## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Errors in estimating the discount rate or mismatching cashflows and discount rates can lead to serious errors in valuation. * At an intutive level, the discount rate used should be consistent with both the riskiness and the type of cashflow being discounted. I. Cost of Equity The cost of equity is the rate of return that investors require to make an equity investment in a firm. There are two approaches to estimating the cost of equity; * a risk and return model * a dividend-growth model. Models of Risk and Return The Capital Asset Pricing Model * Measures risk in terms on non-diversifiable variance * Relates expected returns to this risk measure. * It is based upon several assumptions (a) that investors have homogeneous expectations about asset returns and variances (b) that they can borrow and lend at a riskfree rate (c) that all assets are marketable and perfectly divisible (d) that there are no transactions costs and that there are no restrictions on short sales. Risk in the CAPM Beta: The non-diversifiable risk for any asset can be measured by the covariance of its returns with returns on a market index, which is defined to be the asset's beta. The cost of equity will be the required return, Cost of Equity = Rf + Equity Beta * (E(Rm) - Rf) where,

Rf = Riskfree rate E(Rm) = Expected Return on the Market Index Using the Capital Asset Pricing Model * Inputs required to use the CAPM (a) the current risk-free rate (b) the expected return on the market index and (c) the beta of the asset being analyzed. Practical issues in using the CAPM -1. Measurement of the risk premium * It is generally based upon historical data, and the premium is defined to be the difference between average returns on stocks and average returns on riskfree securities over the measurement period. Magnitude of the risk premium Historical Period 1926-1990 1962-1990 1981-1990 Stocks - T. Bills Arithmetic 8.41% 4.10% 6.05% Geometric 6.41% 2.95% 5.38% Stocks - T.Bonds Arithmetic 7.24% 3.92% 0.13% Geometric 5.50% 3.25% 0.19%

*** Generally, geometric averages provide better estimates of risk premiums in valuation.
**

y

The risk premiums will vary across markets, depending upon their riskiness. While historical data can be used to estimate premiums outside the United States, it is not very reliable. An alternative way of estimating premiums is to use country bond ratings to estimate these premiums relative to the U.S. premium. For instance, the risk premiums for South American countries can be estimated as follows: Rating BBB BB Risk Premium 5.5% + 1.75% = 7.25% 5.5% + 2% = 7.5%

Country Argentina Brazil

00%.Chile Columbia Mexico Paraguay Peru Uruguay AA A+ BBB+ BBBB BBB 5.25% 5.10 (5.50%) = 14.5% + 1.75% = 7. That would be double counting.1% A Warning: If you add a default premium to the risk premium.5% + 1.50% at the same point in time ñ Cost of Equity (British Pounds) = 8.05% This is the cost of equity.. Which beta would you use in valuing Glaxo? .50% + 1.55% This difference reflects differences in expected inflation in the two markets.5% = 7% 5.5% = 8% 5.6% = 7. When the long term government bond rate is not available.5% + 2. Illustration 3: Using the CAPM to calculate cost of equity Glaxo Holdings had an estimated beta of 1.10 at the end of 1994.50%) = 14. Riskfree Rate The long-term government bond rate is the appropriate riskfree rate. At the same point in time.10 (5. if cash flows are estimated in dollars.75% 5. the thirty-year treasury bond rate in the United States was 8.25% 5.75% = 6.5% + 1. The estimated cost of equity for Glaxo in December 1994 was ñ Cost of Equity = 8. The same estimation can be done in British Pounds. which was 8.5% + 1. using the long term Government Bond rate in the U. do not add a risk premium to the risk free rate.25% = 6. II.5% + 0. it may make sense to look at the rate at which large corporations can borrow in the local market.65.00% + 1. y Wellcome is planning an acquisition of Glaxo. Wellcome has a beta of 0.K.

(Wellcome is a good example.Determinants of Betas I. either because they focus heavily on research. other things remaining equal. there are some firms which have very high fixed costs. or because of the nature of their business. Degree of Operating Leverage: * DOL is a function of the cost structure of a firm. Biotechnology firms have an average beta of 1. and debt has a tax benefit to the firm. than non-cyclical firms. * If all of the firm's risk are borne by the stockholders. It had research and development expenses which were 670% of sales in 1994. either through acquisitions or through projects. the higher is its beta. i. for instance. (Synergen. had a beta of 1.65 in 1994.. then. Financial Leverage: * An increase in financial leverage will increase the equity beta of a firm. Thus cyclical firms can be expected to have higher betas. the beta of debt is zero. * The beta of a firm is the weighted average of the betas of its different business lines.) These firms will have higher betas than other firms which have more traditional cost structures.8.e. y Pharmaceutical companies are increasingly looking at expanding into biotechnology. Levered Beta = Unlevered Beta (1 + (1-t) (D/E)) . * A firm which has high operating leverage -> higher variability in earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) -> higher beta y Sticking again with pharmaceutical firms. Type of Business: * The more sensitive a business is to market conditions.) III. What would the impact of these actions be on pharmaceutical firmsí betas? II. and is usually defined in terms of the relationship between fixed costs and total costs.

