DETERMINING COST OF SALES IN THE CCA SYSTEM

The profit concept in the Current Cost Accounting system is based on the objective of maintaining “capital” in the sense of “operating capability”. This paper seeks to demonstrate that the recommended capital maintenance adjustment of the Australian Provisional Accounting Standard on “Current Cost Accounting”, as it relates to cost of sales, is inappropriate for the stated capital maintenance objective. This appears to be because operating capability is a dated concept, since it is the operating capability existing at the beginning of an accounting period which is to be maintained. An alternative adjustment for cost of sales is proposed which is consistent with the stated capital maintenance objective.     

Risks and Rewards in Emerging Market Investments

In light of the recent currency crises in East Asia, this article questions the accepted wisdom that emerging market securities deserve to be included in global portfolios primarily because of their low correlations with more conventional asset classes. The authors suggest that the basic cycle of emerging market loans and securities appears to have been compressed, and its swings accentuated, by the herd-like behavior of global institutional investors. This is not the irrational behavior of crowds infected by investment euphoria, but the rational behavior (however volatile) of a large number of institutional investors with huge stakes in the market, each trying to outperform or at least keep up with the others. While stressing the benefits of foreign capital for emerging nations, Smith and Walter also point to the adverse consequences of abrupt shifts in investor sentiment and capital flows. Citing a recent World Bank study, the authors suggest that the effect of portfolio equity inflows on many developing economies has been a “glut” of foreign exchange and liquidity, which tends to cause inflationary pressure and appreciation of real exchange rates. Such currency appreciation can in turn have unwanted “real” effects, such as increases in trade deficits. Going somewhat “against the grain of the Washington Consensus,” the authors suggest that emerging nations undertake a gradual, though steady movement toward adoption of freemarket policies. In particular, they cite with approval attempts by more successful emerging nations such as Chile and South Africa to limit portfolio capital inflows to avoid this problem of excess liquidity. As the authors conclude, “At no point in their development did now-established countries like Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Spain, and Chile adopt a totally free-market approach. They moved purposefully over decades in that direction, but only at a pace that could be accommodated by the accompanying political thinking and infrastructure-building.”     

A NEW APPROACH TO CAPITAL BUDGETING FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The classic approach to capital budgeting based on the standard Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) says that the hurdle rate (or cost of capital) for any new project or investment should depend only on the riskiness of that investment. Thus, the hurdle rate, and hence the expected value of the investment, should not be affected by the financial policy of the company evaluating the project. Nor should the hurdle rate be influenced by the company's risk management policy, or by the kind of assets it already has on the balance sheet. This article argues that such a “singlefactor” model may be inappropriate for banks and other financial institutions for two main reasons:

• ? it is especially costly for banks to raise new external funds on short notice;
• ? it is costly for banks to hold a buffer stock of equity capital on the balance sheet, even if this equity is accumulated over time through retained earnings.

The single-factor CAPM ignores such costs and, in so doing, understates the true economic costs of “illiquid” bank investments. Illiquid investments require special treatment because they impose risks that, although “diversifiable” by shareholders, cannot be readily hedged by the bank and therefore require it to hold more equity capital. The authors accordingly propose a “two-factor” model for capital budgeting— one in which banks' investment decisions are linked to their capital structure and risk management decisions. One of the key implications of the two-factor model is that a bank should evaluate new investments according to both their correlation with the market portfolio and their correlation with the bank's existing portfolio of unhedgeable risks. The authors describe several potential applications of their model, including the evaluation of proprietary trading operations and the pricing of unhedgeable derivatives positions. They also compare their approach to the RAROC methodology that has been adopted by a number of banks.     

