Capital Cash Flows,APV and Valuation

This paper examines three different methods of valuing companies and projects: the adjusted present value (APV), capital cash flows (CCF) and weighted average cost of capital (WACC) methods. It develops the appropriate WACC and beta leveraging formulae appropriate for each valuation model, so that given a particular valuation model the correct APV and CCF values can be determined from the WACC value and vice versa. Further it goes on to show when the perpetuity formulae give poor estimates of the value of individual cash flows, even though the overall values are correct. The paper cautions that the APV and CCF models require more information than is currently known, such as the value of the corporate use of debt, and consequently can give misleading results, particularly in sensitivity analyses.     

TWO DCF APPROACHES FOR VALUING COMPANIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE FINANCING STRATEGIES (AND HOW TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEM)

This is the sequel to the authors' 1989 article discussing the two basic discounted cash flow approaches for valuing debt-financed transactions and corporations: weighted average cost of capital (WACC) and adjusted present value (APV). The WACC method discounts all after-tax (but pre-interest) cash flows at the company's weighted average cost of capital. The APV method treats the value of a levered firm as the value of the same firm if financed entirely with equity plus the discounted value of the interest tax shields from the debt its assets will support. The authors argue that the WACC approach is more practical if the firm intends to hold its (market) leverage ratio relatively constant over time, but that the APV technique is the preferred method if the firm plans to reduce its leverage ratio according to a pre-determined schedule (as tends to be the case in highly leveraged transactions).     

Using APV (adjusted present value): a better tool for valuing operations

Anyone who learned valuation techniques more than a few years ago is probably due for a refresher course. For the past 25 years, managers have been taught that the best practice for valuing assets-that is, an existing business, factory, product line, or market position-is to use a discounted-cash-flow (DCF) methodology. That is still true. But the particular version of DCF that has been accepted as the standard-using the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC)-is now obsolete. Today's better alternative, adjusted present value (APV), is especially versatile and reliable. It will likely replace WACC as the DCF methodology of choice among generalists. Like WACC, APV is used to value operations, or assets-in-place-that is, any existing asset that will generate a stream of future cash flows. Timothy Luehrman explains APV and walks readers through a case example designed to teach them how to use it. He argues that APV always works when WACC does-and sometimes when WACC doesn't, because it requires fewer restrictive assumptions. And APV is less prone to yield serious errors than WACC is. But, most important, general managers will find that APV's power lies in the managerially relevant information it provides. APV can help managers analyze not only how much an asset is worth but also where the value comes from.     

What's it worth? A general manager's guide to valuation

Behind every major resource-allocation decision a company makes lies some calculation of what that move is worth. So it is not surprising that valuation is the financial analytical skill general managers want to learn more than any other. Managers whose formal training is more than a few years old, however, are likely to have learned approaches that are becoming obsolete. What do generalists need in an updated valuation tool kit? In the 1970s, discounted-cash-flow analysis (DCF) emerged as best practice for valuing corporate assets. And one version of DCF-using the weighted-average cost of capital (WACC)-became the standard. Over the years, WACC has been used by most companies as a one-size-fits-all valuation tool. Today the WACC standard is insufficient. Improvements in computers and new theoretical insights have given rise to tools that outperform WACC in the three basic types of valuation problems managers face. Timothy Luehrman presents an overview of the three tools, explaining how they work and when to use them. For valuing operations, the DCF methodology of adjusted present value allows managers to break a problem into pieces that make managerial sense. For valuing opportunities, option pricing captures the contingent nature of investments in areas such as R&D and marketing. And for valuing ownership claims, the tool of equity cash flows helps managers value their company's stake in a joint venture, a strategic alliance, or an investment that uses project financing.     