7*0. If Glaxo were to raise its debt/equity ratio to 20%.03 0. Firm General Binding Hunt Manufacturing Moore Coroporation Nashua Company Pitney Bowes Average Beta 1.17 . its beta would be much higher (Tax rate was 30%) ñ Current Beta (Levered) = 1. Using comparable firms: * Use the betas of publicly traded firms which are comparable in terms of business risk and operating leverage.20 0. selling and servicing fax machines. The private firm had a debt/equity ratio of 30%.07 (1+0.05 0.10 0. Illustration 5: Using comparable firms to estimate betas Assume that you are trying to estimate the beta for a private firm that is in the business of manufacturing. had a debt/equity ratio of 4% in 1994.7*0.97 Debt/Equity 0. * Correct for differences in financial leverage between the firm being analyzed and the comparable firms.04) = 1.00 0. with a beta of 1.07 New Levered Beta = 1.95 0.22 Other approaches to estimating Betas I.20 0.10 /(1+0. The betas of publicly traded firms involved in office equipment and supplies are as follows (They face an average tax rate of 40%).10 Unlevered Beta = 1.90 1. t = Corporate tax rate D/E = Debt/Equity Ratio Illustration 4: Effects of Financial Leverage on Betas Glaxo.where.45 1.2) = 1.80 0.10.

CV in Operating Income = Coefficient of Variation in Operating Income = Standard Deviation in Operating Income/ Average Operating Income Illustration 6: Using fundamental information to predict betas Assume that you are trying to estimate the beta for a private firm.08 CV in Operating Income . Using fundamental factors: * Combines industry and company-fundamental factors to predict betas.17)) = 0.15 Debt/Equity Ratio + 0.4) (0.000 (in thousands) The estimated beta for this firm.04 Debt/Equity Ratio = 0.04 II.30 Growth in Earnings per share = 0. BETA = 0.4) (0. * Income statement and balance sheet variables are important predictors of beta * Following is a regression relating the betas of NYSE and AMEX stocks in 1991 to five variables . .00001 Total Assets where.dividend yield.88 Beta for private firm involved in office supplies = 0.3)) = 1. size. debt/equity and growth in earnings.126 Dividend Yield + 0.30 Total Assets = $ 10. with the following financial characteristics (defined consistently with the regression): Coefficient of Variation in Operating Income = 2.0.97 / (1 + (1-0.0.88 (1 + (1-0. coefficient of variation in operating income.2 Dividend Yield = 0.034 Growth in Earnings per Share .9832 + 0.Unlevered Beta of office supply firms = 0.

Rf = 4% : Risk Premium for factor 2 E(R3) .5% : Risk Premium for factor 3 Assume that the betas specific to each of these factors are estimated for Pepsi Cola in 1992 and .000 = 1.BETA = 0.19 The Arbitrage Pricing Model * Logic behind the arbitrage pricing model (APM) same as the logic behind the CAPM. * The arbitrage pricing model relates expected returns to economic factors.e.9832 +0. and that there are three factors.15* 0. * The number and the identity of the factors are determined by the data on historical returns.Rf = 1.0. with a beta specific to each factor.2 . Riskfree rate = 3. investors get rewarded for taking on non-diversifiable risk.30 + 0.35% E(R1) . If these factor-specific betas and the factor risk premia can be estimated.30 . the cost of equity can also be estimated.0.126* 0.034 * 0.Rf = Risk premium per unit of factor j risk k = Number of factors Using the Arbitrage Pricing Model Illustration 7: Using the APM to estimate the cost of equity Assume that the parameters for the arbitrage pricing model have been estimated.04 + 0.00001*10. i. where.08*2. Rf = Riskfree rate Fj = Beta specific to factor j E(Rj) .Rf = 3% : Risk Premium for factor 1 E(R2) . is not a single factor but is determined by an asset's sensitivity to various economic factors that affect all assets. * Measure of this non-diversifiable risk in the APM.. however.

