higher the risk because in good times higher leverage gives better results but on the the other hand in bad times high leverage causes problems, because increase in leverage will cause an increase of the beta of the firm. Moreover leverage increases Earnings per share, but still creates risk. Modigliani and Miller says that no capital structure is better than the other because this doesn’t change the total value of the outstanding shares by changing the capital structure. But the required
…show more content…
A takeover which takes the shareholders of the target firm in consideration first, in other words maximizing shareholder value, is called positive (Weston et al, 2004).
There are two types of hostile takeover, First one is leveraged buyouts (LBOs), the buyer borrows heavily to pay for the acquisition, either from traditional bank loans, or through high-yield(junk) bonds. This can be risky, since incurring so much debt can seriously harm the value of the acquiring company. As for the corporate raid, a company purchases another through a hostile takeover (often with an LBO) because their assets are worth more than the value of the company. As soon as the new owners complete the acquisition, they close the company and sell off all the assets. Since the optimal structure is being tried to be chosen by the management in order to increase the shareholders’ value, capital structure is related to being and hostile takeover bid. 5. What are the determinants of corporate leverage in general? What do you think is the motivation for firms to issue convertible debt?
Rational investors are likely to infer a higher firm value from a higher debt level. Thus, these investors are likely to bid up a firm’s stock price after the firm has issued debt in order to buy back equity. We say that investors view debt as a signal of firm value. Moreover, corporations can
Finding the perfect capital structure in terms of risk and reward can ensure a company meets shareholder expectations and protects a firm in times of recession. Capital structure refers to how a business puts its money to “work”. The two forms of capital structure are equity capital and debt capital. Both have their benefits and limitations. Striking that perfect balance between the two can mean the difference between thriving versus trying to survive.
We would recommend the capital structure with 30% debt. This is because with 30% debt, they would be able to repurchase 19.8 million shares outstanding as well as save 37.8 million in taxes. EBIT is high in this company, and because of this, financial leverage will raise EPS and ROE. However, variability also increases as financial leverage increases, so the company would not want to take on too much debt and become very risky.
Aside from the two aforementioned proposals the company can raise its leverage in other ways. By conducting DuPont analysis and understanding operating leverage we see that purchasing fixed assets and decreasing stockholder’s equity will raise the equity multiplier and the firm’s operating leverage. In this instance we recommend against this approach as the firm already has a large amount of excess cash above what they require to fund new positive NPV projects and purchase new assets. Investors would rather see their capital returned to them in the form of share repurchases and dividends as it is evident by the company’s cash stockpile that they can
Higher leverage is very likely to create value for a firm considering capital structure change by exerting financial discipline and more efficient corporate strategy changes.
Increased leverage would increase the risk for the shareholder. This is due to the fact that an increased amount of debt would increase the financial return that investors expect. For example, if a company has no debt and posts better than expected earnings, the equity holder would get all of this benefit. If the company had some debt and posted better than expected earnings, the bond holders would get a fixed payment as usual, and shareholders would still enjoy increased profits; the problem arises if worse than expected profits were shown by Kelly Services. If Kelly Services had no debt and posted bad earnings, then the equity bears all the risk in that situation. However, if Kelly
Target Corporation is having a very stable financial policy and dividend policy. From the historical financial data, Target had debt $11,044M, $11,202M, $10,599M, $17,471M, and $19,882M in the year of 2005,2006,2007,2008, and 2009 respectively. The long-term debt/equity ratio rises from 69.34% to 108%.
Generally, firms can choose among various capital structures in order to maximize overall market value of the company. It is proposed however, that
A capital structure policy aims to balance the trade-off between the benefits of debt financing (interest tax shield) and the costs of debt financing (financial distress and agency costs). Every firm should set its target capital structure such that its cost and benefits of leverage ultimately maximise the firm’s value. Graham and Harvey asked 392 firms’ chief financial officers whether they use target debt ratios. Results show that the majority of them do, although the level of strictness of the target policy varies across different companies. Only 19% of the firms avoid target ratios, of which most are likely to be the relatively smaller firms. This clearly
Adding more debt into capital structure will reduce agency As more debts are added, agency cost of debt cost of equity as managers are left with less free cash flow Lowest agency cost of equity. would be further reduced. that could have been exploited for perk consumption. Since part of the earnings is paid to meet the debt repayments, dividends paid deceases comparing with actual 2011. But this is counter-balanced by increased earnings per share (EPS) as the shares outstanding is reduced Comparing with 20% leverage, dividend continues to decrease but EPS
It seems then that companies should fully leverage the company or a least come close to doing so but there is a probability that the company enters financial distress as its leverage (D/E) increases. Financial distress can be very costly for companies, and the cost for this scenario is shown in the current market value of the levered firm's securities. Investors factor the potential for future distress into their assessment of the present value (this is where PV of distress costs is subtracted from un-levered company value and the PV of the tax-shield.) The value for the costs
From this set of problems, we can see that leverage is good for the firm. Leverage has increased the value of the firm as a whole and increased the price per share. Although the cost of debt increases the firm's risk because it increases the probability of default and bankruptcy, therefore shareholders will require higher rates of return on the equity they provide, debt also provides tax savings. And we can see that in table 4, where we calculated the total value of the firm as the pure business cash flows plus the tax savings. Another reason why debt increases firm value is the fact that it reduces WACC, because the cost of debt is generally lower than the cost of equity. Another option that shareholders can do is using homemade leverage. Shareholders should pay a premium for the shares of a levered firm when the addition of debt increases value.
Already in 1958, Modigliani and Miller have pointed the discussion of capital structure towards the cost of debt and equity. According to their first proposition, in a world of no corporate taxes and with perfect markets, financial leverage has no effect on a firm’s value. In their second proposition, they state that the cost of equity equals a linear function defined by the required return on assets and the cost of debt (Modigliani and Miller, 1958).
A firm can choose a mix of three modes of financing i.e. issuing shares, borrowing from the market and use of retained earnings. The ratio of this mix of funds purely depends on the firm and known as optimal capital structure of the firm. This leads to the different capital structure theories. These theories explain their
The pecking order theory ( Donaldson 1961) of capital structure is among the most influential theories of corporate leverage. The pecking order theory is based on different of information between corporate insiders and the market. According to Myers (1984), due to adverse selection, firm prefer internal to external finance. If internal finance proves insufficient, bank borrowings and corporate bonds are the preferred source of external source of finance. After exhausting both of these possibilities, the final and least preferred source of finance is
In finance, capital structure refers to the way a corporation finances its assets through some combination of equity, debt, or hybrid securities. A firm 's capital structure is then the composition or 'structure ' of its liabilities. Simply, capital structure refers to the mix of debt and equity used by a firm in financing its assets. The capital structure decision is one of the most important decisions made by financial management. The capital structure decision is at the center of many other decisions in the area of corporate finance. These include dividend policy, project financing, issue of long term securities, financing of mergers, buyouts and so on. One of the many objectives of