Valuation of Corporate Innovation and the Pricing of Risk in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: The Case of Gilead

Much of a firm's market value derives from expected future growth value rather than from the value of current operations or assets in place. Pharmaceutical companies are good examples of firms where much market value comes from expectations about drugs still in the development “pipeline.” Using a new osteoporosis drug being developed by Gilead Sciences, Inc., the author combines discounted cash flow methods values and real option models to value it. Alone, discounted cash flow (DCF) calculations are vulnerable to the assumptions of growth, cost of capital, and cash flows. But by integrating the real options approach with the DCF technique, one can value a new product in the highly regulated, risky and research‐intensive Biopharmaceutical industry. This article shows how to value a Biopharmaceutical product, tracked from discovery to market launch in a step‐by‐step manner. Improving over early real option models, this framework explicitly captures competition, speed of innovation, risk, financing need, the size of the market potential in valuing corporate innovation using a firm‐specific measure of risk and the industry‐wide value of growth operating cash flows. This framework shows how the risk of corporate innovation, which is not fully captured by the standard valuation models, is priced into the value of a firm's growth opportunity. The DCF approach permits top‐down estimation of the size of the industry‐wide growth opportunity that competing firms must race to capture, while the contingency‐claims technique allows bottom‐up incorporation of the firm's successful R&D investment and the timing of introduction of the new product to market. It also specifically prices the risk of innovation by modeling its two components: the consumer validation of technology and the expert validation of technology. Overall, it estimates the value contribution per share of a new product for the firm.     

The Asymptotic Optimality of Residual Income Maximization

Residual income subtracts from operating income an interest charge for invested capital. Residual income can be calculated each period from current accounting information, unlike discounted cash flow (DCF), which requires the knowledge of future cash flows. This paper provides a normative justification for residual-income maximization by showing that if investment decisions are made myopically each period to maximize residual income, the resulting path asymptotically maximizes discounted cash flow. Thus, under the assumptions of the model, residual-income maximization is a heuristic that leads to the long-run DCF-optimum.     

Strategic Effects of Regulatory Capital Requirements in Imperfect Banking Competition

This paper analyzes the competitive effects of regulatory minimum capital requirements on an oligopolistic loan market. Before competing in loan rates banks choose their capital structure, thereby making an imperfect commitment to a loan capacity. It is shown that due to this imperfect commitment, regulatory requirements not only increase the marginal cost of loan supply, but can also have a collusive effect resulting in increased profits. This paper derives the threshold value from which capital requirements can turn one round Bertrand competition into a two‐stage interaction with capacity commitment, leading to Cournot outcomes. Therefore, it provides theoretical support for the applicability of the Cournot approach when modeling imperfect loan competition.     

An axiomatic approach to the valuation of cash flows

We model a stream of cash flows as an optional stochastic process, and value the cash flows by using a continuous and strictly positive linear functional. By applying a representation theorem from the general theory of stochastic processes we are able to study this valuation principle, as well as properties of the stochastic discount factor it implies. This approach to valuation is useful in the non-presence of a financial market, as is often the case when valuing cash flows arising from insurance contracts and in the application of real options.     

A path-dependent approach to security valuation with application to interest rate contingent claims

The last two decades have witnessed a tremendous growth in the volume of assets and liabilities whose cash flows depend, in a variety of ways, on the path of interest rates. Some of these, including floating-rate notes and swap agreements, contractually base cash flows on current and past interest rates and contain caps, floors, and other, more complex features. Others, including mortgages, many corporate bonds, and time deposits, are fixed-rate instruments that contain embedded options, such as those to prepay, call, or withdrawal. The irregular exercise of these options causes cash flows to vary as time proceeds and interest rates rise or fall. This paper develops a state-contingent claims technique for valuing such securities. It is derived from the option-based model of Breeden and Litzenberger (1978) using the transition matrix approach of Banz and Miller (1978). Particular attention is paid to valuing so-called path-dependent securities whose contemporaneous cash flows depend on the historical path of interest rates as well as their current level. A detailed example is provided in which an adjustable-rate mortgage is valued under a variety of economic and security specific assumptions.     

FINDING VALUE WHERE NONE EXISTS: PITFALLS IN USING ADJUSTED PRESENT VALUE

There are several conceptually "correct" methods for valuing firms and projects, including the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) approach, the flows to equity (FTE) method, and the adjusted present value (APV) or valuation-by-components method. The author examines the relative advantages of these frameworks and offers guidance as to when they are likely to be most useful. The key message is a caution to would-be users of APV: it is frequently unreliable and should be used only in conjunction with more conventional valuation frameworks. It works best in transactions that involve structured financings, such as leveraged buyouts and project and real estate financings. Even in these cases, however, its usefulness depends on theoretical concepts that in practical applications have a wide margin of error.
In general, WACC is a robust and appropriate valuation framework as long as the firm has a target debt ratio. The FTE method is most relevant for acquisitions and very large projects. The author shows how APV and FTE can be formulated to be consistent with the WACC valuation. The issue, however, is not whether the techniques can be made consistent through relatively complex adjustments by sophisticated users, but rather what happens when they are used in everyday applications by practitioners unfamiliar with the somewhat arcane valuation issues involved.     

