Financial Discount Rates in Project Appraisal
In the financial appraisal of a project, the cashflow statements are constructed
from two points of view: the Total Investment (TI) Point of View and the Equity
Point of View. One of the most important issues is the estimation of the correct
financial discount rates for the two points of view. In the presence of taxes, the benefit
of the tax shield from the interest deduction may be excluded or included in the free
cashflow (FCF) of the project. Depending on whether the tax shield is included or
excluded, the formulas for the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) will be
different. In this paper, using some......
Financial Discount
Rates in Project Appraisal
Joseph Tham
Abstract
In the financial appraisal of a project, the cashflow statements are constructed
from two points of view: the Total Investment (TI) Point of View and the Equity
Point of View. One of the most important issues is the estimation of the correct
financial discount rates for the two points of view. In the presence of taxes, the benefit
of the tax shield from the interest deduction may be excluded or included in the free
cashflow (FCF) of the project. Depending on whether the tax shield is included or
excluded, the formulas for the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) will be
different. In this paper, using some basic ideas of valuation from corporate finance,
the estimation of the financial discount rates for cashflows in perpetuity and single-
period cashflows will be illustrated with simple numerical examples.
INTRODUCTION
In the manual on cost-benefit analysis by Jenkins and Harberger (Chapter
3:12, 1997), it is stated that the construction of the financial cashflow statements
should be conducted from two points of view:
1. The Total Investment (or Banker’s) Point of View and
2. The Owner’s (or Equity) Point of View.
The purpose of the Total Investment Point of View is to “determine the overall
strength of the project.” See Jenkins & Harberger (Chapter 3:12, 1997). Also, see
Bierman & Smidt (pg 405, 1993). In practical project appraisal, the manual suggests
that it would be useful to analyze a project by constructing the cashflow statements
from the two points of view because “it allows the analyst to determine whether the
parties involved will find it worthwhile to finance, join or execute the project”. See
Jenkins & Harberger (Chapter 3:11, 1997). For a recent example of the application of
this approach in project appraisal, see Jenkins & Lim (1988).
In practical terms, the relevance and need to construct and distinguish these
two points of view in the process of project selection is unclear. That is, under what
circumstances would we prefer to use the present value of the cashflow statement
from the total investment point of view (CFS-TIP) rather than the present value of the
cashflow statement from the equity point of view (CFS-EPV)? Jenkins & Harberger
provide no discussion or guidance on the estimation of the appropriate discount rates
for the two points of view. The conspicuous absence of a discussion on the
estimation and calculation of the appropriate financial discount rates from the two
points of view is understandable. See Tham (1999). Within the traditional context of
project appraisal, the relative importance of the economic opportunity cost of capital,
as opposed to the financial cost of capital, has always been higher. However, in some
cases, the financial cost of capital may be as important, if not more, in order to assess
and ensure the financial sustainability of the project. Due to the lack of discussion in
the manual, we do not know the explicit (or implicit) assumptions with respect to the
relationship between the present value of the CFS-TIP and the present value of the
ProjN.Doc
CFS-EPV. For example, under what conditions would it be reasonable to assume
that equality holds between the two points of view?
Jenkins & Harberger (Chapter 3:11, 1997) write:
“If a project is profitable from the viewpoint of a banker
or the budget office but unprofitable to the owner, the
project could face problems during implementation.”
This statement suggests that, in practice, inequality in the two present values is to be
expected and could be a real possibility rather than the rare exception. However, the
statement raises many questions. If in fact there is inequality in the present values,
what is the source of the inequality? The above statement does not even hint at a
possible reason for the divergence in the two present values. What is the meaning or
interpretation of the two present values?
The interpretation of the two points of view is particularly problematic when
the present values have opposite signs. The meaning or practical significance of this
divergence for project selection is not explained nor is it grounded in any theory of
cashflow valuation. If in fact, the inequality holds, then it is conceivable that the
present value in one point of view is positive, while the present value in the other
point of view is negative or vice versa. In project selection, when would it be
desirable to prefer one present value over the other (if at all) or do both present values
have to be positive in order for a project to be selected?
