RISK MANAGEMENT FOR MIDDLE MARKET COMPANIES

This article reinforces the message of the one immediately preceding by showing that small to medium‐sized firms have even stronger (non‐tax) motives for hedging risks than their large corporate counterparts. Although middle market companies have traditionally been viewed as less sophisticated than their larger corporate counterparts in the risk management arena, the authors suggest that such companies have become increasingly receptive to new hedging strategies using derivative products. When used appropriately, such products allow companies to stabilize their periodic operating cash flow by eliminating specific sources of volatility such as fluctuations in interest rates, exchange rates, and commodity prices. Smaller companies recognize that a single swing in a budgeted cost can have a catastrophic effect on an entire budget, whereas a larger company can more easily absorb such a cost. Moreover, because the principal owners of mid‐sized firms often have a substantial part of their net worth tied up in the business, they are likely to have a far stronger interest than typical outside shareholders in using risk management to reduce the volatility of corporate profits and firm value. Perhaps most important to owners whose firms rely on debt financing, the greater cash flow stability resulting from active risk management significantly reduces the possibility of financial distress or bankruptcy. In this article, three representatives of Bank of America's risk management practice discuss three different exposures faced by middle market companies—those arising from changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and commodity prices—and show how these risks can be managed with derivatives. Besides shielding companies from financial trouble, risk management is also likely to improve their access to the money and capital markets. By protecting the firm's access to capital, risk management increases the odds that the firm will not be forced to pass up good investment opportunities because of capital constraints or fear of getting into financial difficulty.     

The Real and Financial Implications of Corporate Hedging

We study the implications of hedging for corporate financing and investment. We do so using an extensive, hand‐collected data set on corporate hedging activities. Hedging can lower the odds of negative realizations, thereby reducing the expected costs of financial distress. In theory, this should ease a firm's access to credit. Using a tax‐based instrumental variable approach, we show that hedgers pay lower interest spreads and are less likely to have capital expenditure restrictions in their loan agreements. These favorable financing terms, in turn, allow hedgers to invest more. Our tests characterize two exact channels—cost of borrowing and investment restrictions—through which hedging affects corporate outcomes. The analysis shows that hedging has a first‐order effect on firm financing and investment, and provides new insights into how hedging affects corporate value. More broadly, our study contributes novel evidence on the real consequences of financial contracting.     

Valuing Companies with Cash‐Flow@Risk

The classic DCF approach to capital budgeting—the one that MBA students in the world's top business schools have been taught for the last 30 years—begins with the assumption that the corporate investment decision is “independent of” the financing decision. That is, the value of a given investment opportunity should not be affected by how a company is financed, whether mainly with debt or with equity. A corollary of this capital structure “irrelevance” proposition says that a company's investment decision should also not be influenced by its risk management policy—by whether a company hedges its various price exposures or chooses to leave them unhedged. In this article, the authors—one of whom is the CFO of the French high‐tech firm Gemalto—propose a practical alternative to DCF that is based on a concept they call “cash‐flow@risk.” Implementation of the concept involves dividing expected future cash flow into two components: a low‐risk part, or “certainty equivalent,” and a high‐risk part. The two cash flow streams are discounted at different rates (corresponding to debt and equity) when estimating their value. The concept of cash‐flow@risk derives directly from, and is fully consistent with, the concept of economic capital that was developed by Robert Merton and Andre Perold in the early 1990s and that has become the basis of Value at Risk (or VaR) capital allocation systems now used at most financial institutions. But because the approach in this article focuses on the volatility of operating cash flows instead of asset values, the authors argue that an internal capital allocation system based on cash‐flow@risk is likely to be much more suitable than VaR for industrial companies.     

The Value of Financial Flexibility

We develop a model that endogenizes dynamic financing, investment, and cash retention/payout policies in order to analyze the effect of financial flexibility on firm value. We show that the value of financing flexibility depends on the costs of external financing, the level of corporate and personal tax rates that determine the effective cost of holding cash, the firm's growth potential and maturity, and the reversibility of capital. Through simulations, we demonstrate that firms facing financing frictions should simultaneously borrow and lend, and we examine the nature of dynamic debt and liquidity policies and the value associated with corporate liquidity.     