TOWARD A MORE COMPLETE MODEL OF OPTIMAL CAPITAL STRUCTURE

Most corporate finance practitioners understand the trade-off involved in making effective use of debt capacity while safeguarding the firm's ability to execute its business strategy without disruption. But quantifying that trade-off to arrive at an optimal level of debt can be a complicated and challenging task. This paper develops a simulation model of capital structure that starts by generating multiple estimates of market rates (LIBOR, currency rates) and corresponding company operating cash flows. To arrive at an optimal capital structure, the model then incorporates the shareholder value effects of alternative financing decisions by directly measuring the costs of financial distress, including the costs of missed investment opportunities and higher working capital requirements.
The model generates both a target credit rating and a lower fallback rating that permits a higher level of debt to maintain investments and dividends when operating cash flows are weak. As the model shows, companies with volatile cash flows and significant investment opportunities can add substantial shareholder value by establishing a fallback credit rating that is one or two notches below the target rating. The model also optimizes the mix of fixed versus floating debt, the maturity structure, and the currency composition. Another distinctive feature of the model is its ability to estimate the expected cost of alternative liability structures that can provide the liquidity insurance necessary to sustain the firm through periods of severe stress. This cost turns out to be quite small relative to the total market capitalization of the average firm.     

On the Equivalence between the APV and the wacc Approach in a Growing Leveraged Firm

While in a steady state framework the choice between the wacc approach ( Modigliani‐Miller, 1963 ) and the adjusted present value (APV) approach ( Myers, 1974 ) is irrelevant since the two approaches provide the same result, however, in a growing firm context the wacc equation seems to be inconsistent with the APV result. In this paper we propose a simple model to evaluate the tax savings in a growing firm in order to show under which assumptions the two approaches lead to the same results. We demonstrate that the use of the wacc model in a steady‐growth scenario gives rise to some unusual assumptions with regard to the discount rates to be used in calculating tax shields. We show that the widely used wacc formula, if used, as it is in most cases, in a growth context, implies that a) debt tax shield related to already existing debt are discounted using k_d; b) debt tax shield related to new debt, due to company's growth, are discounted, according to a mixed procedure, using both k_u and k_d. We discuss the inconsistency of such a discounting procedure and the preferred features of the APV approach.     

Two Different Ways of Treating Corporate Cash in FCF Valuations—and the Importance of Getting the Cost of Capital Right

The methods for calculating free cash flow presented in texts on financial statement analysis and valuation appear to be very different from those in corporate finance texts, causing some confusion among academics as well as practitioners. Financial statement analysis and valuation texts generally begin by valuing just the enterprise operations—that is, the entity that engages in the firm's primary revenue‐generating activities—and then adding back the value of its cash holdings and other financial assets. The corporate finance approach is typically to value all the assets together, including financial assets that are not used in the production of the goods and services provided by the firm. Using a simple example, the authors show that the valuation of the equity ownership of the firm should be the same for both methods of calculating free cash flow, provided the analyst makes the appropriate adjustments to the method for calculating the cost of capital (WACC) used to discount forecasted free cash flows to a present value.     

THE COST OF CAPITAL OF A COMPANY UNDER AN IMPUTATION TAX SYSTEM

One of the issues arising out of the introduction of an imputation tax for companies in Australia is the effect it is likely to have on the definition and measurement of a company's cost of capital. Insofar as there is a difference between the value of a dollar of franked relative to unfranked dividends, conventional definitions for the cost of capital are inappropriate and new definitions are required. This has implications for the measurement of a company's cost of capital and for the definition of net cash flows that are used in conjunction with the cost of capital. This paper sets out these definitions and an approach for measuring the cost of capital. The new definition of the cost of capital replaces the effective company tax rate T with T(l - γ) where γ is the value of personal tax credits. Further, the definition of the risk premium in the capital asset pricing model requires an adjustment for the capitalized value of personal tax credits to maintain consistency between the cost of capital and cash flows which are defined on an after-company tax but before-personal tax basis.     

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.     

