Module 2:
Long Term Investment Decision:
Capital Budgeting- meaning and importance of Capital Budgeting Rationale for
Capital Expenditure, Techniques of selecting capital Budgeting proposals-NPU
Vs. IRR.
Dividend Policy
Decisions: The irrelevance of Dividend, Relevance of Dividend, Determinants of
dividend policy.
Long
Term Investment Decision:
Capital
budgeting, or investment appraisal, is the
planning process used to determine whether an organization's long term investments such as new machinery, replacement of machinery, new
plants, new products, and research development projects are worth the funding
of cash through the firm's capitalization structure (debt, equity or retained
earnings). It is the process of allocating resources for major capital, or investment,
expenditures.[1] One of the primary goals of capital budgeting investments
is to increase the value of the firm to the shareholders.
Many
formal methods are used in capital budgeting, including the techniques such as
These
methods use the incremental cash flows from each potential investment, or project.
Techniques based on accounting earnings and accounting rules are sometimes used
- though economists consider this to be improper - such as the accounting
rate of return, and "return on investment."
Simplified and hybrid methods are used as well, such as payback period and discounted payback period.
#
Capital Budgeting- meaning and
importance of Capital Budgeting Rationale for Capital Expenditure
Definition and Meaning:
Economics is concerned with the allocation of scarce resources
between alternative uses in order to obtain best objectives.
Capital expenditure/budgeting, on the other hand, concentrates
on these allocations over time; on decisions which involve current outlays in
return for expectations of future benefits, i.e., a return for an anticipated
flow of future benefits.
In other words, it is applied in order to evaluate expenditure
decisions which involve current outlays but the benefits are likely to be
produced in future, i.e., over a longer period of time. The said benefits may
be earned either in the form of reduction in cost or in the form of increased
revenues. And that is why it includes addition, alternation, modification,
disposition and replacement of fixed assets.
Therefore, the salient features of capital
budgeting are:
(i) Potentially large anticipated benefits;
(ii) A relatively high degree of risk; and
(iii) A relatively long time period between the initial outlay
and the anticipated ‘return’.
However, capital budgeting decision seeks to
provide a body of analyses giving answers to the following three questions:
(i) What specific investment projects should the firm accept?
(ii) How much of capital expenditure should the firm undertake?
(iii) How should this portfolio of projects be financed?
Obviously, the above three decisions are closely related to each
other. The problem is not simply to decide which investments should be financed
with a given amount of funds for the amount of borrowings and the volume of
shares issued are variables with the firm’s control. As such, the two problems
must be tackled simultaneously. So, capital budgeting covers all the three
questions.
It may be noted that a capital budgeting decision is a two-sided
process. The first one is that the analyst must evaluate a proposed projects to
forecast the likely or expected return from the project.
The said return may be calculated with the
help of two methods:
(i) Internal Rate of Return, and
(ii) Net Present Value.
The other side of a capital budgeting decision is to determine
the required return from a project.
From the discussion made so far, it may be summarised that
capital budgeting decision is the firm’s decision to invest its funds most
efficiently in long-term activities against an anticipated flow of future
benefits over a number of years.
Importance of Capital
Budgeting:
Capital Budgeting decisions have given the primary importance to
financial decision-making since they are the most crucial and critical business
decisions as they have significant impact on the profitability aspect of the
firm. As the capital budgeting/expenditure decision affects the fixed assets
only which are the sources of earning revenue, i.e., the profitability of the
firm, special attention must be given to their treatment.
Capital budgeting decisions have placed
greater emphasis due to:
(a) Capital budgeting has
long-term implications:
The most significant reason for which capital budgeting
decisions are taken is that it has long-term implications, i.e. its effects
will extend into the future, and will have to be endured for a longer period than
the consequences of current operating expenditure. Because, a proper investment
decision can yield spectacular returns, whereas a wrong investment decision can
endanger the very survival of the firm.
That is why, it may be stated that the capital budgeting
decisions determine the future destiny of the firm. Moreover, it also changes
the risk complexion of the enterprise. When the average benefits of the firm
increase as a result of an investment proposal which may cause frequent
fluctuations in its earnings that will become a risky situation.
(b) Capital budgeting requires
large amount of funds:
Capital investment decisions require large amount of funds which
the majority of the firms cannot provide since they have scarce capital
resources. As a result, the investment decisions must be thoughtful, wise and
correct. Because, a wrong/incorrect decision would result in losses and the
same prevents the firm from earning profits from other investments as well due
to scarcity of resources.
(c) Capital budgeting is not
reversible:
Once the capital budgeting decisions are taken, they are not
easily reversible. The reason is that there may neither be any market for such
second-hand capital goods nor there is any possibility of conversion of such
capital assets into other usable assets, i.e., the only remedy is to
dispose-off the same sustaining a heavy loss to the firm.