Roll and Ross (1986) suggest that the following macroeconomic variables are highly correlated with the factors that come out of factor analysis -. tend to have low CAPM betas. Cost of Equity = 3. * In general.35% + 1.90 (4%) + 1.that the estimates are as follows: F1 = 1. Example: Oil companies. but it will underperform the richer APM when the company is sensitive to economic factors not well represented in the market index. the CAPM has the advantage of being a simpler model to estimate and to use. * The factors in the model can change over time. * The biggest intuitive block in using the arbitrage pricing model is its failure to identify specifically the factors driving expected returns.industrial production. Chen. * Costs of going from the arbitrage pricing model to a macro-economic multi-factor model can be traced directly to the errors that can be made in identifying the factors. which derive most of their risk from oil price movements. * For example.5%) = 12.20% Considerations on the use of the APM * Capital asset pricing model can be considered to be a specialized case of the arbitrage pricing model.90 F3 = 1.20 F2 = 0. These variables can then be correlated with returns to come up with a model of expected returns. shifts in the term structure. with firm-specific betas calculated relative to each variable.10 Substituting into the APM.1 (1. as will the risk premia associated with each economic factor. Multi-factor Models for risk and return * Unidentified factors in the arbitrage pricing model are replaced with macro-economic variables. unanticipated inflation and changes in the real rate of return. where there is only one underlying factor and that underlying factor is completely measured by the market index. .20 (3%) + 0. changes in default premium.

The dividend growth model can then be used to estimate the cost of equity.g) where.82 *1.98 Cost of Equity = $2. since the current price is a key input to the model. Expected Dividends in 1993 = $2. ke = DPS1 / P0 + g = Expected Dividend Yield + Growth rate in earnings/dividends More importantly. Southwestern Bell paid dividend per share of $2.* Using the wrong factor(s) or missing a significant factor in a multi-factor model can lead to inferior estimates of cost of equity.82 and the stock traded at $66 in December 1992. Illustration 8: Using the Dividend Growth Model to estimate the cost of equity: Southwestern Bell In 1992. P0 = Price of the stock today DPS1 = Expected dividends per share next year ke = Cost of Equity g = Growth rate in dividends (steady state) A simple manipulation of this formula yields. the present value of a share of equity can be written as: Po = Present Value of expected dividends = DPS1 / (ke . There is a strong element of circular reasoning involved that will lead the analyst to conclude. it is inappropriate to use this approach to value stock in a firm. The estimated growth rate in dividends is 5.5% . Dividend Growth Model For a firm which has a stable growth rate in earnings and dividends.98 / $66 + 5. using this cost of equity.5% and the firm is assumed to be in steady state. that equity is fairly valued.055 = $2.

60. This results in Cost of equity = 8.10 .00%. WACC = Weighted Average Cost of Capital ke = Cost of Equity kd = After-tax Cost of Debt kps = Cost of Preferred Stock E/(E+D+PS) = Market Value proportion of Equity in Funding Mix D/(E+D+PS) = Market Value proportion of Debt in Funding Mix PS/(E+D+PS) = Market Value proportion of Preferred Stock in Funding Mix Illustration 9: Calculating the Cost of Capital: Genzyme Corporation.00% (in market value terms) of the funding mix and debt made up the remaining 15.055) = $66 Not surprisingly. Genzyme Corporation had * a beta of 1.= 10% To illustrate the circular reasoning involved in using this cost of equity to value stock. WACC = ke ( E/ (D+E+PS)) + kd ( D/ (D+E+PS)) + kps ( PS/ (D+E+PS)) where.98 / (.30%.50%) = 16.. Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) Definition of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) The weighted average cost of capital is defined as the weighted average of the costs of the different components of financing used by a firm. (Pre-tax cost of debt=9. Value of Equity = $ 2.80% * an after-tax cost of debt of 6. the stock is found to be fairly valued. .00%+1. Tax rate=30%) * Equity comprised 85. In December 1994.00%.60 (5.

15) = 15.Operating Expenses = Earnings before interest.85) + 6.Depreciation & Amortization = Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) .23 % ESTIMATION OF CASH FLOWS Cash flows to Equity for a Levered Firm Revenues .30% (0.Interest Expenses = Earnings before taxes .* The cost of capital for Genzyme can then be calculated as follows: WACC = 16. taxes and depreciation (EBITDA) .Capital Expenditures .Principal Repayments + Proceeds from New Debt Issues = Free Cash flow to Equity Levered Firm at Desired Leverage Net Income .Taxes = Net Income + Depreciation & Amortization = Cash flows from Operations .Working Capital Needs .Preferred Dividends .80% (0.

