Comments

  1. avatar says

    Hi Sir,

    Can you please explain why indirect costs are not considered when computing the NPV. Is this because they are not related to the Project, for which we compute the NPV?

    I want to have a clear understanding with respect to indirect costs definition.

    Thank you
    Kind regards,

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      We are only concerned with extra cash flows to the company as a result of doing the project. It does not matter whether costs are direct or indirect.

      What you do have to be careful about are indirect fixed costs. If total fixed costs to the company change, then the extra is relevant. However, if all that is happening is that some of an existing fixed total is being allocated to the project for profit purposes then it is not relevant – we can allocate fixed costs any we want for profit purposes, but it is only if the total changes as a result of doing the project that we bring it in for NPV calculations.

  2. avatar says

    Interested in your comment at the end of the example in which you suggest that MM proposition 2 is implied by CAPM and gearing equations already discussed. When I try and work through this myself I end up with a similar formulae but instead of (ke – kd) I have Market Premium. I can sort of see that ungeared return on equity less cost of risk free debt is similar to the market premium but this is only applied to one company not to the market. Is this a question of interpretation or am I just completely missing something?

    Thank you for the great lectures!

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      If it is ungeared then then Ke – Rf will be different from the market premium because of the risk of the business (the asset beta). If it is geared, then the gearing has a multiplier effect and the excess over risk free will be higher.

  3. avatar says

    Sir,
    The Debt : Equity ratio is 0.4 as per the example. Please explain me how did you work out the Vd as 40% and Ve as 100% ?

    I have worked out the Ke as 0.15+0.7 x(0.15-0.08)x 0.4/0.6 = 18.26%
    and WACC 13.2%

  4. avatar says

    Hi Tutor ,
    In the example for debt/equity ratio 0.4 you said debt is 40% and equity is 60% , so if the D/E =0.6 does that imply the debt is 60% and equity 40%? and if D/E 0.25 – debt is 25% and equity 75%?

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      I don’t think that I did say that, and I certainly used the correct figures in the example.

      A debt/equity ratio of 0.4 does not mean that debt is 40% and equity 60% (if that was the case, the ratio would be 40/60!)

      • avatar says

        Hi Tutor ,

        My apologies in advance for asking a silly question.For a given gearing ratio ( Vd/Ve ) = 0.4 , how did you work out the Vd as 40% and Ve as 100% ?

    • Profile photo of amirali92 says

      If the given gearing ratio (Ve/Vd) = 0.4, this simply means the Value of Debt (Vd) = 40 and the Value of Equity (Ve) = 100. [i.e: 40/100]

      If you decide to use the gearing ratio of (Ve/(Ve+Vd), your argument above [stating: Ve=40 and Vd=60] stands correct. i.e: 40/(40+60).

      In conclusion, the above query you’ve put forward suggests the Debt Value being 40 and the Equity Value being 100 as explained in the first paragraph.

      I hope I answered the question.

    • Profile photo of John Moffat says

      No – there is not a specific lecture.

      However the only extra technique needed is to be able to forecast future exchange rates using the purchasing power parity formula. This was covered in F9 and there is a chapter revising it in the P4 course notes.

      Otherwise it is a question is setting up the foreign cash flows in exactly the normal way, but in the foreign currency. Then converting the foreign currency to the home currency using the forecast exchange rates. Then adding any other cash flows that there may be in the home currency, and then discounting.

      It can get very messy, but the problem is more just the arithmetic involved then any extra special technique.

  5. avatar says

    You put my lecturers to shame with your skill at explaining things. I think it’s because you undoubtedly understand (extremely well) what it is you are teaching.Thanks so much

Leave a Reply