A MULTIPERIOD MEAN-VARIANCE MODEL OF OPTIMAL CAPITAL STRUCTURE

The continuing interest in the capital structure issue among financial researchers is evidenced by the stream of capital structure models that have appeared in the literature. Much of this research has used a risk-neutral and/or a single-period framework. In this paper, we develop a capital structure model for multiperiod firms and allow for the firm's cash flows to grow over time, for the firm to issue new debt, and for two types of bankruptcy costs to occur. The types of bankruptcy costs that occur are determined by the firm's uncertain operating cash flows and negotiations between the firm and creditors. Risk is priced via the Sharpe-Lintner capital asset pricing model. Multiperiod risk-priced models, we argue, realistically represent actual firms and are thus an important step toward the development of more testable and usable models of capital structure. We execute a demonstration example in which the value of the levered firm achieves a maximum and discuss the steps the firm would take to maximize shareholder wealth within this example. The example illustrates that the value of the firm passes through an interior optimum as the promised debt payment is increased. A simulation of the effect of changes in firm-specific parameters shows that the model exhibits expected and appealing relationships between these parameters and the value of the levered firm.     

The valuation of projects under the dividend imputation tax system

This paper proves that a modified weighted average cost of capital (“WACC”) valuation methodology is a rigorous and practicable method of valuing projects and companies under the Australian dividend imputation tax system. This methodology uses an effective tax rate in calculating both the discount rate and the ungeared after tax cash flow. A cash flow after effective corporate tax is shown to be equivalent to a cash plus value of imputation credit stream. Importantly, this valuation methodology is applicable to returns that are non-uniform and of finite duration. Also examined is the discounting of equity returns at the company's cost of equity capital. A worked example is presented to clarify and quantify the effects discussed.     

Terminal Value,Accounting Numbers,and Inflation

In a 2008 article published in this journal, Michael Bradley and Gregg Jarrell argue that the well‐known Gordon‐Shapiro (henceforth “GS”) model for calculating terminal values does not properly account for the effects of inflation. Bradley and Jarrell suggest modifying the growth factor in the standard GS model by adding an additional term to the nominal growth rate that reflects the positive effect of inflation on the value of existing assets. In this article, the authors support the original Gordon‐Shapiro method for calculating terminal values by showing what they believe to be an oversight of the Bradley‐Jarrell critique. According to the authors, the disagreement stems from the use of fundamentally different assumptions about the effect of inflation on the capital investment required to sustain a business. Although Bradley‐Jarrell agree with the authors that intrinsic value is the discounted value of future free cash flows, their assumptions about capital investment effectively lead them to conclusions similar to those practitioners who attempt to value companies on the basis of discounted future accounting earnings. Despite much common practice, the GS model was meant to be applied to free cash flows, not accounting earnings. And for companies with substantial capital investment, the differences between accounting earnings that involve accruals and free cash flows can be very large.     

Unbounded liabilities,capital reserve requirements and the taxpayer put option

When firms access unbounded liability exposures and are granted limited liability, then an all equity firm holds a call option, whereby it receives a free option to put losses back to the taxpayers. We call this option the taxpayer put, where the strike is the negative of the level of reserve capital at stake in the firm. We contribute by (i) valuing this taxpayer put, and (ii) determining the level for reserve capital without a reference to ratings. Reserve capital levels are designed to mitigate the adverse incentives for unnecessary risk introduced by the taxpayer put at the firm level. In our approach, the level of reserve capital is set to make the aggregate risk of the firm externally acceptable, where the specific form of acceptability employed is positive expectation under a concave distortion of the cash flow distribution. It is observed that, in the presence of the taxpayer put, debt holders may not be relied upon to monitor risk as their interests are partially aligned with equity holders by participating in the taxpayer put. Furthermore, the taxpayer put leads to an equity pricing model associated with a market discipline that punishes perceived cash shortfalls.     

Inflation and Capital Budgeting Decisions: a Comment

F. M. Wilkes has argued that unadjusted cash flows and monetary opportunity costs be used when evaluating capital projects in an inflationary environment (Journal of Business Finance, Volume 4, No. 3). His conclusions are, however, that alternative approaches to net present value are probably necessary, This note examines Wilkes' analysis and argues that his initial model, using net present value techniques, is acceptable in practice on the adoption of fairly conventional assumptions.