(d) They are actually the most
difficult decisions:
Capital investment decisions are, no doubt, the most significant
since they are very difficult to make. It is because of the fact that their
assessment depends on the future uncertain events and activities of the firm.
Similarly, it is practically a difficult task to estimate the accurate future
benefits and costs in terms of money as there are economical, political and
technological forces which affect the said benefits and costs.
The
rationale behind the capital budgeting decisions is efficiency. A firm has to
continuously invest in new plant or machinery for expansion of its operations
or replace worn out machinery for maintaining and improving efficiency. The
main objective of the firm is to maximize profit either by way of increased revenue
or by cost reduction. Broadly, there are two types of capital budgeting
decisions which expand revenue or reduce cost
1. Investment
decisions affecting revenue: It
includes all those investment decisions which are
expected to bring additional revenue by raising the size of firm’s total
revenue. It is possible either by expansion of present operations or the
development of new product in line. In both the cases fixed assets are
required.
2.
Investment decisions reducing costs; It includes all those decisions of the firms
which reduces the total cost and leads to increase in its total earnings i.e.
when an asset is worn out or becomes outdated, the firm has to decide whether
to continue with it or replace it by new machine. For this, the firm evaluates
the benefit in the form of reduction in operating costs and outlays that would
be needed to replace old machine by new one. A firm will replace an asset only when
it finds it beneficial to do so. The above decision could be followed decisions
following alternative courses: i.e., Tactical
investment decisions to
strategic investment decisions, as briefly defined below
3.
Tactical investment decisions; It includes
those investment
decisions which
generally involves a small amount of funds and does not constitute a major
departure from what the firm has been doing in the past.
4.
Strategic investment decisions: Such
decisions involve large sum of money and envisage major departure from what the
company has been doing in the past. Acceptance of strategic investment will
involve significant change in the company’s expected profits and the risk to
which these profits will be subject. These changes are likely to lead
stock-holders and creditors to revise their evaluation of the company.
# Techniques of selecting capital Budgeting
proposals-NPU Vs. IRP.
Net
Present Value
NPV and IRR are two methods for making capital-budget decisions, or choosing between alternate projects and
investments when the goal is to increase the value of the enterprise and
maximize shareholder wealth. Defining the NPV method is simple: the present value of cash inflows minus the
present value of cash outflows, which arrives at a dollar amount that is the
net benefit to the organization.
To compute NPV and apply the NPV rule, the authors of the reference textbook
define a five-step process to be used in solving problems:
1.Identify all cash inflows and cash outflows.
2.Determine an appropriate discount rate (r).
3.Use the discount rate to find the present value of all cash inflows and
outflows.
4.Add together all present values. (From the section on cash flow additivity,
we know that this action is appropriate since the cash flows have been indexed
to t = 0.)
5.Make a decision on the project or investment using the NPV rule: Say yes to a
project if the NPV is positive; say no if NPV is negative. As a tool for
choosing among alternates, the NPV rule would prefer the investment with the
higher positive NPV.
Companies often use the weighted average cost of capital, or WACC, as the
appropriate discount rate for capital projects. The WACC is a function of a
firm's capital structure (common and preferred stock and long-term debt) and
the required rates of return for these securities.
The Internal Rate of Return
The IRR, or internal rate of return, is defined as the discount rate that makes NPV = 0. Like the NPV
process, it starts by identifying all cash inflows and outflows. However,
instead of relying on external data (i.e. a discount rate), the IRR is purely a
function of the inflows and outflows of that project. The IRR rule states that
projects or investments are accepted when the project's IRR exceeds a hurdle
rate. Depending on the application, the hurdle rate may be defined as the
weighted average cost of capital.
NPV vs. IRR
Each of the two rules used for making capital-budgeting decisions has its
strengths and weaknesses. The NPV rule chooses a project in terms of net
dollars or net financial impact on the company, so it can be easier to use when
allocating capital.
However, it requires an assumed discount rate, and also assumes that this
percentage rate will be stable over the life of the project, and that cash
inflows can be reinvested at the same discount rate. In the real world, those
assumptions can break down, particularly in periods when interest rates are
fluctuating. The appeal of the IRR rule is that a discount rate need not be
assumed, as the worthiness of the investment is purely a function of the
internal inflows and outflows of that particular investment. However, IRR does
not assess the financial impact on a firm; it only requires meeting a minimum
return rate.
The NPV and IRR methods can rank two projects differently, depending on thesize
of the investment. Consequences of the IRR Method
In the previous section we demonstrated how smaller projects can have higher
IRRs but will have less of a financial impact. Timing of cash flows also
affects the IRR method.
# Dividend Policy Decisions: The
irrelevance of Dividend, Relevance of Dividend, Determinants of dividend
policy.
