MORAL HAZARD AND CAPITAL BUDGETING

In this paper, the effect of moral hazard on capital budgeting is examined. It is shown that moral hazard may change project rankings based on net present value under perfect information. It is also shown that in certain agency relationships moral hazard increases managerial contracting costs more for projects with slower paybacks, thus producing a bias in favor of projects with faster paybacks. This effect manifests itself only under specific conditions.     

THE USER COST AND CAPITAL BUDGETING

This study describes the relationship between the user cost of capital and capital budgeting processes and presents a formula for computing the user cost of an investment, accommodating the existence of taxes, inflation, and a nonconstant level of production. A project acceptability criterion assigning positive net present value when cash operating income exceeds user cost is discussed and applied to several examples. The test is shown to be useful and easy to apply.     

HOW DO CFOs MAKE CAPITAL BUDGETING AND CAPITAL STRUCTURE DECISIONS?

This paper summarizes the findings of the authors' recent survey of 392 CFOs about the current practice of corporate finance, with main focus on the areas of capital budgeting and capital structure. The findings of the survey are predictable in some respects but surprising in others. For example, although the discounted cash flow method taught in our business schools is much more widely used as a project evaluation method than it was ten or 20 years ago, the popularity of the payback method continues despite shortcomings that have been pointed out for years. In setting capital structure policy, CFOs appear to place less emphasis on formal leverage targets that reflect the trade‐off between the costs and benefits of debt than on “informal” criteria such as credit ratings and financial flexibility. And despite the efforts of academics to demonstrate that EPS dilution per se should be irrelevant to stock valuation, avoiding dilution of EPS was the most cited reason for companies reluctance to issue equity. But despite such apparent contradictions between theory and practice, finance theory does seem to be gaining ground. For example, large companies were much more likely than their smaller counterparts to use DCF and NPV techniques, while small firms still tended to rely heavily on the payback criterion. And a majority of the CFOs of the large companies said they had “strict” or “somewhat strict” target debt ratios, whereas only a third of small firms claimed to have such targets. What does the future hold? On the one hand, the authors suggest that we are likely to see greater corporate acceptance of certain aspects of financial theory, including the use of real options techniques for evaluating corporate investments. But we are also likely to see further modifications and refinements of the theory, particularly with respect to smaller companies that have limited access to capital markets.