Capital Mobility and Source-Based Taxation of Capital Income in Small Open Economies

This paper examines the taxation of capital income in a small open economy that faces a highly elastic supply of internationally mobile capital and increasing tax competition. The analysis considers a wide variety of additional factors that affect the determination of capital income taxation policy, including the desire to tax economic rents earned by foreign and domestic firms, the desire to take advantage of any treasury transfer effects, the role played by transfer pricing and other financial accounting manipulations by foreign multinationals, the need for a backstop to the personal income tax and various political concerns. The paper evaluates several potential income and consumption-based tax reforms in this context. JEL Code: H21, H25, H87     

Deferred Shareholder Taxation – Implementing a Neutral Business Tax in the European Union

This paper proposes the replacement of the corporate income tax by shareholder-based capital income taxation. Our proposal would guarantee investment neutrality of taxation and reduced tax compliance costs. The proposal is based on the S-base cash flow tax. Under the S-base tax, transactions within the corporate sector are not taxable and only transactions between shareholders and corporations are subject to tax. In contrast to existing S-base cash flow tax systems, tax deductibility of investments is deferred. Rather, the acquisition costs and capital endowments are compounded at the capital market rate and are set off against future capital gains. Dividends and withdrawals are fully taxable at the shareholder level. Because of the deferral of the tax payments our proposal is called ‘Deferred Shareholder Tax’ (DST). The DST exhibits the same neutrality properties as the traditional cash flow tax. Moreover, the compounded inter-temporal credit method ensures that it is neutral with respect to the decision between domestic and foreign investment. To increase acceptance of the DST, current taxpayers’ documentation requirements will be reduced rather than extended. Our proposal could be realised in a single EU country or in all member states of the EU.     

A Unified Theory of Tobin's q,Corporate Investment,Financing, and Risk Management

We propose a model of dynamic investment, financing, and risk management for financially constrained firms. The model highlights the central importance of the endogenous marginal value of liquidity (cash and credit line) for corporate decisions. Our three main results are: (1) investment depends on the ratio of marginal q to the marginal value of liquidity, and the relation between investment and marginal q changes with the marginal source of funding; (2) optimal external financing and payout are characterized by an endogenous double‐barrier policy for the firm's cash‐capital ratio; and (3) liquidity management and derivatives hedging are complementary risk management tools.     

Morgan Stanley Roundtable on Capital Structure and Payout Policy

A group of finance academics and practitioners discusses a number of topical issues in corporate financial management: Is there such a thing as an optimal, or value‐maximizing, capital structure for a given company? What proportion of a firm's current earnings should be distributed to the firm's shareholders? And under what circumstances should such distributions take the form of stock repurchases rather than dividends? The consensus that emerged was that a company's financing and payout policies should be designed to support its business strategy. For growth companies, the emphasis is on preserving financial fl exibility to carry out the business plan, which means heavy reliance on equity financing and limited payouts. But for companies in mature industries with few major investment opportunities, more aggressive use of debt and higher payouts can add value by reducing taxes and controlling the corporate “free cash flow problem.” Both leveraged financing and cash distributions through dividends and stock buybacks represent a commitment by management to shareholders that the firm's excess cash will not be wasted on projects that produce growth at the expense of profitability. As for the choice between dividends and stock repurchases, dividends appear to provide a stronger commitment to pay out excess cash than open market repurchase programs. Stock buybacks, at least of the open market variety, preserve a higher degree of managerial fl exibility for companies that want to be able to capitalize on unpredictable investment opportunities. But, as with the debt‐equity decision, there is an optimal level of financial fl exibility; too little can mean lost investment opportunities but too much can lead to overinvestment.     

Organizational Capital and Investment‐Cash Flow Sensitivity: The Effect of Management Quality Practices

This paper examines the influence of organizational capital, as evident in management quality practices, on the response of firm investment to internal cash flows. We provide novel and strong evidence that investment sensitivity to internal cash flows decreases in the presence of superior management practices. We also find that superior management practices reduce the firm's financing frictions, evident in lower capital constraints. Our results are robust to numerous tests. Overall, our findings suggest that intangible organizational capital is important for investment decisions and that superior management practices contribute to value‐maximizing behavior.     