The companyís working capital increased to $225 million in 1994 from $203 million in 1993.Depreciation) . leading to a debt to capital ratio (ìdebt ratioî) of 14%.(Cap Ex .. 1994 $ 695.00 Net Income .(1. y y y y y The company had $1. It is expected to maintain working capital at the same percentage of sales in 1995. (How does one know?) The company reported net income of $695 million in 1994 and is projected to have a net income of $765 million in 1995. Thus FCFE will be an increasing function of _. This debt ratio is assumed to be stable.DR) Working Capital Needs = Free Cash flow to Equity For this firm.Depreciation) (1-DR) . Proceeds from new debt issues = Principal Repayments +DR (Capital Expenditures Depreciation + Working Capital Needs) Illustration 10: Estimating the cash flow to equity for a firm at its desired leverage: WarnerLambert The following is an estimation of free cash flows to equity for Warner-Lambert in 1994 and for 1995 (projected).50 14%) $ 572. and sales are expected to increase from $6420 million in 1994 to $7100 million in 1995. .56 Estd 1995 $ 765.( Change in Working Capital) (1-DR) FCFE Proposition : The Free Cash Flow to Equity will increase as the amount of debt financing used by the firm increases.52 $ 18.50 $ 172.5 billion in debt outstanding and $ 9 billion in market value of equity.00 (DR = 14%) (DR = $ 20. The company had capital expenditures of $362 million in 1994 and is expected to have capital expenditures of $400 million in 1995.92 $ 519. The company reported depreciation of $180 million in 1994 and is expected to have depreciation of $200 million in 1995.(1.00 $ 156.DR) (Capital Expenditures .

20 $ 120.00 $ 765.Change in Working Capital .Illustration 11: Sensitivity to Debt Ratio .tax rate) + Depreciation . 1994 Estd 1995 Net Income $ 695. using a debt ratio of 40% instead of a debt ratio of 14%.(Cap Ex .Capital Spending .Depreciation) (DR = $ 109.00 (1-DR) 40%) .Warner Lambert Corporation The following are the cash flows to equity for Warner Lambert.60 $ 630.( Change in Working (DR = $ 13.70 The following graph illustrates the effect on free cash flows to equity of changing the debt ratios from 0% to 100% ñ CASHFLOWS TO THE FIRM EBIT ( 1 .30 Capital) (1-DR) 40%) FCFE $ 572.00 .20 $ 14.

306 million DM in 1991 to 15. reported earnings before interest and taxes of 3. The earnings before interest and taxes is expected to increase to 3.5%.560 million DM in 1992. as a German-based multinational involved in a wide range of businesses.159 mil DM 2.613 million DM and capital expenditures of 5. The firm has a beta of 1.= Cash flow to the firm Illustration 12: Estimating the expected cash flow to the firm . Real cash flows should be discounted at real discount rates.0 and the current T.844 mil DM .460 mil DM + Depreciation 4. In addition. The firm had a tax rate of 38% in 1992. the working capital increased from 14.613 mil DM 4.560 mil DM 5.Change in Working Capital 1. prior to general provisions and extraordinary charges.Capital Expenditures 5.405 million DM in 1992. Illustration 13: The Effect of Inflation on Cash flows and Discount Rates Consider a firm which has cash flows to equity currently of $100 million and is expected to grow.Siemens Siemens AG.Bond rate is 6. 1992 Projected 1993 EBIT (1 . It had depreciation of 4. depreciation and working capital are all expected to increase by 5% in 1993.838 mil DM . at 5% a year for the next three years and 3% a year after that.482 million DM in 1992. The free cashflows to the firm for 1992 and 1993 (estimated) are provided below. in real terms. The valuation of this firm can be done on either a real or a nominal basis: The estimates of growth on a real and nominal basis are done first . The expected inflation rate is 3% in both the firm's cash flows and the general economy.967 million DM in 1993.tax rate) 2. Capital expenditures.098 mil DM 770 mil DM Free Cashflow to firm 114 mil DM 696 mil DM INFLATION AND VALUATION Consistency Principle 1: Nominal cash flows should be discounted at nominal discount rates.

