Sir, just regarding the cash flow in perpetuity – I see you didn’t have to discount CF * annuity rate. Is this because we don’t have a penultimate year (would be n=0) that we’re starting in year 1?

Hi John, Thank you very much for your lecture. I read an example in BPP text book related to APV which requires to appraise project using both NPV and APV with gearing of 50% debt: 50% equity. The project cost $100,000.

After calculating, NPV of project is $68 million. And they said that debt capital should be 84,200 (=50% (NPV + cost of project) I did not understand why debt capital comes out that way, because the company should only finance $100,000 to commence the project and so debt capital should be $50,000. Is it correct?

In future please ask this kind of question in the Ask the Tutor Forum, not as a comment on a lecture 馃檪

It depends on the exact wording of the question. Taking the project will increase the MV of the company by the PV of the future flows which is $168M and so that is why they have written that debt will need to be $84M. However all exam APV questions have been worded such as the debt raised is given as a fixed amount (which in this case would be $50M)

Hello, Thank you very much for uploading the thoroughly conducted and capturing lecture. Super helpful ;o) To enquire about part b when calculating tax shield on the irredeemable debt. Why “1/0.05” was used to arrive to $9m present value of tax saving?And what this fracture represents?

Raiding debt finance will indeed increase the cost of equity. However, according to Modigliani Miller (which is where the APV ‘rules’ come from), as explained in earlier chapters, if there was no tax then it would be irrelevant how finance were to be raised (whether all equity or part equity / part debt and the NPV would stay the same regardless. When there is tax, the WACC falls and therefore the value increases, for no other reason than the tax benefit on debt.

Thank You So much John For these great lectures! I have got something on my mind that is puzzling me a lot, you see in part (b) How can NPV stay at $19.64 when we expect the cost of equity to change as a result of raising 30m (30% of 100M) finance through debt? In other words haven’t we missed out on the effect of gearing on the investment, i.e. the cost of equity should increase – perhaps by re-gearing the asset beta of 1.5 and calculating new cost of equity to calculate a new NPV. I did that before watching you solve that example and I got really confused when I witnessed otherwise 馃檨

Or maybe Let me say what is actually bothering me. We need 100M funds, if we raise new equity its cost will be 20% and which will give an NPV of $19.64. But by raising 30M by debt finance surely will tempt the equity holders to demand a higher return but we haven’t accounted for it anywhere. I have no problem with tax saving though. I am lost I guess, I would really appreciate if you could guide me on this. Cheers

Because the first part always assumes all equity finance! Regardless the financing arrangement, when solving for APV, the first step is to calculate the PV assuming all equity finance. therefore the answer to first step will stay the same regardless the change in gearing level.

We use cookies to improve your experience on our site and to show you relevant advertising. To find out more, read our updated privacy policy and cookie policy.OkRead more

SayuriFan15 says

Sir,

just regarding the cash flow in perpetuity – I see you didn’t have to discount CF * annuity rate. Is this because we don’t have a penultimate year (would be n=0) that we’re starting in year 1?

ngoquynh1224 says

Hi John,

Thank you very much for your lecture.

I read an example in BPP text book related to APV which requires to appraise project using both NPV and APV with gearing of 50% debt: 50% equity.

The project cost $100,000.

After calculating, NPV of project is $68 million. And they said that debt capital should be 84,200 (=50% (NPV + cost of project)

I did not understand why debt capital comes out that way, because the company should only finance $100,000 to commence the project and so debt capital should be $50,000. Is it correct?

Thank you!

John Moffat says

In future please ask this kind of question in the Ask the Tutor Forum, not as a comment on a lecture 馃檪

It depends on the exact wording of the question. Taking the project will increase the MV of the company by the PV of the future flows which is $168M and so that is why they have written that debt will need to be $84M. However all exam APV questions have been worded such as the debt raised is given as a fixed amount (which in this case would be $50M)

ngoquynh1224 says

Thank you for your help and kindness 馃檪

John Moffat says

You are welcome 馃檪

daivaa says

Hello,

Thank you very much for uploading the thoroughly conducted and capturing lecture. Super helpful ;o)

To enquire about part b when calculating tax shield on the irredeemable debt.

Why “1/0.05” was used to arrive to $9m present value of tax saving?And what this fracture represents?

Thank you very much for your response in advance.

John Moffat says

1/r is the discount factor for a perpetuity, where r is the discount rate.

If you are unsure about this then please do watch the Paper MA (was F2) lectures on discounting.

daivaa says

Thank you very much. I do recall this formulae now. Certainly, I’ll be looking into it.

Much appreciated for your help.

John Moffat says

You are welcome 馃檪

arjun585 says

Hi Sir, there is any formula to calculate Tax Shield on subsidised loan & Subsidy benefit from government loan. Thanks

John Moffat says

Raiding debt finance will indeed increase the cost of equity. However, according to Modigliani Miller (which is where the APV ‘rules’ come from), as explained in earlier chapters, if there was no tax then it would be irrelevant how finance were to be raised (whether all equity or part equity / part debt and the NPV would stay the same regardless. When there is tax, the WACC falls and therefore the value increases, for no other reason than the tax benefit on debt.

endless says

Thank You So much John For these great lectures!

I have got something on my mind that is puzzling me a lot, you see in part (b) How can NPV stay at $19.64 when we expect the cost of equity to change as a result of raising 30m (30% of 100M) finance through debt? In other words haven’t we missed out on the effect of gearing on the investment, i.e. the cost of equity should increase – perhaps by re-gearing the asset beta of 1.5 and calculating new cost of equity to calculate a new NPV. I did that before watching you solve that example and I got really confused when I witnessed otherwise 馃檨

Or maybe Let me say what is actually bothering me. We need 100M funds, if we raise new equity its cost will be 20% and which will give an NPV of $19.64. But by raising 30M by debt finance surely will tempt the equity holders to demand a higher return but we haven’t accounted for it anywhere. I have no problem with tax saving though. I am lost I guess, I would really appreciate if you could guide me on this. Cheers

badare says

Because the first part always assumes all equity finance!

Regardless the financing arrangement, when solving for APV, the first step is to calculate the PV assuming all equity finance.

therefore the answer to first step will stay the same regardless the change in gearing level.