Dividend policy is
concerned with financial policies regarding paying cash
dividend in the
present or paying an increased dividend at a later stage. Whether to issue
dividends, and what amount, is determined mainly on the basis of the company's
unappropriated profit (excess cash) and influenced by the company's long-term
earning power. When cash surplus exists and is not needed by the firm, then
management is expected to pay out some or all of those surplus earnings in the
form of cash dividends or to repurchase the company's stock through a share
buyback program.
If there are no NPV positive opportunities, i.e. projects where returns exceed
the hurdle rate, and
excess cash surplus is not needed, then – finance theory suggests – management
should return some or all of the excess cash to shareholders as dividends. This
is the general case, however there are exceptions. For example, shareholders of
a "growth stock", expect that the company will,
almost by definition, retain most of the excess earnings so as to fund future
growth internally. By with holding current dividend payments to shareholders,
managers of growth companies are hoping that dividend payments will be
increased proportionality higher in the future, to offset the retainment of
current earnings and the internal financing of present investment projects.
Management must also choose the form of the dividend distribution,
generally as cash dividends or via a share
buyback. Various factors may be taken into consideration: where
shareholders must pay tax on
dividends, firms may elect to retain earnings or to perform a stock
buyback, in both cases increasing the value of shares outstanding.
Alternatively, some companies will pay "dividends" from stock rather than in cash; see corporate action.
Financial theory suggests that the dividend policy should be set based upon the
type of company and what management determines is the best use of those
dividend resources for the firm to its shareholders. As a general rule,
shareholders of growth companies would prefer managers to have a share buyback
program, whereas shareholders of value or secondary stocks would prefer the
management of these companies to payout surplus earnings in the form of cash
dividends.
Concept
Coming up with the dividend policy is challenging for the
directors and financial manager of a company, because different investors have different views on present cash
dividends and future capital
gains. Another confusion that pops up is regarding the extent of
effect of dividends on the share
price. Due to this controversial nature of a dividend policy it is
often called the dividend
puzzle.
Various models have been developed to help firms analyse and
evaluate the perfect dividend policy. There is no agreement between these
schools of thought over the relationship between dividends and the value of the
share or the wealth of the shareholders in other words.
One school consists of people like James E. Walter and Myron
J. Gordon (see Gordon
model), who believe that current cash dividends are less risky than
future capital gains. Thus, they say that investors prefer those firms which
pay regular dividends and such dividends affect the market price of the share.
Another school linked to Modigliani and Miller holds that investors don't really choose
between future gains and cash dividends.[1]
Relevance of dividend policy
Dividends paid by the firms are viewed positively both by the
investors and the firms. The firms which do not pay dividends are rated in
oppositely by investors thus affecting the share price. The people who support
relevance of dividends clearly state that regular dividends reduce uncertainty
of the shareholders i.e. the earnings of the firm is discounted at a lower
rate, ke thereby
increasing the market value. However, its exactly opposite in the case of
increased uncertainty due to non-payment of dividends.
Two important models supporting dividend relevance are given by
Walter and Gordon.
Walter's
model
Walter's model shows the relevance of dividend policy and its
bearing on the value of the share.
Assumptions
of the Walter modelRetained earnings are the only source of
financing investments in the firm, there is no external finance involved.
1.
The cost of capital, k e and the rate of return on investment,
r are constant i.e. even if new investments decisions are taken, the risks of
the business remains same.
2.
The firm's life is endless i.e. there is no closing down.
Basically, the firm's decision to give or not give out dividends
depends on whether it has enough opportunities to invest the retained earnings
i.e. a strong relationship between investment and dividend decisions is
considered.
Model
description
Dividends paid to the shareholders are reinvested by the
shareholder further, to get higher returns. This is referred to as the
opportunity cost of the firm or the cost of capital, kefor the firm.
Another situation where the firms do not pay out dividends, is when they invest
the profits or retained earnings in profitable opportunities to earn returns on
such investments. This rate of return r, for the firm must at least be equal to
ke. If this happens then the returns of the firm is equal to the
earnings of the shareholders if the dividends were paid. Thus, it's clear that
if r, is more than the cost of capital ke, then the returns from
investments is more than returns shareholders receive from further investments.
Walter's model says that if r<ke then the firm should distribute the profits
in the form of dividends to give the shareholders higher returns. However, if
r>ke then
the investment opportunities reap better returns for the firm and thus, the
firm should invest the retained earnings. The relationship between r and k are
extremely important to determine the dividend policy. It decides whether the
firm should have zero payout or 100% payout.
In a nutshell :
·
If r>ke, the firm should have zero payout and make
investments.
·
If r<ke, the firm should have 100% payouts and no
investment of retained earnings.
·
If r=ke, the firm is indifferent between dividends
and investments.