12 + $ 117 / 1.Real Nominal Growth Rate in first 3 years 5% (1.5%.122 + ($126 + $2..078 $126 $2.271 The terminal values are calculated as follows for real and nominal cash flows: Terminal value (Real Cash flows) = $ 116 * 1.896 Illustration 13A: The Effect of mismatching cash flows and discount rates Real Cash flows@ Nominal Nominal Cash flows@ Real rate rate .03 / (.08742 + ($116 + $2.03)-1 = 8.03)-1 = 6.078) / 1.5% +1(5.05)(1.03 -1 = 8. Using these growth rates the cash flows can be generated in both nominal and real terms: Real Cash flows Nominal Cash flows Terminal Nominal Cash Terminal Year CF to Equity Value flows Value 1 $105 $108 2 $110 $117 3 $116 $2.0874 .12/1.0609 / (.271) / 1. with a historical premium earned by stocks over T.74% E(R) =6.0874 + $ 110 / 1.12 .03)(1.15% Growth Rate after year 3 3% (1. The present values of the cash flows to equity and the terminal value can then be calculated using the appropriate discount rate: Present value (using real cash flows) = $105/1.123 = $ 1.271 This calculation assumes that the growth rates after year 3 are steady state growth rates and will continue through infinity.03) = $ 2.09% The discount rate can similarly be estimated on a real and nominal basis: Real Nominal Discount Rate 1.078 Terminal value (Nominal Cash flows) = $ 126 * 1..Bonds of 5.896 Present value (using nominal cash flows) = $108/1.5%) =12% The expected nominal return is estimated using the CAPM.0609) = $ 2.08743 = $ 1.

Year CF to Equity 1 2 3 $105 $110 $116 Terminal Value $1. After-tax version of the Capital Asset Pricing Model E(Rj) = Rf + H+ HFj + H2 (Kj . the present value is: Present value (real cash flows discounted at nominal rates) = $105/1.0609) = $ 5.068) / 1.068 The terminal values are miscalculated because cash flows and discount rates are not matched.12-.293 > True value of $1.0874 -.896 TAXES AND VALUATION Consistency Principle 2: Pre-tax cash flows should be discounted at pre-tax discount rates.08743 = $4.0609 / (. the present value is: Present value (nominal cash flows discounted at real rates) = $108/1.03) = $1.325 Nominal Cash flows $108 $117 $126 Terminal Value $5.03 / (.12 + $ 110 / 1.0874 + $ 117 / 1.08742 + ($126 + $5.325) / 1.325 Terminal value (using real rate and nominal cash flows) = $ 126 * 1.207 < True value of $1.Rf) where. After-tax cash flows should be discounted at after-tax discount rates. Terminal value (using nominal rate and real cash flows) = $ 116 *1.068 If real cash flows are discounted at the nominal discount rate.123 = $ 1. E(Rj) = Expected pre-tax return on asset j Rf = Riskfree rate Fj = Beta of asset j .896 If nominal cash flows are discounted at the real discount rate.122 + ($116 + $1.

45)/1.20.(Terminal price .35 $84.43 .20) * 0.91+$93.1293 + $ 2.60 $1.20 The initial price is assumed to be $62.27/1.12935 = $ 62.79 4 $3.98/1.91 $93. The firm had a beta of 1.05 5 $3.28 = $84.98 $1.Initial price) * Capital Gains tax rate = $ 93.41 $2.($93.5%) = 12.41 The discount rate can be estimated before personal taxes and used to calculate the present value per share: Discount rate before personal taxes = 7.27 $1. The cash flows on a pre and post tax basis are as follows: Before personal taxes After personal taxes Dividends per Terminal Dividends per Terminal Year share price share price 1 $2.43 .05 and the treasury bond rate wass 7.43 $2.41/1.$62.56 3 $2.36 2 $2. The following example values Eli Lilly on the basis of cash flows after personal taxes for an investor with a tax rate of 40% for ordinary income and 28% for capital gains.15%.12934 + ($3.41 The discount rate before personal taxes can be apportioned into dividend yield and price appreciation: . The cash flows after personal taxes are estimated after personal taxes as follows: Dividends per share after taxes = Dividends per share before taxes * (1 .Ordinary tax rate) Terminal price after taxes = Terminal price before taxes .12932 + $2.05 (5.12933 + $3.15% + 1.Kj = Dividend Yield of asset j H0 = A constant term H1 = Market premium for systematic risk H2 = Influence of dividend payout on expected returns Illustration 14: Effect of personal taxes on cash flows and discount rates: Eli Lilly The expected dividends and the terminal price were estimated for Eli Lilly at the beginning of 1992 for the next five years (before personal taxes).93% Present Value per share (based upon pre-tax cash flows and pre-tax discount rates) =$ 2.60 / 1.

