Forums › Ask ACCA Tutor Forums › Ask the Tutor ACCA AFM Exams › Lecture note example
- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by John Moffat.
- AuthorPosts
- March 17, 2016 at 12:11 pm #306786
I have been reading Chapter 7 in your Lecture note. I’m confused about the answers of Example 7.
“F plc has in issue 8% irredeemable debentures quoted at 90 p.c. ex int.
(a) what is the return to investors ( kd ) ?”Could you provide a more detailed explaination? Thank you very much
March 18, 2016 at 7:05 am #306872In future you must ask in the Ask the Tutor Forum if you want me to answer – this forum is for students to help each other 🙂
The market value is fixed by the investors and is the PV of the future receipts discounted at their required rate of return. Since we know the future receipts ($8 per annum in perpetuity on $100 nominal, and we know the PV ($90 for $100 nominal) we can work backwards to get their required rate of return.
Have you watched the free lectures? Because it is in the lectures that we explain and expand on the lecture notes. As is written at the beginning of the notes, they are not to be used on their own – they are to be used with the lectures (and I cannot type out all the lectures here 🙂 )
Also, since it is quick revision of Paper F9, the F9 lectures on this will help you as well.March 22, 2016 at 8:41 am #307299Thanks John. And I think that I post my question in the Ask the Tutor Forum 😀
No, I have not watched free lectures since I do not have much time. Thanks for suggesting though.
I have another question regarding risk management. In an article posted on ACCA website, there is a section of manager behaviour towards risk management.
Could you please explain what does it mean by “concentrated equity stakes” and what does the whole section imply?
The section content is as follows:
“Managers who hold concentrated equity stakes in a corporation face increased levels of risk when compared to other equity holders. As discussed previously, investors hold well-diversified portfolios and face exposure to systematic risk only. But managers with concentrated equity stakes would face both systematic and unsystematic risk. Therefore, they have a greater propensity to reduce the unsystematic risk.
However, if investors do not reward corporations that are reducing unsystematic risk, because they have diversified this risk away themselves. And if a corporation’s managers use the corporation’s resources to reduce unsystematic risk, thereby reducing the corporation’s value. Then it is worth exploring under what circumstances would equity investors allow managers to act to reduce unsystematic risk and whether such actions could actually result in the value of the corporation increasing.
Stulz argues that encouraging managers to hold concentrated equity positions but allowing them to reduce unsystematic risk at the same time, may enable them to act in the best interests of the corporation and the result may be an increase in the corporate value. He explains that managers, who do not have to worry about risks that are not under their control (because they have hedged them away), would be able to focus their time, expertise and experience on the strategies and operations that they can control. This focus may result in the increase in the value of the corporation, although the impact of this increase in value is not easily measurable or directly attributable to risk management activity.
As an aside, one could pose the question, why don’t managers, who are rewarded by equity, diversify the risk of concentrated equity investments themselves? They could sell equity in their own corporation and replace it by buying equity in other corporations. In this way they do not have to hold concentrated equity positions and then would be like the normal equity holders facing only systematic risk. A research study on wealth management, which looked at concentrated equity positions and risk management, found that senior managers are reluctant to reduce their concentrated equity positions because any attempt to sell the equity would send negative signals to the markets, and cause their corporation’s value to decrease unnecessarily.
Contrary to the behaviour of managers who hold concentrated equity stakes, managers who own equity options, which will be converted into equity at a future date, will actively seek to increase the risk of a corporation rather than reduce it. Managers who hold equity options are interested in maximising the future price of the equity. Therefore in order to maximise future profits and the price of the equity, they will be more inclined to undertake risky projects (and less inclined to manage risk). Equity options, as a form of reward, have been often criticised because they do not necessarily make managers behave in the best interests of the corporation or its equity investors, but encourage them to act in an overly risky manner.”
March 22, 2016 at 1:55 pm #307803Oops! You are correct – you did post in the correct forum 🙂
(Although please do start a new thread when it is a question on a different topic)
The article is taking about managers of the company owning shares in the company but by referring to ‘a concentrated equity stake’ it is meaning that the only shares they own are those in their own company – they are not diversified.
Therefore the risk that they face is both the systematic and unsystematic risk. The danger is that they will therefore try to reduce the unsystematic risk of the company, which is not to the benefit of shareholders in general.March 23, 2016 at 8:27 am #307903Thanks John. Can you explain more details about this. How reducing unsystematic risk impact shareholder value?
March 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm #307969Because reducing the unsystematic risk will inevitably cost the company money, but does not gain anything for shareholders in general (since they will be well-diversified and not interested in the unsystematic risk).
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.