Mathematical
representation
MandarMathkar has given a mathematical model for the above made
statements: where,
·
P = Market price of the share
·
D = Dividend per share
·
r = Rate of return on the firm's investments
·
ke = Cost of equity
·
E = Earnings per share'
The market price of the share consists of the sum total of:
·
the present value of an infinite stream of dividends
·
the present value of an infinite stream of returns on
investments made from retained earnings.
Therefore, the market value of a share is the result of expected
dividends and capital gains according to Walter.
Criticism
Although the model provides a simple framework to explain the
relationship between the market value of the share and the dividend policy, it
has some unrealistic assumptions.
1.
The assumption of no external financing apart from retained
earnings, for the firm make further investments is not really followed in the
real world.
2.
The constant r and ke are seldom found in real life, because
as and when a firm invests more the business risks change.
Gordon's
Model
Myron J. Gordon has
also supported dividend relevance and believes in regular dividends affecting
the share price of the firm.[2]
The Assumptions
of the Gordon model
Gordon's assumptions are similar to the ones given by Walter.
However, there are two additional assumptions proposed by him:
1.
The product of retention ratio b and the rate of return r gives
us the growth rate of the firm g.
2.
The cost of capital ke, is not only constant but
greater than the growth rate i.e. ke>g.
Model
description
Investors are risk averse and believe that incomes from
dividends are certain rather than incomes from future capital gains, therefore
they predict future capital gains to be risky propositions. They discount the
future capital gains at a higher rate than the firm's earnings, thereby
evaluating a higher value of the share. In short, when retention rate
increases, they require a higher discounting rate. Gordon has given a model
similar to Waltematical formula to determine price of the share.
Mathematical
representation
The market prices of the share is calculated as follows:
Where,
·
P = Market price of the share
·
E = Earnings per share
·
b = Retention ratio (1 - payout ratio)
·
r = Rate of return on the firm's investments
·
ke = Cost of equity
·
br = Growth rate of the firm (g)
Therefore, the model shows a relationship between the payout
ratio, rate of return, cost of capital and the market price of the share.
Conclusions
on the Walter and Gordon Model
Gordon's ideas were similar to Walter's and therefore, the
criticisms are also similar. Both of them clearly state the relationship
between dividend policies and market value of the firm.
As a consequence the theory can be tested in an unambiguous way.
Irrelevance of dividend policy
The Modigliani and Miller school of thought believes that investors
do not state any preference between current dividends and capital gains. They
say that dividend policy is irrelevant and is not deterministic of the market
value. Therefore, the shareholders are indifferent between the two types of
dividends. All they want are high returns either in the form of dividends or in
the form of re-investment of retained earnings by the firm. There are two
conditions discussed in relation to this approach :
·
decisions regarding financing and investments are made and do
not change with respect to the amounts of dividends received.
·
when an investor buys and sells shares without facing any
transaction costs and firms issue shares without facing any floatation cost, it
is termed as a perfect capital market.[5]
Two important theories discussed relating to the irrelevance
approach, the residuals theory and the Modigliani and Miller approach.
Residuals
theory of dividends
One of the assumptions of this theory is that external financing
to re-invest is either not available, or that it is too costly to invest in any
profitable opportunity. If the firm has good investment opportunity available
then, they'll invest the retained earnings and reduce the dividends or give no
dividends at all. If no such opportunity exists, the firm will pay out
dividends.
If a firm has to issue securities to finance an investment, the
existence of floatation costs needs a larger amount of securities to be issued.
Therefore, the pay out of dividends depend on whether any profits are left
after the financing of proposed investments as floatation costs increases the
amount of profits used. Deciding how much dividends to be paid is not the
concern here, in fact the firm has to decide how much profits to be retained
and the rest can then be distributed as dividends. This is the theory of
Residuals, where dividends are residuals from the profits after serving
proposed investments.[6]
This residual decision is distributed in three steps:
·
evaluating the available investment opportunities to determine
capital expenditures.
·
evaluating the amount of equity finance that would be needed for
the investment, basically having an optimum finance mix.
·
cost of retained earnings<cost of new equity capital, thus
the retained profits are used to finance investments. If there is a surplus
after the financing then there is distribution of dividends.
Extension
of the theory
The dividend policy strongly depends on two things:
·
investment opportunities available to the company
·
Amount of internally retained and generated funds which lead to
dividend distribution if all possible investments have been financed.
The dividend policy of such a kind is a passive one, and doesn't
influence market price. the dividends also fluctuate every year because of
different investment opportunities every year. However, it doesn't really
affect the shareholders as they get compensated in the form of future capital
gains.
Conclusion
The firm paying out dividends is obviously generating incomes
for an investor, however even if the firm takes some investment opportunity then
the incomes of the investors rise at a later stage due to this profitable
investment.