71% Expected Price Appreciation = Expected Return . Estimating and Using Historical Growth Rates y y y Historical growth rates can be estimated in a number of different ways o Arithmetic versus Geometric Averages o Simple versus Regression Models Historical growth rates can be sensitive to o the period used in the estimation In using historical growth rates.27 $1.13 $1.40) + 9.Expected Dividend Yield = 12.56% -11.22% Discount rate after personal taxes = 3.08865 = $ 62.08863 + $2.27 Growth Rate 36. the following factors have to be considered o how to deal with negative earning o the effect of changing size Illustration 15: Using arithmetic average versus geometric average: Autodesk The following are the earnings per share at Glaxo Pharmaceuticals.56 / 1.39% .08862 + $1.05/1.93% .08864 + ($2.90 $0.11% 39.36/1.36% 1. ESTIMATING GROWTH RATES I.3.41)/1.20 Thus the value is unaffected by whether cash flows are before or after personal taxes.66 $0.0.22% (1 .86% Present Value per share (based upon after-tax cash flows and after-tax discount rates) =$ 1. as long as the discount rates are adjusted accordingly. starting in 1989 and ending in 1994: Year 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 EPS $0.20 = 3.35+$84.28) = 8.91 $1.27 / $62.79/1.71% (1 .0.02% 12.0886 + $ 1.71% = 9.Expected Dividend Yield = Expected Dividends next year/ Initial Price =$2.

65 $0.39%)/5 = 15.36%+1..65)1/6 -1 = 11.90 $0.27 $1. The earnings per share from 1988 until 1994 is provided for Glaxo.42 -0.24 0.27/0.66 $0. starting in 1988 instead of 1989 and uses six years of growth rather than five to estimate the arithmetic and geometric averages.1132 t .27/0.43 -0.66 $0.65 $0.90 $0.Arithmetic mean = (36.68% Geometric mean = (1.27 Arithmetic average = 13.91 $1. Time (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 EPS $0.27 ln(EPS) -0.27 $1. and the linear and log linear regressions are done below: Time (t) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 EPS $0.13 $1.56%-11.5171 + 0.81% Illustration 17: Linear and Log-linear models of growth: Glaxo Inc.66)1/5 -1 = 13.11%+39.02%+12.12 0.11 -0.91 $1.99% Illustration 16: Sensitivity of historical growth rates to the length of the estimation period: Glaxo The following table provides earnings per share at Glaxo.13 $1.24 Linear Regression : EPS = 0.32% Geometric mean = (1.09 0.

EPSt-1) Illustration 18: Dealing with negative earnings: Sterling Chemicals.28% -50.56 1.1 = -200 % Geometric growth rate = $1.00. For instance.1225 (8)) = $ 1.00> .00/<$1.27 2 1989 $1.5536 + 0. if earnings per share goes from <$1.1225 t Expected EPS (1995) : linear regression = 0.38% -37.55% 4 1991 $0.10) NMF -225.07 -39.5171 + 0.06% -88.00/<$1.00> to $1.00% 7 1994 $0.08 129.38% 5 1992 $0.Log-linear Regression: ln (EPS) = -0.55536 + 0. The following series lists earnings per share from 1988 to 1994 for Sterling Chemicalsñ Growth Modified Time (t) Year EPS log(EPS) Rate Growth Rate 1 1988 $3.08 -2. Modified growth rate =(EPSt-EPSt-1)/Max(EPSt.53 -88.1132 (8) = $1.53 Dealing with negative earnings Calculating growth rates when earnings become negative is problematic.00> = -100% There is a solution to this problem.77 0.67 -0.00% 225. the traditional growth rate measures would be ñ Arithmetic Growth Rate = = EPSt/EPSt-1 -1 = $1.40 -37.41% 440.07 0.00% .42 Expected EPS (1995): log-linear regression = e (-0.55% -39. since the traditional growth rate measures often fail.57 -50.28% 3 1990 $1.06% 6 1993 ($0.34 -1.

