UoLs Flashcards
According to Modigliani and Miller, capital structure policy and payout policy are irrelevant.
Both payout and capital structure policy are irrelevant because they are purely financial transactions, they neither create nor destroy value. As long as the firm invests in all positive NPV projects, the firm will maximise value and payouts. Capital structure just determines how the total investment necessary is split among different investors, while payout determines how the total payout is split among different investors.
One reason capital structure policy may be relevant is due to taxes. Discuss another alternative reason.
There are multiple reasons why M&M fails in the real world. Among them are risk shifting, debt overhang, insufficient effort, perks and diversion of cashflows, and asymmetries of information.
Ex.: Ross (1977) asymmetry of information - signalling of the firm’s value to the market through debt financing (manager’s decision)
One reason payout policy may be relevant is due to taxes. Discuss an alternative reason.
Dividends may be used as a costly signal to inform the market of the firms quality. Only good firms can afford to pay high dividends due to either bankruptcy costs or high taxes. Bad firms would not imitate.
Many valuable takeovers may not occur due to the free-rider problem.
The free-rider problem is that when a raider who can raise firm value makes a bid on a firm, the current shareholders know that if they do not sell and the bid is successful they will benefit from the value added. Thus many refuse to sell their shares unless the price is very
high. However, if the price is very high than the raider does not benefit so no raid occurs. Thus efficient, NPV rising raids may not occur.
What are the empirical facts regarding the stock returns of the participants in the takeover (bidder and target). Is this consistent with the free-rider problem?
The free rider problem suggests that after a takeover announcement the bidder’s returns are negative and the acquired firm positive; this is consistent with the data. In the data shareholders of target firms gain from takeovers as they receive a high premium on the shares when they are sold/taken over. For bidding firms – results are mixed. Cash offer appears to have no significant impact on the bidder’s return. Share exchange on the other hand seems to suggest a decline in the bidder’s share price and return.
Other studies look at operating performance of mergers, rather than market values. Here the evidence too, is mixed. Some studies find improvements in operating performance (namely, higher return on assets, profit) but others find no improvement.
Describe one possible solution to the free-rider problem. (takeover situation)
Grossman and Hart (1980) suggested a dilution mechanism: any mechanism that would allow the raider to take value away from any shareholders who held out and did not sell their shares if the raider was successful in acquiring enough shares to buy a controlling stake in the firm. For example, allowing the raider to force any holdouts to sell shares to him at a low price once he is in control is a dilution mechanism. The reason this works is that old shareholders know that if they hold out and do not sell their shares during the raid, they may suffer after the raid. Thus they choose to sell their shares and the efficient raid occurs. Another potential solution to the free-rider problem is to accumulate shares in secret. It works because prior to the raid becoming public information, the firm price is low as it is an inefficient firm. If the raider can acquire a lot of shares at this time, secretly, he does not need to pay a high price for most shares. After the raid becomes public, the free-rider problem will still occur and he will have to pay a premium for the remaining shares. However, he does not need to buy very many more shares to get to a majority, therefore the raid may still be worth it.
Briefly explain the intuition behind the CAPM. According to the CAPM, which characteristic explains whether an asset should have a high or a low return?
The CAPM is an equilibrium model based on certain assumptions about preferences about risk. The intuition is that the average agent holds the market portfolio, therefore any asset with a positive covariance with the market portfolio does poorly when the agent does poorly and is therefore bad insurance. Such assets should have low prices and high returns. Thus, according to the CAPM, the only characteristic that matters for asset pricing is an asset’s covariance with the market, or equivalently its beta. Assets with high beta should have high expected returns.
Discuss empirical evidence regarding the CAPM. Are there certain assets for which the CAPM appears wrong?
There are multiple anomalies discussed in the subject guide for which the CAPM does not seem to work. Among these are the small stock premium, the value premium, and momentum.
Roll’s critique
The CAPM says that the only thing that matters is covariance with the market portfolio. However, according to Rolls critique, we do not actually observe the true market portfolio. We observe the return on a public equity market such as the S&P500, whereas the true market portfolio may contain private equity, corporate debt, real estate, and labour income. Thus, we cannot really determine that the anomalies disprove the CAPM.
Jill Crener, the host of TV show Crazy Cash, gives stock recommendations every day and insists following these recommendations will beat the market.
If Jill’s strategies are indeed profitable than the market is not efficient since everyone has access to them. However, more likely she is just crazy and the recommendations are not profitable.
Inintech announces that it has discovered a cure for colon cancer. Its share price rises by 45%.
It appears that the market responds swiftly to an announcement, suggesting that it is consistent with the semi-strong form efficiency. The market is unlikely to be strong form efficient as the privately held information is not already in the price.
If a firm’s stock price falls by more than 2% on any given day, the return is typically positive the following day.
This is negative autocorrelation which implies that past returns are not fully incorporated in the stock price. This is a violation of weak form efficiency.
The difference between the best performing and worst performing London hedge funds was 86% in 2013.
If managers have superior or private information then this may be a violation of strong form efficiency. However, this may simply be due to luck.
Describe the Net Present Value and the Internal Rate of Return decision rules. Compare the two, does one have advantages over another?
The NPV rule is the right rule for discounting cash flows. It takes every possible cash inflow and outflow at future dates and values them as of today by discounting. If the net is positive, the project should be taken.
The IRR computes the discount rate which would make the NPV equal to zero. If the IRR is above the true discount rate, the project should be taken.
For standard projects the two give identical answers. However, for non-standard projects, where there are choices of size or magnitude, or only one project may be taken, the IRR may give misleading answers.
when we must only choose one project out of many, when the borrowing rate is different from the lending rate, when the discount rate is changing through time, when cash flows are often changing from positive to negative.
How does volatility affects call option prices?
Volatility increases the value of call options. This is because call option payoffs are convex in the underlying. As the underlying is worth more, the payoff is higher; however, if the underlying is worth less (below the strike) the payoff is still the same – zero. Thus increasing volatility increases the probability of very low and very high payoffs of the underlying. Low and very low payoffs are equally painful as they result in zero; however, high payoffs are not as good as very high payoffs.