Analysis of Trade-Off and Pecking Order Theory on Company's Capital Structure

b) The decision to invest in projects increases the shareholders value of the company. This is consistent with the growth and from the NPV criteria, positive NPV of projects increases the shareholder's value.

- if they get more debt, then it makes the company less attractive to prospect lenders since their

Rationale: Higher levels of financial leverage increase the probability of default and of bankruptcy. This reduces credit ratings and increases costs for borrowed funds.

Nevertheless, the use of the Optimal Capital Structure (OCS) is the right techniques to be used in order to acquire the right combination of debt and equity that can maximize the

Using debt is also advantageous to existing owners because of the effect of financial leverage. When companies use debt to provide addition capital for their business operations, equity owners get to keep any extra profits generated by the debt capital, after any interest payments. Given the same amount of equity investments, equity investors have a higher return on equity because of the additional profits provided by the debt capital. As long as using debt doesn’t threaten the financial soundness of a company in times of difficulties, equity owners welcome certain debt uses to help enhance their investment

On the other hand, more debt does not affect the risk of the project under taken, but means less equity holders , these bring more risk to equity holders, the cost of equity increases with debt. assume Ra is the WACC without leverage.

In the case of Worldwide Paper Company we performed calculations to decide whether they should accept a new project or not. We calculated their net income and their cash flows for this project (See Table 1.6 and 1.5). We computed WPC’s weighted average cost of capital as 9.87%. We then used the cash flows to calculate the company’s NPV. We first calculated the NPV by using the 15% discount rate; by using that number we calculated a negative NPV of $2,162,760. We determined that the discount rate of 15% was out dated and insufficient. To calculate a more accurate NPV for the project, we decided to use the rate of 9.87% that we computed. Using this number we got the NPV of $577,069. With the NPV of $577,069 our conclusion is to accept this

However, the issuance of debt can have signalling effects for investors. Generally, when firms issue debt it signals to investors that the firm is in a good financial situation as the firm is able to undertake repayments of future interest.

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

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

There is no universal theory of the debt-equity choice, and no reason to expect one. In this essay I will critically assess the Pecking Order Theory of capital structure with reference and comparison of publicly listed companies. The pecking order theory says that the firm will borrow, rather than issuing equity, when internal cash flow is not sufficient to fund capital expenditures. This theory explains why firms prefer internal rather than external financing which is due to adverse selection, asymmetry of information, and agency costs (Frank & Goyal, 2003). The trade-off theory comes from the pecking order theory it is an unintentional outcome of companies following the pecking-order theory. This explains that firms strive to achieve an

As negative aspects of debt, e.g. personal tax loss and bankruptcy costs however do exist in reality, Miller (1977) elaborates that leverage will either have no or a negative effect on the firm’s value, hence untaxed firms should favor equity.

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

If external financing is required, the “safest” securities, namely debt, are issued first. Although investors fear mispricing of both debt and equity, the fear is much greater for equity. Corporate debt still relatively little risk compared to equity because, if financial distress is avoided, investors receive a fixed return.. Thus, the pecking order theory implies that, if outside financing required, debt should be issued before equity. Only when the firm’s debt capacity is reached should the firm consider equity.

Harris and Reviv (1990) gave one more reason of using debt in capital structure. They say that management will hide information from shareholders about the liquidation of the firm even if the liquidation will be in the best interest of shareholders because managers want the perpetuation of their service. Similarly, Amihud and Lev (1981) suggest that mangers have incentives to pursue strategies that reduce their employment risk. This conflict can be solved by increasing the use of debt financing since bondholders will take control of the firm in case of default as they are powered to do so by the debt indentures. Stulz (1990) said when shareholders cannot observe either the investing decisions of management or the cash flow position in the firm, they will use debt financing. Managers, to maintain credibility, will over-invest if it has extra cash and under-invest if it has limited cash. Stulz (1990) argued that to reduce the cost of underinvestment and overinvestment, the amount of free cash flow should be reduced to