10 1991 $186.42% Assuming that this growth rate continues for the next five years.63% $120. The following table shows the growth in net income for Amgen from 1989 to 1994.31% $67.40 1993 $354.20 351.32 86.06 Growth rate = .192.291.42% $692.31 1999 $9.60 86. but do not do much better than such models over the long term.70 64.72% $48.407.1 million in 1989 to $430 million in 1994.20 1994 $430.42% $4.13% $100.35 1998 $5.0. using modified growth rates = .Approach 1: Using the slope coefficient from the linear regression EPS =3.785.67 86.5139 t Average EPS (1988-94) = $ 1.90 15.42% $1.16% $75.63 86.1114 . Analystsí Forecasts Of Earnings: How Good Are They? Studies indicate that analysts do better than mechanical models at forecasting earnings in the short term.42% $2.10 1992 $306.680.06 = -48.42% $371.48% Approach 2: Using the minimum or maximum of earnings as the denominator Arithmetic average.51.5139 / 1.60 1996 $1.10 1990 $86.98 86. % Growth Æ Net Year Net Income Rate Income 1989 $19. % Growth Æ Net Year Net Income Rate Income 1995 $801.487. .65 II.00 21.494.72 1997 $2.0.81% Illustration 19: The Effect of size on growth: Amgen Amgen increased its net income from $19.10 Geometric Average Growth Rate = 86.30 116. in both percentage and dollar terms.

III. For these recommendations the price changes are sustained.8% for the sells).8% 1969-79 Are some analysts more equal than others? Some analysts are better at predicting earnings than other analysts. The recommendations made by the ëbestí analysts (Institutional Investorís All American Analysts) have a greater impact on stock prices (3% on buys. The prices tend to drift back to their original levels.2% 1972-75 Fried & Givoly Earnings Forecaster 16.Mean Relative Absolute Error Study Analyst Group Analyst Mechanical Forecasts Models Collins & Hopwood Value Line Forecasts 31. analysts affect stock prices with their recommendations. Buy recommendations affect prices less than sell recommendations. They are also usually better at picking stocks. Expected Growth And Fundamentals Retention Ratio and Return on Equity gt = Retained Earningst-1/ NIt-1 * ROE = Retention Ratio * ROE = b * ROE .7% on sells). Studies examining how effective analysts are conclude the following ñ y y On average.7% 34.4% for buys. and they continue to rise in the following period (2.4% 19.4% 32.1% 1970-74 Brown & Rozeff Value Line Forecasts 28. 13. 4.

5% translates into a drop in the growth rate of 2. The relationship between growth rates and changes in return on equity is as follows ñ gt = [BV of Equityt-1 * (ROEt .Proposition 1: The expected growth rate in earnings for a company cannot exceed its return on equity in the long term.255 = 11.72%. If the ROE drops by 2% the expected growth rate in 1995 would be 4.20%. The following table provides information on the retention ratio and the return on equity for Merck for 1994 and projections for 1995.00% 52% Return on Equity 26. Short term changes in ROE Small changes in return on equity can lead to large shifts in the growth rate for some firms.0% 25. 1994 1995 BV of Equity 11700 Net Income 3010 Retention Ratio 52.ROEt-1) / NIt-1]+ b * ROE Illustration 20: Changes in ROE and growth rates: Merck Inc.5% Growth Rate = 0. ROE and Leverage ROE = ROA + D/E (ROA .i (1-t)) .52% + 0.32% A drop in the return on equity of 0.26 = (11700*(.255-.52*0.52*0.26)/3010) = 13.

tax rate) $ 2181 Sales $ 29. The following table provides projections in profit margins.6851 1. Profit Margin and Asset Turnover ROA = EBIT (1-t) / Total Assets = [EBIT (1-t) / Sales] * [Sales/Total Assets] = Pre-interest profit margin * Asset Turnover Illustration 22: Evaluating the effects of corporate strategy on growth rate and value: Procter and Gamble Procter & Gamble decided to reduce prices on their disposable diapers in April 1993 to compete better with low-price private label brands.43% to 7% as a consequence and the asset turnover is expected to increase from 1.43% 7. asset turnover and growth rates after the shift in corporate strategy: 1992 After shift in strategy EBIT (1.where.6851 to 1.tax rate)) / BV of Total Assets = EBIT (1. after-tax profit margin is expected to drop from 7. Return on Assets.424 Asset Turnover 1. after-tax profit margin 7.80.80 . ROA = (Net Income + Interest (1 .00% Total Assets $17.362 Pre-interest.t) / BV of Total Assets D/E = BV of Debt/ BV of Equity i = Interest Expense on Debt / BV of Debt t = Tax rate on ordinary income Note that BV of Assets = BV of Debt + BV of Equity. The pre-interest.

