杠杆融资项目净现值计算方法的比较与分析

负债融资具有杠杆效应,有节税收益。计算杠杆融资项目的净现值,如仍按全权益融资项目的方法计算,其结果会有所不同,直接影响投资决策的正确性。本文介绍三种西方常用的杠杆融资项目的净现值计算方法,并对其适用条件进行比较和分析。     

企业价值评估贴现模型的比较分析

贴现模型是企业价值评估中应用较为普遍的模型,但在我国实践中使用贴现模型存在很多问题。本文利用自由现金流量贴现法、调整现值法、经济利润贴现法三种常用的方法,探讨贴现模型不同参数指标的原理、使用原则、使用条件及在我国实践中的适应性,希望讨论能够为企业价值评估实务提供指导和帮助。     

Three discount methods for valuing projects and the required return on equity

In this paper we discuss the required return on equity for a simple project with a finite life. To determine a project’s cost of equity, it is quite common to use Modigliani and Miller’s Proposition II (1963). However, if the assumptions of MM do not hold, Proposition II will lead to wrong required returns and project values. This paper gives an example of how the cost of equity should be determined in order to obtain correct valuations. The methods we apply are the Adjusted Present Value method, the Cash Flow to Equity method and the WACC method.     

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.     

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.     

A Reconsideration of Tax Shield Valuation

A quarter‐century ago, Miles and Ezzell (1980) solved the valuation problem of a firm that follows a constant leverage ratio L = D/S. However, to this day, the proper discounting of free cash flows and the computation of WACC are often misunderstood by scholars and practitioners alike. For example, it is common for textbooks and fairness opinions to discount free cash flows at WACC with beta input β _S = [1 + (1 ? τ)L]β_u, although the latter is not consistent with the assumption of constant leverage. This confusion extends to the valuation of tax shields and the proper implementation of adjusted present value procedures. In this paper, we derive a general result on the value of tax shields, obtain the correct value of tax shields for perpetuities, and state the correct valuation formulas for arbitrary cash flows under a constant leverage financial policy.     

Cost of capital: spot rate or forward rate?

In this study, we intend to reveal some problems with the classic valuation method – the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) method. We first address a fundamental question about WACC, that is, should WACC be interpreted as a spot rate, a forward rate or any kind of average of either of them? We show that the nature of WACC is the expected forward rate. We next demonstrate that without understanding this nature, we may misinterpret the famous MM formula and MM Proposition II, as well as develop incorrect valuation framework. Our findings provide insightful implications to academia and practitioners for the proper interpretation and implementation of the WACC method.     

Inflation-related tax distortions in business valuation models: A clarification

The current corporate income tax (CIT) expense occupies just one line item on the statement of profit or loss and other comprehensive income. However, it is a unique line item following tax rules and not financial reporting rules. The difference between these rules is that it reflects the effective tax rate (ETR), which can differ from the statutory tax rate (STR). With inflation, this ETR-STR difference can be more significant due to the contribution of tax distortions. In this study, we expand on the standard formulas for the ETR by analyzing the effects of inflation-related tax distortions when computed under the following four cases: (i) Historical-cost-based accounting under a nominal tax basis, (ii) Fair-value-based accounting under a nominal tax basis, (iii) Historical-cost-based accounting under a real tax basis, and (iv) Fair-value-based accounting under a real tax basis. Further, we suggest a modified model for business valuation considering these tax distortions and provide a general formula to independently calculate the value of inflation-related tax distortions.     

调整现值法在项目评价中的应用

本文对调整现值法中的筹资附带效应、规模和范围经济效应、外部效应、项目隐含的实物期权等的估价作了探讨,为评价复杂的投资项目提供了有益的分析思路。