Racial biases in recruitment by accounting firms: The case of international Chinese applicants in Australia

This paper documents the difficulties in finding accounting work faced by international Chinese accounting graduates in Australia in the two years after graduation. We argue that Chinese accounting graduates remain a marginalised group within today's Australian society. The interview results support this assertion, with even high-achieving Chinese graduates finding it difficult to obtain work with mainstream accounting firms and corporations. The main reasons appear to be their lack of Australian working experience, lack of knowledge of Australian culture, and lack of “Australian English”. Australian accounting firms, due to a revealed preference to hire white Australian graduates, appear to be missing out on a vast reservoir of Chinese talent. Chinese accounting graduates speak two or three languages and have established business networks in China or at the very least insider knowledge of how that country's business culture operates. Whilst their sub-cultural capital may be lower on average than white graduates on some conventional measures, it is higher in those areas of bilingual capability and cross-cultural knowledge which are becoming of increasing importance to Australian business.     

ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1: ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality: Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2: ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality: The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3: Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality: Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4: ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality: Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5: ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality: Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6: Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality: Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.     

The Squam Lake Report: Fixing the Financial System*

In these excerpts from The Squam Lake Report, fifteen distinguished economists analyze where the global financial system failed, and how such failures might be prevented (or at least their damage better contained) in the future. Although there were many contributing factors to the crisis—including “agency” problems throughout the financial system and a bankruptcy code poorly suited for reorganizing financial firms—at the core of the problem is a potential conflict between the risk-taking proclivity of financial institutions and the interests of the economy at large that must be managed at least in part through more effective regulation. The Squam Lake Report provides a nonpartisan plan to transform the regulation of financial markets in ways designed to limit systemic risk while preserving—to the extent possible and prudent—the economies of scale and scope that justify the existence of today's large financial institutions. To reduce the risks that large banks will fail, the authors call for higher capital requirements based on more effective assessments of the risks of bank assets and liabilities, as well as a new systemic regulator that should be part of the central bank. To reduce the costs of failure when it occurs, the authors propose that banks be required to create “living wills” laying out their plan to sell assets or shut down operations in the event of financial trouble. As part of that plan, regulators are urged to “aggressively encourage” banks to issue “contingent” debt capital securities that convert into equity.     

Lessons from the Financial Crisis on Risk and Capital Management: The Case of Insurance Companies

This article proposes that risk management be viewed as an integral part of the corporate value‐creation process— one in which the concept of economic capital can provide companies with the financial cushion and confidence to carry out their strategic plans. Using the case of insurance and reinsurance companies, the authors discuss three main ways that the integration of risk and capital management creates value:

• 1 strengthening solvency (by limiting the probability of financial distress);
• 2 increasing prospects for profitable growth (by preserving access to capital during post‐loss periods); and
• 3 improving transparency (by increasing the “information content” or “signaling power” of reported earnings).

Insurers can manage solvency risk by using Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) models to limit the probability of financial distress to levels consistent with the firm's specified risk tolerance. While ERM models are effective in managing “known” risks, we discuss three practices widely used in the insurance industry to manage “unknown” and “unknowable” risks using the logic of real options—slack, mutualization, and incomplete contracts. Second, risk management can create value by securing sources of capital that, like contingent capital, can be used to fund profitable growth opportunities that tend to arise in periods following large losses. Finally, the authors argue that risk management can raise the confidence of investors in their estimates of future growth by removing the “noise” in earnings that comes from bearing non‐core risks, thereby making current earnings a more reliable guide to future earnings. In support of this possibility, the authors provide evidence showing that, for a given level of reported return on equity (ROE), (re)insurers with more stable ROEs have higher price‐to‐book ratios, suggesting investors' willingness to pay a premium for the stability provided by risk management.     

THE REVOLUTION IN CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENT: A DECADE OF INNOVATIONS IN PROCESS AND PRODUCTS