Tax‐Aided Financial Services Companies and the Cost of Capital

Over the past two decades, the governments of several European countries have implemented special tax devices to attract the finance centres of multinational companies. This paper determines how the cost of capital for investments made by multinationals is affected by the tax regimes, bringing into play the Irish financial services company, the Belgian co‐ordination centre, the Dutch finance company and the Luxemburg company coupled with a Swiss finance branch. It gives evidence that intermediation of a tax‐aided services company in the financing scheme of a foreign subsidiary provides an important tax saving. However, the home and source countries' tax regimes influence the hierarchy of the less heavily taxed treasury and finance centres. The methodology relies on the marginal effective tax rates theory and consists of an extension of Alworth's (1988) model to include treasury centres.     

R&D sensitivity to asset sale proceeds: New evidence on financing constraints and intangible investment

We examine the intersection between corporate divestitures of tangible assets and investment in intangible capital (R&D) to provide new tests for the impact financing constraints have on real activity. A positive R&D sensitivity to asset sale proceeds indicates binding financing constraints since cash inflows from tangible asset sales are negatively correlated with productivity shocks and not otherwise connected to intangible investment via non-financial channels. Using a variety of estimation approaches, we document a strong, positive link between cash inflows from fixed asset sales and corporate R&D investment, but only among firms most likely facing binding financing constraints. These results offer robust evidence that financing frictions impact the increasingly important yet understudied intangible corporate investments that drive innovative activity, and they highlight a previously unexplored but potentially valuable use of proceeds from fixed asset divestitures.     

Corporate responses to the repatriation incentives and domestic production activities deduction

The 2004 American Jobs Creation Act (AJCA or the Act) sought to encourage U.S. companies to repatriate foreign earnings and invest them domestically in an effort to increase capital spending and employment. This investigation looks at how the two tax provisions in AJCA, i.e., the repatriation tax holiday and the domestic production activities deduction (DPAD), affected domestic investment and payout behaviors. An examination of repatriating firms based on the tightness of their capital constraints shows that the tax incentives fail to induce non-constrained, repatriating firms that benefit from DPAD to reinvest the capital domestically. Only capital-constrained, repatriating firms benefitting from DPAD increase domestic investment and reduce share repurchases; however, these firms also increase their cash dividend payments. The findings should be useful to policymakers as they consider modifying the corporate tax structure to increase domestic investment by encouraging U.S. firms to repatriate foreign earnings and reinvest them domestically.     

Determinants of tax haven utilization: evidence from Australian firms

This paper examines the major determinants of tax haven utilization based on a sample of 200 publicly listed Australian firms, over the 2006–2010 period (1,000 firm‐years). Our regression results show that variables relating to transfer pricing, intangible assets, an interaction term between transfer pricing and intangible assets, withholding taxes, performance‐based management remuneration and multinationality are positively associated with tax haven utilization. We also find that corporate governance structures are negatively associated with tax haven utilization. The magnitude and significance of the regression coefficients indicate that transfer pricing, withholding taxes, intangible assets, an interaction term between transfer pricing and intangible assets, corporate governance and multinationality are the most important drivers of tax haven utilization.     

A Better Way to Measure Operating Performance (or Why the EVA Math Really Matters)

Most companies rely heavily on earnings to measure operating performance, but earnings growth has at least two important weaknesses as a proxy for investor wealth. Current earnings can come at the expense of future earnings through, for example, short‐sighted cutbacks in investment, including spending on R&D. But growth in EPS can also be achieved by investing more capital with projected rates of return that, although well below the cost of capital, are higher than the after‐tax cost of debt. Stock compensation has been the conventional solution to the first problem because it's a discounted cash flow value that is assumed to discourage actions that sacrifice future earnings. Economic profit—in its most popular manifestation, EVA—has been the conventional solution to the second problem with earnings because it includes a capital charge that penalizes low‐return investment. But neither of these conventional solutions appears to work very well in practice. Stock compensation isn't tied to business unit performance—and often fails to provide the intended incentives for the (many) corporate managers who believe that meeting current consensus earnings is more important than investing to maintain future earnings. EVA doesn't work well when new investments take time to become profitable because the higher capital charge comes before the related income. In this article, the author presents two new operating performance measures that are likely to work better than either earnings or EVA because they reflect the value that can be lost either through corporate underinvestment or overinvestment designed to increase current earnings. Both of these new measures are based on the math that ties EVA to discounted cash flow value, particularly its division of current corporate market values into two components: “current operations value” and “future growth value.” The key to the effectiveness of the new measures in explaining changes in company stock prices and market values is a statistical model of changes in future growth value that captures the expected effects of significant increases in current investment in R&D and advertising on future profits and value.     

