OpenTuition | ACCA | CIMA
Free ACCA and CIMA on line courses | Free ACCA, CIMA, FIA Notes, Lectures, Tests and Forums
Spread the word
Please spread the word so more students can benefit from our study materials.
If you have found OpenTuition useful, please donate
August 23, 2020 at 10:22 pm
Hi John, thank you for the lecture. Could you please give an example of how to adjust for Subsided loans, just like you did for Issue Cost. That is, the 3% (8-5) is it deducted from Base NPV directly or is it multiplied with the Debt, discounted and deducted ?
John Moffat says
August 24, 2020 at 7:31 am
The benefit of the subsidy (less the tax relief lost) is added to the base case NPV.
August 24, 2020 at 11:21 am
Thank you. Please could you use numbers.
August 24, 2020 at 3:13 pm
If the loan is $100,000 for 5 years and the subsidy is 3% and the tax rate is 30% then the benefit added to the base case NPV is 3% x $100,000 x 0.7 x the 5 year annuity factor.
August 27, 2020 at 8:39 pm
thank you John. !!! This is understood.
August 28, 2020 at 8:30 am
You are welcome 🙂
July 11, 2020 at 6:52 pm
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?
May 18, 2020 at 5:08 pm
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?
May 19, 2020 at 8:20 am
In future please ask this kind of question in the Ask the Tutor Forum, not as a comment on a lecture 🙂
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)
May 19, 2020 at 10:56 am
Thank you for your help and kindness 🙂
May 19, 2020 at 11:35 am
April 8, 2020 at 5:56 pm
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.
April 9, 2020 at 7:31 am
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.
April 9, 2020 at 2:45 pm
Thank you very much. I do recall this formulae now. Certainly, I’ll be looking into it.
Much appreciated for your help.
April 10, 2020 at 9:03 am
November 26, 2019 at 6:33 pm
Hi Sir, there is any formula to calculate Tax Shield on subsidised loan & Subsidy benefit from government loan. Thanks
April 20, 2019 at 9:00 am
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.
April 19, 2019 at 7:58 pm
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 🙁
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
September 16, 2019 at 8:40 pm
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.