The explosion of corporate risk management programs in the early 1990s was a hasty and ill‐conceived reaction by U.S. corporations to the great “derivatives disasters” of that period. Anxious to avoid the fate of Barings and Procter & Gamble, most top executives were more concerned about crisis management than risk management. Many companies quickly installed (often outrageously priced) value‐at‐risk (VaR) systems without paying much attention to how such systems fit their specific business requirements. Focused myopically on loss avoidance and technical risk measurement issues, the corporate risk management revolution of the '90s thus got underway in a disorganized, ad hoc fashion, producing a curious amalgam of policies and procedures with no clear link to the corporate mission of maximizing value. But as the risk management revolution unfolded over the last decade, the result has been the “convergence” of different risk management perspectives, processes, and products. The most visible sign of such convergence is a fairly recent development called “alternative risk transfer,” or ART. ART forms consist of the large and growing collection of new risk transfer and financing products now being offered by insurance and reinsurance companies. As just one example, a new class of security known as “contingent capital” gives a company the option over a specified period—say, the next five years—to issue new equity or debt at a pre‐negotiated price. And to hold down their cost, such “pre‐loss” financing options are typically designed to be “triggered” only when the firm is most likely to need an infusion of new capital to avoid underinvestment or financial distress. But underlying—and to a large extent driving—this convergence of insurance and capital markets is a more fundamental kind of convergence: the integration of risk management with corporate financing decisions. As first corporate finance theorists and now practitioners have come to realize, decisions about a company's optimal capital structure and the design of its securities cannot be made without first taking account of the firm's risks and its opportunities for managing them. Indeed, this article argues that a comprehensive, value‐maximizing approach to corporate finance must begin with a risk management strategy that incorporates the full range of available risk management products, including the new risk finance products as well as established risk transfer instruments like interest rate and currency derivatives. The challenge confronting today's CFO is to maximize firm value by choosing the mixture of securities and risk management products and solutions that gives the company access to capital at the lowest possible cost.     

CARE/CEASA Roundtable on: Liquidity and Capital Management

Five distinguished banking and accounting scholars explore the role of liquidity at not only the “macro” level of the economy, but also at the level of individual companies. The first of the four main speakers, who is the author of the preceding article, restates his argument that the stability of financial systems can be increased by directing bank regulators and executives to find the optimal combination of liquidity and capital requirements. The second of the four speakers shifts the focus to liquidity management by non‐financial companies, with particular emphasis on their use of lines of credit and their role in helping companies weather the financial crisis. The third speaker places liquidity in the context of capital markets, and presents suggestive evidence that improvements in corporate disclosure and transparency have beneficial effects on both the level and volatility of liquidity in those markets. The panel is rounded out by a discussion of liquidity in corporate bond markets and the proposal of a new way to measure such liquidity.     

SOME EVIDENCE THAT BANKS USE INTERNAL CAPITAL MARKETS TO LOWER CAPITAL COSTS

To the extent raising external capital is especially costly for banks (as the preceding article suggests), bank managers have incentives to manage their internal cash flow in ways that minimize their need to raise external equity. One way to accomplish this is to establish bank holding companies that set up internal capital markets for the purpose of allocating scarce capital across their various subsidiaries. By “internal capital market” the authors mean a capital budgeting process in which all the lending and investment opportunities of the different subsidiaries are ranked according to their risk-adjusted returns; and all internal capital available for investment is then allocated to the highestranked opportunities until either the capital is exhausted or returns fall below the cost of capital, whichever comes first. As evidence of the operation of internal capital markets in bank holding companies, the authors report the following set of findings from their own recent studies:

• ? For large publicly traded bank holding companies, growth rates in lending are closely tied to the banks' internal cash flow and regulatory capital position.
• ? For the subsidiaries of bank holding companies, what matters most is the capital position and earnings of the holding companies and not of the subsidiaries themselves.
• ? The lending activity of banks affiliated with multiple bank holding companies appears to be less dependent on their own earnings and capital than the lending of unaffiliated banks.

The authors also report that, after being acquired, previously unaffiliated banks increase their lending in local markets. This finding suggests that, contrary to the concerns of critics of bank consolidation, geographic consolidation may make banks more responsive to local lending opportunities.     

