Comments

  1. avatar says

    Hi Sir,

    First of all many thanks for these excellent lectures!!!

    I would like to ask a question re example 6 part (c) . You said that the market value of a share is the present value of future dividends discounted at the shareholders required rate of return. We didn’t discount the $3.19 , because we weren’t given the shareholders required rate of return or am I mixing things up ?

    Thanks

  2. Profile photo of John Moffat says

    It is not the actual growth rate in dividends that is relevant – it is the growth that shareholders expect that matters.

    Shareholders will expect dividends to grow at the same rate as the profits (and in the long term they will anyway :-) )

  3. avatar says

    Hi..

    I have a question, here you said in theory the market value is the present value of future expected dividents.
    If company is retaining all it’s earnigs then this means shareholders are not getting any dividends but the total capital in the company is increasing for which shareholders are owner of.
    In theory, how does this case effects the market value of an equity.

    Case:-Company A issue $100 shares

    Earnings $10, Divident: $0 and Retained Earnings $10
    Re (S/H req rate of return)=8%
    M.V. =?

    In theory, how does the market value is affected if we Company A pays all the earnings as dividends and zero retained earning?

    Thanks in advance for your valuable response.

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      A company cannot retain all its earning for ever!
      Shareholders would not allow them to retain all their earnings for ever – the shareholders own the company and they appoint the directors.

      They may well retain all their earnings for some years – this will lead to growth in profits, and ultimately dividends.

      The market value remains the present value of the future dividends.

      • avatar says

        Thanks for your response.

        However the situation of your response is in real world…i’m wondering how all earnings as retainted earnings will effect the MV in theory.

        I know the wealth of shareholders is increasing by that earned amount…will it last year cap + new retained earnings divide by no. of shareholders of the company?

      • Profile photo of John Moffat says

        Shareholders wealth is measured by the market value of their shares.

        In theory this is determined by the present value of expected future dividends. What I said before is the theory!
        ‘g’ in the formula is not the actual growth rate – we have absolutely no idea what the actual growth rate will be! ‘g’ is the average rate of growth that shareholders expect.

        In practice other factors affect the share price as well.

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      Of course you can! (Except, of course, you use D3 in the formula instead of D0 because we want a value at time 3)

      But why waste time? It is automatic that if shareholders expect dividends to grow then they will be expecting the share price to grow at the same rate.

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      This is rather hypothetical – the examiner has never given both for these purposes!
      (In fact I can only remember two times – both of them a very long time ago – when Gordons growth model was even relevant!)

      However, what we need is the rate of return that the company gets on reinvestment. In theory it would be the return on equity, but if he did give both then you would get credit for using either (provided you stated your assumption).

  4. Profile photo of massivecodedake says

    Hi,John.In example 6 question C , Shouldn’t the answer to be 280(1.0675)^3?According to the share price with constant growth rate model,the numerator should be D0(1+g) and I think D0 is 20(1.0675)^2 so D1is 20(1.0675)^3.Therefore the price in 2 years time should be 280(1.0675)^3.Is it my opinion correct? Thanks

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      No – the answer in the notes and the lecture is correct. The share price will be 280 (.0675)^2

      Although the numerator will indeed be 20(1.0675)^3, you are forgetting that the numerator for the current share price will be 20(1.0675). So…..the numerator will be (1.0675)^2 times the current numerator.

      Always (in theory) the share price will increase at the same growth rate p.a. as the dividend growth rate.

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      I assume you are meaning part (b) of example 6.

      Here, the shareholders are requiring a return of 14.375% (as calculated in part (b) – this is why they are prepared to pay $2.80 per share on the stock exchange). As a result the company needs to give them 14.375% and so the cost of equity is 14.375% (and here also the cost of the capital is 14.375% because there is no debt borrowing – this is dealt with in the next lecture).

      The company therefore needs to make sure that they invest the money to get a return of at least 14.375% – if they can earn more then great, if they earn less from any investment then they should not invest.
      In this case they are earning 18% from investing the money which is great.

