Review of Financing and Capital Structure, Section A

Wrap-Up of the Financing Module Overview of Financing Financial forecasting • Short-term and medium-term forecasting. • General dynamics: Sustainable growth. Capital structure • Describing a firm’s capital structure. • Benchmark: MM irrelevance. • Theory 1: Static Trade-Off Theory. • Theory 2: Pecking Order Theory. • Agency issues related to capital structure. → Pulling it all together. Forecasting a Firm’s Funding Needs • Question: Given a firm’s operations and the forecast thereof, how much funding will be required, and when? • Requires short-run and long-run forecasting. • Requires an assessment of a firm’s general dynamics: → The concept of sustainable growth. → Distinguish “cash cows” from “finance junkies”. General Dynamics • Sustainable Growth Rate: g* = (1-d) * ROE • Give a (very rough) measure of how fast you can grow assets without increasing your leverage ratio or issuing equity. • Sustainable growth rate increases when → Dividends (d) decreases → Profit margins (NI/Sales) increases → Asset turnover (Sales/Assets) increases → Leverage (Assets/NW) increases Key Points • Key Point 0: The concept of sustainable growth does not tell you whether growing is good or not. • Key Point 1: Sustainable growth is relevant only if you cannot or will not raise equity, and you cannot let D/E ratio increase. • Key Point 2: Sustainable growth gives a quick idea of general dynamics: Cash cows (g << g*) or Finance junkies (g >> g*). • Key Point 3: Financial and business strategies cannot be set independently. Capital Structure: Theory and Practice • Modigliani-Miller Theorem → Capital structure choices are irrelevant. • Theory 1: Static Trade-off Theory → Tax shield vs. Expected distress costs • Theory 2: Pecking Order Theory → Costs of asymmetric information. • Agency Issues related to capital structure. Modigliani-Miller Theorem • MM: In frictionless markets, financial policy is irrelevant. → “Proof”: Financial transactions are NPV=0. QED • Corollary: All the following are irrelevant: → Capital structure → Long- vs. short-term debt → Dividend policy → Risk management → Etc. Using MM Sensibly: MM gives us a framework to understand why capital structure matters -> Changing the size of the pie. When evaluating an argument in favor of a financial move: • Ask yourself: Why is a financing argument wrong under MM? → Avoid fallacies such as mechanical effects on accounting measures (e.g., WACC fallacy, EPS fallacy) • Ask yourself, what frictions does the argument rely on? → Taxes, Costs of financial distress, Information asymmetry, Agency problems. • If none, dubious argument. If some, evaluate magnitude. Theory 1: Static Trade-Off Theory • The optimal target capital structure is determined by balancing Tax Shield of Debt vs. Expected Costs of Financial Distress • Debt increases firm value by reducing the corporate tax bill. → This is because interest payments are tax deductible. → Personal taxes tend to reduce but not offset this effect. • This is counterbalanced by the expected costs of financial distress: Expected costs of financial distress = (Probability of Distress) * (Costs if actually in distress) Checklist for Target Capital Structure Tax Shield: • Would the firm benefit from debt tax shield? Is it profitable? Does it have tax credits? Expected distress costs: • Are cash flows volatile? • Need for external funds for investment? • Competitive threat if pinched for cash? • Customers and suppliers care about distress? • Are assets easy to re-deploy? Note: Hard to renegotiate debt structure increases distress costs (Recall Massey’s complex debt structure). Theory 2: Pecking Order • The Pecking Order Theory states that firms make financing choices with the goal to minimize the losses from raising funds under asymmetric information. • With information asymmetries between firms and markets: → External finance is more costly than internal funds. → Debt is less costly than equity (because less info-sensitive) . • This implies that firms: → Preferably use retained earnings, → Then borrow from debt market, → As a last resort, issue equity. Implications for Investment • The value of a project depends on how it is financed. → Value = NPV of project – loss from financing • Some projects will be undertaken only if funded internally or with relatively safe debt but not if financed with risky debt or equity. • Companies with less cash and more leverage will be more prone to under-invest. • Rationale for hoarding cash. Agency Problems and Capital Structure • Modigliani-Miller assumes that the real investment policy of a firm does not change as a function of capital structure. • But: Managers’ incentives and hence their behavior may change with the capital structure of the firm. • Managers and stockholders incentives do not always coincide. These conflicts are called agency problems • Agency problems in the firm: → We have Principals = Shareholders → We have Agents = Managers Conflicts between managers and investors: Principal-Agent Problems • Potential problems include: → Reduced Effort → Perks → Empire Building • There are also conflicts between Bondholders and Shareholders • Question: → Can Leverage help to avoid agency costs? → Can Leverage give managers incentives to make valuemaximizing decisions? Some classic principal-agent problem: The Free Cash Flow Problem: • Managers in firms with lots of free cash flow (cash cows) and bad investment opportunities may be reluctant to simply give the excess cash back to shareholders. ⇒ Having debt puts free cash flows to use, and reduces managers ability to squander funds on pet projects and empire building. The Lazy Managers Problem: • Managers in stable firms with lots of free cash flow and without much product market competition may become lazy and complacent. ⇒ Raising leverage (a lot) puts pressure on managers to perform and to make operations more efficient. Can leverage create agency costs? (Excessive) Leverage can create agency conflicts between equity holders (managers) and creditors (bond holders): • Looting the firm in financial distress • Delayed liquidation • Claim Dilution • Risk shifting (asset substitution): → Firms have incentives to loot the company prior to bankruptcy → Drexel paid $350M in bonuses three weeks before it filed Chapter 11 → Firms have incentives to delay liquidation even if immediate liquidation is efficient. → Liquidation usually only helps creditors, not shareholders or managers. → Firms have incentives to surprise existing creditors by borrowing more. → Managers may decide to increase the risk of the firm after they have borrowed. All these costs are anticipated by creditors and hence raise the cost of borrowing. Take Away: Agency Problems and Capital Structure • Leverage can help to overcome certain agency problems: → The free cash flow problem. → Complacent, lazy managers. → …. • Excessive leverage can create other agency problems: → These tend to kick in in actual financial distress, hence can be regarded as additional costs of distress. → Clever usage of covenants can eliminate many of these problems. Thinking about Capital Structure: An Extended Checklist • • • • Taxes → Does the company benefit from debt tax shield? Information Problems → Do outside investors understand the funding needs of the firm? → Would an equity issue be perceived as bad news by the market? Agency Problems → Does the firm have a free cash flow problem? → Do the managers need additional motivation and monitoring? Expected Distress Costs → What is the probability of distress? (Cash flow volatility) → What are the costs of distress? → Need for external funds for investment, competitive threat if pinched for cash, customers care about distress, assets difficult to redeploy? → Managerial misbehavior in distress? Conclusion • The bulk of the value is created on the LHS by making good investment decisions. • You can destroy much value by mismanaging your RHS: Financial policy should be supporting your business strategy. • You cannot make sound financial decisions without knowing the implications for the business. • Finance is too serious to leave it to finance people.