Why Financial Institutions Matter: The Case of Energy Infrastructure MLPs

Institutional investors entered the Master Limited Partnership (MLP) space in 2001 with the Kinder Morgan offering of I‐share units. In the ten years that have passed since then, the number of MLPs has quadrupled, and their total market capitalization has increased tenfold. When compared to the MLPs of the 1980s, today's MLP are more focused both in terms of operations and distribution policy. After its birth in 1981, the MLP spread to over 30 different industries. But thanks in large part to tax law changes in 1987 that have helped limit MLPs to natural resource sectors, companies adopting the MLP structure since then have been concentrated in energy, and especially in energy infrastructure. And whereas distribution policy varied considerably among the early MLPs, today's MLPs uniformly pay out a large majority of their distributable cash flow. But to maintain or expand existing energy infrastructure while paying out most of their cash from operations, many MLPs require significant amounts of new capital. To help meet this ongoing funding requirement, new kinds of institutional intermediaries such as closed‐end C‐Corporation investment companies have emerged to provide capital to MLPs in the form of direct placements that offer flexibility with regard to offer sizing and timing. Since 2004, the total value of such direct placements of MLP units has exceeded $15 billion. What's more, the rise of this MLP operating/C‐corporation investment company structure has resulted in a novel realignment of incentives and functions. In this innovative arrangement, the pass‐through operating vehicle (i.e., the MLP) avoids double taxation of dividends while effectively committing managers to distribute cash. At the same time, for those MLPs with large maintenance and other requirements for capital, the commitment to pay out cash effectively forces the operating companies to raise capital continuously and stay “close to the capital marketplace.” This unusual combination of operating and investment vehicles also means that C‐Corporation investment companies, unlike their pass‐through counterparts, must manage tax on their own books and disclose to their investors the after‐tax results of their portfolio trading as well as their capital gains “overhang.”     

Save the Buyback,Save Jobs

In response to a recent New York Times op‐ed by Senators Schumer and Sanders deploring the effects of stock buybacks on workers and the economy, the authors explain the role of buybacks in increasing corporate productivity and in recycling “excess capital” from mature companies with limited growth and employment opportunities to the next generation of Apples and Amazons. Some companies, as Schumer and Sanders charge, are guilty of repurchasing shares in the name of “shareholder value maximization” instead of pursuing job‐creating investments. But as the authors argue, well‐run companies increase shareholder value not by boosting EPS through buybacks, but mainly by earning competitive returns on capital and investing in their long‐run “earnings power.” And by paying out capital they have no productive uses for, such companies give their own shareholders the opportunity to reinvest in other companies with promising prospects for growth and jobs. But the authors go on to note the tendency of companies to buy back shares not when their stock prices are low, but instead when the companies are flush with cash and nearer the top than the bottom of the business cycle. The result of this tendency, as research by Fortuna Advisors (the authors' firm) shows, is that fully three quarters of companies doing large buybacks during the period 2013‐2017 failed to produce an adequate “Buyback ROI,” a metric developed by Fortuna that indicates management's effectiveness in “timing” its stock repurchases. Given the usefulness of buybacks in recycling capital, the authors conclude that the most reliable solution to the corporate short termism and underinvestment problem is for companies to adopt better financial performance measures—including Buyback ROI—to guide their capital allocation. And when management determines that it has significantly more capital than value‐adding investments, but wants to avoid committing to unsustainable dividend increases, it should consider buybacks—but only if management is convinced that its stock price has not outpaced performance.     

Implementing Fischer Black's Simple Discounting Rule

Corporate managers typically estimate the value of capital projects by discounting the project's expected future net cash flows at the cost of capital. The capital asset pricing model (CAPM) is generally used to estimate that cost. But, as anyone who has worked on the finance or business development staff of a public company can attest, there are major challenges in applying the CAPM, including largely unresolved questions about what constitutes the “market portfolio,” how to estimate market risk premiums, and how to estimate the betas of projects. In a short article published in Financial Management in 1988, Fischer Black proposed a valuation “discounting rule” that avoids all these problems—one that involves discounting a relatively certain (as opposed to an expected or average) level of operating cash flows at the risk-free rate. But Black's article does not address the question of how to calculate these “certainty equivalent” or “conditional” cash flows. In this article, the authors propose a way of implementing Black's rule that involves estimating the “conditional” cash flows in a three-step procedure:

• • Find a benchmark security that correlates with the project's cash flows;
• • Estimate the percentiles of the distribution in which the benchmark return equals the risk-free rate over different investment horizons;
• • Use information from corporate managers to assess the cash flows that define the same percentiles in the cash flow distributions.