      (In the long term it is the case that if the company is always managing to earn 18% on investments, then shareholders will eventually want a return of 18% themselves (this is due to risk and is covered in a later chapter), but from year to year this certainly need not be the case.)

      I hope that makes some sense :-)

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      You will have to be a bit more specific as to what you mean.
      For cost of capital we always want the cost to the company. Because debt interest is tax allowable, the cost to the company is the cost after tax relief (so we take the after tax interest when calculating the cost of debt).

      • avatar says

        Hi John:
        I have a much better understanding of “after-tax” cost of capital now.

        Can you clarify a few things for me;-
        1. how do you calculate the cost of preference share, dec. 2010 question # 4c? I’m not sure if I grasp the concept from the answer.
        2. Dec 2012 # 2a, is it a error that current receivables days should be 60 and not 30?
        3. Dec 2012 # 2b, i note in the answer the holding cost was not discounted. why wasn’t it?
        4. Dec 2009 # 1a, (ASOP Co) tax benefit was applied to the licencing fee. Why so? The question asked for “financing” cash flow, what is different about a financing cash flow?

        Thank you

      • Profile photo of John Moffat says

        The cost of preference share is simply the dividend/market value. They pay a constant dividend, and there is no tax relief on the dividends. The dividend is quoted as a percentage of the nominal value.

        The answer does not mention the current receivables days. It is not necessary to calculate them because we know what current receivables are from the balance sheet. (our current terms of sales are payment within 30 days, but that does not mean that everyone does pay within 30 days.)

        We never discount the holding cost in the exam. (Maybe in real life, we should, but it would be a big problem because the cost is spread day-by-day over the year and we normally only discount for whole years.)

        It is reasonable to assume (from F6) that the licencing fee is tax allowable. The reason it is needed when we are considering the cost of financing, is that although it is not relevant if we lease, it is relevant if we buy. So if we are comparing the cost of leasing with that of buying we need to take it into account.

      • avatar says

        from the info provided the examiner said we should “assume” 60 days ……. Earlier when I downloaded the examiners reports, Dec 2012 was not accessible.

        Thanks again

    • avatar says

      The market value increases at the same rate dividend increases.(refer to the eg on pg94).
      In part a, you had calculated it and its 6.75%. Hence,
      market value of share in 2yrs time
      = 2.80(1+0.0675)^2
      =$3.19

  5. avatar says

    both comments are right but i see the driving factor is the interet rate because this seems to be the determing factor in the sense that an increase in interest rate will automatically increase SH/H reguired return but a decrease will also decrease share holders return though a decrease is more demotivating to investors, since they expect their money to be worthy investing hence will bring conflict here.

  6. Profile photo of John Moffat says

    Thank you for your comments.

    You are quit right – in practice the growth in the share price is unlikely to be the same as the dividend growth rate,

    The main reason for this is that the shareholders required rate of return is likely to change – partly because general interest rates change (if interest rates in general go up then shareholders will require a higher rate of return, and vice versa), and also because the riskiness of the business might change (if the company becomes more risky then shareholders required rate of return will increase, and vice versa).

    However, if we are trying to predict the future share price, then we cannot predict what will happen to the interest rates or to the riskiness and therefore all we can do is assume that the remain the same – in which case the share price should increase at the same rate as the growth in dividends.

  7. avatar says

    Absolutely awesome.

    By the way, to answer to the 6 c I have actually used the modified version of dividend growth model.

    ie if p0 = d0(1+g)/ Ke – g , then p2 should be equal to d2(1+g)/Ke-g OR the same as saying p2= d3/Ke-g.

    As d3 is equal to d0(1+g)^3, we can get the answer to p2 which is the market value of share in two years time.

    But your explanation about market value is the present value of future dividends discounted at shareholder’s expected return and if dividends are growing at a certain growth rate and the market value should be growing at the same growth rate, says it all.

    But in practise, I believe market value and dividends are not growing exactly at the same growth rate.

    Can I please have your comments about this Mr John.

Leave a Reply