A correct response requires that you find an appropriate industry beta and measure for levered/unlevered betas and requires that you define cost of equity capital and free cash flow (FCF) – you may need a formula for FCF.
Swan-Davis, Inc. (SDI) manufactures equipment for sale to large contractors. The company was founded in 1976 by Tom Stone, the current chairman, and it went public in 1980 at $1 per share. The stock currently sells for $15, Stone owns 14 percent of the shares, and other officers and directors control another 13 percent. The industry is cyclical, and competition is strong, so proﬁts are some-what unstable. Tables 1, 2, and 3 provide historical balance sheets, income statements, and ratios for the company for the period 1994–1996, Table 4 provides industry average data for 1994-1996, and Table 5 provides one security analyst’s forecasted data for the company based on assumptions
The share price of $270,000 was significantly higher because the “fair value” as perceived by the dissenters, which accounted for the chance of an IPO. Taking into account the recently traded Kohler Co. share prices, the book value of a share, and the possibility of an IPO greatly inflated what the perceived value of each share should be. While Kohler believed their voting control and ownership structure would remain the same, the shareholders believed otherwise. Because shareholders assumed Kohler would go public, they argued for a higher valuation so as to receive the highest price, and thus profit, in the buyout. So based on the highest MVE, we picked Masco as the comparable firm of choice. Using Masco’s MVE, $9838.8, and LTM EBIAT, $437.3, we solved for Masco’s P/E ratio, which was equal to 22.5. By multiplying the P/E ratio by Kohler’s LTM EBIAT (22.5 * $93.76), we projected a market value of $2,109,610,000. To solve for estimated share price, we divided the projected market value by 7,587.89, the number of shares outstanding to obtain an estimated share price of $278,023.47. This estimate is near the $270,000 per share offer price.
Like several companies, Nortel stipendiary their executives with stock choices (Collins, 2011). This compensation solely inspired the tendency to be but honest regarding the company’s finances. author closely-held stock choices that solely inspired his actions to fulfill or beat the benchmark set by analysts. If Nortel’s earnings showed to be higher than the benchmark, Nortel’s stock costs would rise creating the stock closely-held by management to be even a lot of valuable. By tweaking the books to indicate the road earnings price as critical the allowable accumulation price he created the stakeholders assume that the corporate was creating extra money than it had been. “Nortel ne'er incomprehensible a benchmark over the sixteen quarters (Collins, 2011).” it had been too tempting to bump the numbers up so the stocks gave the impression to be value over they were. “Nortel’s accounting practices junction rectifier to AN investigation by AN freelance review committee, that found that insubordination with accumulation and accounting fraud were undertaken to fulfill internally obligatory earnings targets (Collins, 2011).”
To find the cost of equity we used the formula rs = rRF + beta*MRP in which rRF2002 = 5.86% and the Market Risk Premium (MRP) = 5% as calculated by the Southwest Airlines finance department. We then calculated the beta for Southwest Airlines based on a regression analysis of five-year monthly returns on Southwest stock from January 1997 to January 2002, compared with the S&P 500 returns over the same period. This regression analysis indicated that Beta = .2219. Therefore,
Cost of Equity is the return that stockholders require for a company. A company’s cost of equity represents the compensation that the market demands in exchange for owning the assets and bearing the risk of ownership. Based on capital markets the cost of equity varies in direct relation to the assumed risk in that specific market. The distinctive of the firm is the sensitivity to market risk (β) which depends on everything from management to its business and capital structure. Therefore past performances and present conditions have a direct effect on the overall value. Applying calculations at a divisional level allows specified markets to be analysis based on present market conditions for that service or product. The formula used to calculate Cost of Equity is:
Tied in with projections for commodity pricing is the undervaluation of the company. A major incentive for management in this buyout is clearly this undervaluation. KMI had been valued between $100 and 120 a share, yet was trading at only $84. KMI had experienced five years of increasing revenues and its net income was on an upward trend. KMI was financially healthy and its vast infrastructure would only continue to generate cash flows. It was a perfect buy-low scenario for the investors that knew the firm the best, the managers.
To estimate the cost of equity, we need to compute the beta of equity for each division using comparable companies. As the betas of debt were not provided, we made 2 assumptions: a. same business lines have the same beta of debt; b. Expected return of debt = Rf + βb*[E(Rm) – Rf*(1-T)] (Rf: risk free rate, E(Rm): expected
The following paper will discuss General Motor’s (GM) mission, vision, objectives, and goals, along with General Motors compared and contrasted by management styles with Toyota Corporation whom adopted total quality management (TQM). The paper will discuss characteristics of Toyota Corporation TQM with General Motors and the extent to which Toyota Corporation TQM practices can integrate into General Motors management practices.
Furthermore, from the decreasing collections period it can be seen that GM had to write off portions of its receivables due to the fact that consumers would no longer be able to pay the company with the financial crisis happening (Appendix A). As the crisis continued it can be seen through decreasing liquidity ratios that GM became less solvent, and the company’s decreasing payables period shows that suppliers became far less tolerant of GM borrowing from them (Appendix A). Finally, the extremely low price-earnings ratio of GM signals that shareholders had very little faith in how well the company would do in the future (Appendix A).
The Krispy Kreme, Inc. case investigates the contributing factors that caused this particular darling of Wall Street’s stock to suddenly plummet more than 80% in 2004. In the year 2000, Krispy Kreme went to public and boasts iconic status by became the hottest brand in America. Less than a year after its initial public offering, the company’s shares were selling for 62 times earnings. However, in 2004 the market was shocked by the company’s stocks that plummeted more than 80% over the following 16 months.
McKinsey research shows that divestments are a major potential source of value creation but a largely neglected one (Roxburgh, 2016). While anchoring may be a powerful tool for strategists when negotiations or naming a high sale price for a business may help secure an attractive outcome for the seller, since the buyer’s offer is anchored around a figure. Most retail-fund managers advertise their funds on the basis of past performance. Repeated studies have failed to show any statistical correlation between good past performance and future performance. Our expectations about equity returns have been seriously distorted by recent experience. A sunk cost
After determining the risk-free rate, we need to determine the beta coefficient. The regression beta can be calculated by using weekly share price of BAL’s and ASX S&P200. The result shows that the regression beta equals to 0.3183, however, the R-square is only 1.229%. Therefore, levered industry beta is more reliable than regression beta.