As the authors point out, the virtue of Black's rule is that it shifts the focus of the analyst away from the assessment of discount factors and puts it squarely on the more challenging, and arguably more relevant, problem of estimating the project's cash flows.     

THE REACTION TO CURRENT COST ACCOUNTING PROPOSALS BY GOVERNMENT REGULATORY AUTHORITIES*

The aim of this paper is to investigate the reaction to recent pronouncements on inflation accounting by two government regulatory authorities who have been major users of accounting data — the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the United Kingdom and the Prices Justification Tribunal in Australia. The evidence indicates that:

• 1 the Monopolies Commission reacted quickly to accounting pronouncements and either allowed or requested companies to present accounting data based on current values; and
• 2 the PJT reacted to the CCA (and other) proposals by stating continually that it would “take into account” the effect of inflation on company returns, but was in a quandary on how to allow for the extremely low and sometimes negative CCA rates of return. The paper concludes by examining some of the reasons why the CCA proposals are not suitable for calculating accounting rates of return for prices justification purposes.

     

A Tale of Leadership in Value Creation

In this prologue to his new book, Curing Corporate Short‐Termism, the founder and CEO of Fortuna Advisors presents a fictional account of a corporate turnaround—a “composite” reflection of the author's many years of consulting experience that dramatizes the pressure to meet near‐term earnings targets and other kinds of “agency” problems facing a public company called Blue Dynamics Corp. The tale begins with the puzzlement of the incoming CEO, Betty Manning, at finding the company's highest‐return business unit starved for investment, even as the low‐return units continue to receive and spend capital with little success. At the core of the company's capital allocation and “underinvestment” problems, she finds a corporate‐wide performance measurement and reward system focused on setting and beating budgets and growth in EPS and ROE. Manning's solution is to divorce the performance and reward system entirely from the budgeting process and implement new annual incentives and target‐setting practices that result in both more reliable budgeting and forecasting and a longer‐term view of value creation. The new measure of economic profit, called BDVA (short for Blue Dynamics Value Added), is based on a customized measure of EBITDA less a capital charge. The adoption of the new measure has the effect of encouraging her team to take a number of decisive steps: make an objective, “fact‐based” case for a strategic acquisition whose price appears to be too high (at least using conventional measures like EPS accretion); pull the trigger on a divestment that appears to have been adding value, but is more valuable outside the firm; and, more generally and most important, guide operating managers toward an ideal balance of overall growth and return on capital.     

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.     

Corporate Portfolio Management Roundtable

The dean of a top ten business school, the chair of a large investment management firm, two corporate M&A leaders, a CFO, a leading M&A investment banker, and a corporate finance advisor discuss the following questions:

• ? What are today's best practices in corporate portfolio management? What roles should be played by boards, senior managers, and business unit leaders?
• ? What are the typical barriers to successful implementation and how can they be overcome?
• ? Should portfolio management be linked to financial policies such as decisions on capital structure, dividends, and share repurchase?
• ? How should all of the above be disclosed to the investor community?

After acknowledging the considerable challenges to optimal portfolio management in public companies, the panelists offer suggestions that include:

• ? Companies should establish an independent group that functions like a “SWAT team” to support portfolio management. Such groups would be given access to (or produce themselves) business‐unit level data on economic returns and capital employed, and develop an “outside‐in” view of each business's standalone valuation.
• ? Boards should consider using their annual strategy “off‐sites” to explore all possible alternatives for driving share‐holder value, including organic growth, divestitures and acquisitions, as well as changes in dividends, share repurchases, and capital structure.
• ? Performance measurement and compensation frameworks need to be revamped to encourage line managers to think more like investors, not only seeking value‐creating growth but also making divestitures at the right time. CEOs and CFOs should take the lead in developing a shared value creation model that clearly articulates how capital will be allocated.