tax rate) 4.7108 Interest rate on debt (1 .50% 13.29% Analyst Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Estimated Growth 10.60% Retention Ratio 58.00% Growth Rate 14.98 -14. Growth phase Steady State Retention Ratio 76% 50% Return on Assets 19. with earnings per share available from 1987 to 1992. Consider Autodesk Inc.69% 1989 $1.52% 12.375% Illustration 24: Weighting based upon standard deviations: Autodesk Inc.50% 12.48% 1990 $2.00% 12.89 1988 $1.5% 15% Debt/Equity 0% 25% Interest rate on debt 10% 8. Neutrogena is expected to grow at an extraordinary rate in the first five years (growth phase) and at a stable rate after that (steady state).27% 4. The following table also provides analyst forecasts of expected growth over the next five years from nine analysts following Autodesk.00% 16.00% Debt/Equity 0. The following table provides estimates of return on assets.74% Illustration 23: Adjusting inputs for firm type: Neutrogena Inc.27% Growth Rate 10.66% 10.42% 1991 $2.Return on Assets 12. retention ratio and interest rates for Neutrogena.00% . Historical EPS Analyst Estimates Growth Year EPS Rate 1987 $0.30 20.31 0.43% 1992 $1.00% 58.35 51.a software company.91 41.7108 0.00% 16.00% 10. a cosmetics manufacturer.82% 8.

00% Arithmetic mean = 19.8 18.95% Consensus Forecast = 14% Standard Deviation = 27.49% Standard Deviation = 3.45% .

- M& A
- @ Valuing Private Companies a Deep Approach
- Cost of Capital
- Camlin Valuation - Final
- ch13 (1)
- B4 Flashcards
- ROSS manajemen keuangan lanjutan option
- Investment Banking Module
- IFPPT11
- 0927_PDD.pdf
- Lecture 10 FINM2401 CAPM and cost of capital
- Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Financial Analysis Methodologie1
- Apresentacao Valuation
- Stulz Globalization of Equity
- 190074252 Nike Case Analysis
- Industry Overview
- puchi
- Kraft Heinz
- Inestabilidad Betas Fernandez
- Financial Concept by Benton E. Gup
- Case Study Marriott 2006
- Paper Thesis of Profitability Enhancement Strategy Through Capacity Expansion and Market Export Diversification
- Ppt
- Damodaran on Valuation
- dba_cap
- 5173
- FINS1613 Business Finance Notes
- 111007_439-458-Test
- 0810 FM-I (MB2E1)
- ch14[1]

- Unitil-Energy-Systems-External-Transmission-Charge
- Pacific-Power--1-Richard-P-Reiten
- Pacific-Power--Samuel-C-Hadaway
- Rocky-Mountain-Power--4-Bruce-N-Williams
- Unitil-Energy-Systems-Default-Service
- Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Association of American Railroads, Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenors, Central Illinois Light Company, Intervenors. Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, Southern Company Services, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenor, Central Illinois Light Company, Intervenors. Chemical Manufacturers Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenor, Central Illinois Light Company, Intervenors. Edison Electric Institute v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenor, Central Illinois Light Company, Intervenors. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Western Coal Traffic League, Intervenor, Ce
- The Relationship Between Financial Transactions Costs and Economic Growth
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.004 05s taught by Mark Laplante (mjl024000)
- UT Dallas Syllabus for ba3341.002 06f taught by Robert Bender (rcb013000)
- econcomm_19870301.pdf
- Rocky-Mountain-Power--3-Bruce-N-Williams
- Management Accounting/Series-2-2005(Code3023)
- ACCA P4 December 2015 Notes
- United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, 366 F.3d 164, 3rd Cir. (2004)
- Consolidated Rail Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Chicago and North Western Transportation Company William M. Gibbons, Trusteeof the Property of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad, as Trustee, Andnot Individually, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Burlingtonnortherninc., Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroadcompany, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Union Pacific Railroadcompany, Western Pacific Railroad Company, Soo Line Railroad Company, Intervenors. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Burlington Northern Inc., Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company,western Pacificrailroad Company v. The United States of America and the Interstate Commerce Commission, Chicago and North Western Transportation Company, Soo Line Railroad Company, Stanley E. G. Hillman, Trus
- frbsf_let_19841102.pdf
- UT Dallas Syllabus for mas6v06.x29.08f taught by David Springate (spring8)
- Pacific-Power--3-Bruce-N-Williams
- rev_frbrich198603.pdf
- Rocky-Mountain-Power--3-Bruce-N-Williams
- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
- Speech 957
- SENATE HEARING, 110TH CONGRESS - THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE FREIGHT RAILROAD INDUSTRY
- Acca p4 Notes j15
- Financial Management
- JOINT HEARING, 108TH CONGRESS - THE ADMINISTRATION'S GROWTH AND JOBS PLAN
- Chipotle Pitch

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Close Dialog## This title now requires a credit

Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

Loading