全部版块 我的主页
论坛 金融投资论坛 六区 金融学(理论版)
4370 9
2007-05-25

A公司目前的资本金完全由股本构成,权益价值为4000万元.股权成本为15%,不存在税收.A公司计划发行1000万元的债券用于回购股票,债务成本为10%.请计算回购股票后的权益成本是多少?并对计算结果进行解释.如果公司所得税20%,那又如何

请达人解达,虽然原理我懂,但一碰上计算我就有点晕

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

全部回复
2007-5-25 13:38:00

回购后的权益成本是550万元,因为回购后的权益金额为3000万元,债券是1000万元,两者的成本相加即得。如果税率是20%的话,债券是税后分红,所以总权益成本是561万元。

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2007-5-25 21:34:00

好象不是这样算的感觉

因为它要求计算的不是整个资金成本,且根据MM理论,如考虑税盾效应,则回购股票后资金成本应该下降~~恩 达人加油哦~~呵呵

谢谢大家了

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2007-5-26 10:01:00

MM Propositions

The theorem is made up of two propositions which can also be extended to a situation with taxes.

Consider two firms which are identical except for their financial structures. The first (Firm U) is unlevered: that is, it is financed by equity only. The other (Firm L) is levered: it is financed partly by equity, and partly by debt. The Modigliani-Miller theorem states that the value of the two firms is the same.

Without taxes

Proposition I: where VU is the value of an unlevered firm = price of buying a firm composed only of equity, and VL is the value of a levered firm = price of buying a firm that is composed of some mix of debt and equity.

To see why this should be true, suppose an investor is considering buying one of the two firms U or L. Instead of purchasing the shares of the levered firm L, he could purchase the shares of firm U and borrow the same amount of money B that firm L does. The eventual returns to either of these investments would be the same. Therefore the price of L must be the same as the price of U minus the money borrowed B, which is the value of L's debt.

This discussion also clarifies the role of some of the theorem's assumptions. We have implicitly assumed that the investor's cost of borrowing money is the same as that of the firm, which need not be true in the presence of asymmetric information or in the absence of efficient markets.

Proposition II:

  • rS is the cost of equity.
  • r0 is the cost of capital for an all equity firm.
  • rB is the cost of debt.
  • B / S is the debt-to-equity ratio.

This proposition states that the cost of equity is a linear function of the firm's debt to equity ratio. A higher debt-to-equity ratio leads to a higher required return on equity, because of the higher risk involved for equity-holders in a company with debt. The formula is derived from the theory of weighted average cost of capital.

These propositions are true assuming the following assumptions:

  • no taxes exist,
  • no transaction costs exist, and
  • individuals and corporations borrow at the same rates.

These results might seem irrelevant (after all, none of the conditions are met in the real world), but the theorem is still taught and studied because it tells us something very important. That is, if capital structure matters, it is precisely because one or more of the assumptions is violated. It tells us where to look for determinants of optimal capital structure and how those factors might affect optimal capital structure.

With taxes

Proposition I:

  • VL is the value of a levered firm.
  • VU is the value of an unlevered firm.
  • TCB is the tax rate (TC) x the value of debt (B)

This means that there are advantages for firms to be levered, since corporations can deduct interest payments. Therefore leverage lowers tax payments. Dividend payments are non-deductible.

Proposition II:

  • rS is the cost of equity.
  • r0 is the cost of capital for an all equity firm.
  • rB is the cost of debt.
  • B / S is the debt-to-equity ratio.
  • Tc is the tax rate.

The same relationship as earlier described stating that the cost of equity rises with leverage, because the risk to equity rises, still holds. The formula however has implications for the difference with the WACC.

The following assumptions are made in the propositions with taxes:

  • corporations are taxed at the rate TC on earnings after interest,
  • no transaction cost exist, and
  • individuals and corporations borrow at the same rate
二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2007-5-26 22:25:00

谢谢WARECUCFF的解答,我所看到的MM理论从来都是只有最基本的结论,现在的我感觉自己以前的理解上有误区,请问WARECUCFF,一个公司价值是如何衡量呢,不是从WACC来考虑吗?还有能把这道题怎么做告诉我吗,呵呵,这样我觉得好理解点,谢谢!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

2007-5-26 22:25:00

谢谢WARECUCFF的解答,我所看到的MM理论从来都是只有最基本的结论,现在的我感觉自己以前的理解上有误区,请问WARECUCFF,一个公司价值是如何衡量呢,不是从WACC来考虑吗?还有能把这道题怎么做告诉我吗,呵呵,这样我觉得好理解点,谢谢!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

二维码

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明:姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格,未注明则拒绝

点击查看更多内容…
相关推荐
栏目导航
热门文章
推荐文章

说点什么

分享

扫码加好友,拉您进群
各岗位、行业、专业交流群