     

Re‐equitizing Corporate Balance Sheets: Choosing Among the Alternatives

Companies are generally reluctant to issue new equity because it can be expensive capital. Among the largest costs of an equity offering are so‐called “market‐impact” costs. To the extent the typically negative market reaction to a stock offering causes an issue to be underpriced, such underpricing dilutes the value of current shareholders. Despite such costs, many companies—particularly financial institutions—are raising equity capital to “delever” balance sheets that have been squeezed by the credit crunch and economic slowdown. And far from transferring value from existing shareholders, these offerings can preserve and even increase the value of highly leveraged companies by shoring up their capital bases and providing the flexibility to get through a difficult period. According to recent studies, announcements of equity offerings by distressed companies have been accompanied by positive stock returns in excess of 5 %. The challenge for CFOs is to determine why and when issuing equity is the value‐maximizing strategy. The kinds of companies that are most likely to benefit from equity offerings are those that score low on credit metrics, have experienced cyclical declines in operating performance, and have growth opportunities as part of their recovery. There are a number of options for raising equity capital, but no set rules for identifying the optimal one. Nevertheless, the author offers a number of suggestions designed to help CFOs make smarter decisions: Communicate clearly to investors the intended uses of the proceeds from the equity offering and how they are expected to create value; Consider judicious cuts to the dividend to preserve capital; Involve current shareholders to minimize dilution, perhaps by considering a rights offering, and strengthen their commitment; Seek out “smart money” such as private equity or SWFs as long‐term investors; Get the offer size right the first time so a second offering can be avoided; and Monetize volatility in uncertain markets by issuing convertible securities.     

THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE PUZZLE: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE

Since the formulation of the M & M irrelevance propositions 40 years ago, financial economists have been debating whether there is such a thing as optimal capital structure—a proportion of debt to equity that maximizes current firm value. Some finance scholars have followed M & M by arguing that both capital structure and dividend policy are largely “irrelevant” in the sense that they have no significant, predictable effects on corporate market values. Another school of thought holds that corporate financing choices reflect an attempt by corporate managers to balance the tax shields and disciplinary benefits of greater debt against the increased probability and costs of financial distress. Yet another theory says that companies do not have capital structure targets, but instead follow a financial pecking order in which retained earnings are preferred to outside financing, and debt is preferred to equity when outside funding is required. In reviewing the evidence that has accumulated since M & M, the authors argue that taxes, bankruptcy (and other “contracting”) costs, and information costs (the main factor in the pecking order theory) all appear to play an important role in corporate financing decisions. While much if not most of the evidence is consistent with the argument that companies set target leverage ratios, there is also considerable support for the pecking order theory's contention that firms are willing to deviate widely from their targets for long periods of time. According to the authors, the key to reconciling the different theories—and thus to solving the capital structure puzzle—lies in achieving a better understanding of the relation between corporate financing stocks (leverage ratios) and flows (specific choices between debt and equity). Even if companies have target leverage ratios, there will be an optimal deviation from those targets—one that will depend on the transactions and information costs associated with adjusting back to the target relative to the costs of deviating from the target. As the authors argue in closing, a complete theory of capital structure must take account of these adjustment costs and how they affect expected deviations from the target.     

THE DETERMINATION AND USE OF INVESTMENT HURDLE RATES IN CAPITAL BUGETING: A SURVEY OF AUSTRALIAN PRACTICE*

This paper summarizes the results of a survey, conducted in 1979, which investigated Australian practice in the determination and use of investment hurdle rates, and in certain other areas of capital budgeting which impinge on hurdle rate practice. The study suggests a significant closure of the gap between theory and practice in capital budgeting in terms of the use of discounted cash flow techniques of capital project evaluation, and in terms of the use of some tools of finance such as the weighted average cost of capital. However, many developments in the determination and use of investment hurdle rates appear to have taken place at a slower rate, and it is possible that some “back-tracking” may be required in order to improve practice.