Tax strategy control: The case of transfer pricing tax risk management

This paper examines how a functional tax strategy impacts the management control system (MCS) in a multinational enterprise (MNE) facing transfer pricing tax risks. Based on case study findings it is argued that the MCS in a multinational setting is contingent upon the MNE's response to its tax environment. Moreover, the paper extends existing contingency-based theory on MCS by illustrating the role of inter-organisational network collaboration across MNE transfer pricing tax experts. This collaboration, caused by a widely dispersed tax knowledge base, fuels the formal interactive control system and reduces tax uncertainty. The paper adopts an interdisciplinary approach for explaining findings, using contingency-based theory and network theory at the inter-organisational level.     

How Does Financing Impact Investment? The Role of Debt Covenants

We identify a specific channel (debt covenants) and the corresponding mechanism (transfer of control rights) through which financing frictions impact corporate investment. Using a regression discontinuity design, we show that capital investment declines sharply following a financial covenant violation, when creditors use the threat of accelerating the loan to intervene in management. Further, the reduction in investment is concentrated in situations in which agency and information problems are relatively more severe, highlighting how the state‐contingent allocation of control rights can help mitigate investment distortions arising from financing frictions.     

Overhead cost allocation changes in a transfer pricing tax compliant multinational enterprise

This paper addresses how overhead cost allocation system design in multinational enterprises (MNEs) is affected by transfer pricing tax regulation. Using a case study research strategy we find that the implementation of a transfer pricing tax compliance strategy gives rise to a number of changes to the overhead cost allocation system design. Findings suggests that a contingent relationship exists between overhead cost allocation and transfer pricing tax compliance. We argue that when seeking to understand and explain MNEs’ overhead cost allocation system design for intra-company services, the MNEs’ response to its tax regulatory environment is a significant explanatory variable.     

Are U.S. Companies Really Holding That Much Cash—And If So,Why?

Non‐financial S&P 500 companies are now estimated to hold a total of $2.1 trillion of “cash,” a figure that is larger than the annual GDP of all but eight countries. In this report, J.P. Morgan's Corporate Finance Advisory team notes that while many observers have attributed the buildup to offshore cash growth alone, onshore cash levels are also up significantly. To be sure, the companies that have shown the greatest increases also tend to be highly successful, with strong cash flow and business performance. And the managers of such companies tend to prefer to retain much if not most of this cash to take advantage of investment opportunities and to maintain the flexibility to respond to the next economic downturn. Also adding to the cash build‐ups, the executives of large MNCs with significant overseas cash holdings typically try to avoid the higher tax bill triggered by repatriating funds to the U.S. Nevertheless, investors continue to expect growth and high returns on capital; and corporate distributions of capital in the form of dividends and stock buybacks can play an important role in encouraging companies to operate efficiently. While pursuing both of these goals—preservation of enough cash to weather downturns and invest in all positive‐NPV projects, and commitment to paying out excess capital—boards and senior decision makers should continuously reexamine their cash holdings and capital allocation policies to ensure they are appropriate not only for today's environment, but throughout the economic cycle.     

The use of information technology for international transfer pricing in multinational enterprises

This paper studies the degree to which multinational enterprises (MNEs) use information technology for managing international transfer pricing (ITP). Based on 21 interviews conducted with in-house accounting and tax professionals in MNEs, we observed limited use of information technology for ITP management. However, some degree of ITP automation was observed in workflow management to produce transfer pricing documentation. The limited degree of automation observed was driven by both system- and individual-level barriers. Overall, we found that management accountants and information technology experts dominate the enterprise resource planning system design agenda, and the tax departments’ ITP tax compliance objective plays a relatively limited role. This reduces the ability for ITP automation partly because the data segmentation that is prioritized for management reporting does not support the tax departments’ needs for legal-entity data segmentation to document tax compliance.