The interpretation of the discrepancy between the (expected) present values in
the two points of view is even more serious when Monte Carlo simulation is
conducted on the cashflows statements because the variances of the two present
values will be different. Consequently, the risk profiles of the cashflows from the two
points of view will be different. Even with the same expected NPVs from the two
points of view, the variances of the NPV from the two points of view would be
different; the interpretation of the risk profiles will be even more difficult if the
expected values of the NPV from the two points of view are substantially different.
The objective of this paper is to apply some ideas from the literature in
corporate finance to elucidate the calculation of appropriate financial discount rates in
practical project appraisal. The Cashflow Statement from the Total Investment Point
of View (CFS-TIPV) is equivalent to the free cashflow (FCF) in corporate finance
which is defined as the “after-tax free cashflow available for payment to creditors and
shareholders.” See Copeland & Weston (pg 440, 1988). However, we have to be
careful to specify whether the CFS-TIPV (or equivalently the FCF) includes or
excludes the present value of the tax shield that arises from the interest deduction with
debt financing. The standard results of the models from corporate finance, if one were
to accept the stringent assumptions underlying the models, would suggest that the
present value from the two points of view are necessarily equal (in the absence of
taxes).
At the outset, it is very important to acknowledge that the standard
assumptions in corporate finance are very stringent and thus there is a legitimate
question about the relevance of such perfect models to practical project appraisal. It is
possible that many practitioners would consider such an application of principles from
corporate finance to project appraisal to be inappropriate. Such reservations on the
part of practitioners are fully justified. A perusal of the assumptions which would
have to hold in the Modigliani & Miller (M & M) and Capital Asset Pricing Model
(CAPM) worlds would persuade many readers that even in developed countries, most,
if not all, of the assumptions are seriously violated in practice. The violations are
Joseph Tham 2
ProjN.Doc
particularly acute in the practice of project appraisal in developing countries with
capital markets which are, at present, far from perfect and will be far from perfect in
the foreseeable future. In other words, the M & M world or the CAPM world are ideal
situations and may not correspond to the real world in any meaningful sense.
Nevertheless, these ideas are extremely important and relevant.
The basic concepts and conclusions from the models in corporate finance with
applications in project appraisal can be briefly summarized as follows.
1. We need to distinguish ρ, the return to equity with no-debt financing, and e,
the return to equity with debt financing.
2. In the absence of taxes, debt financing does not affect the value of the firm or
project.
3. The cashflow from the equity point of view with debt financing (CFS-EPV) is
more risky than the cashflow from the equity point of view with no debt
financing (CFS-AEPV).
4. In the presence of taxes, the value of the levered firm is higher than the value
of the unlevered firm by the present value of the tax shield. However, a
complete analysis suggests that it may be reasonable to assume that the overall
effect of taxes is close to zero. See Benninga (pg 257 & 259, 1997)
5. There are two ways to account for the increase in value from the tax shield.
We can either lower the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) or
include the present value of the tax shield in the cashflow statement. In terms
of valuation, both methods are equivalent. See line 18 and line 27 for
further details on the WACC.
6. With debt financing, the return to equity e is a positive function of the debt-
equity ratio, that is, the higher the debt equity ratio D/E, the higher the return
to equity e. See line 26.
I believe that the application of these concepts from corporate finance to the
estimation of financial discount rates in practical project appraisal is very relevant and
can provide a useful baseline for judging the results derived from other models with
explicit assumptions that are closer to the real world. After understanding the
calculations of the financial discount rates in the perfect world where M & M’s
theories and CAPM hold, we can begin to relax the assumptions and make serious
contributions to practical project selection in the imperfect world that is perhaps
marginally more characteristic of developing countries compared to developed
countries.
In section 1, I will briefly introduce and discuss the two points of view in the
absence of taxes. In Section 2, I will introduce the impact of taxes and review the
formulas which are widely accepted in corporate finance for the two polar cases:
cashflows of projects in perpetuity and projects with single period cashflows. See
Miles & Ezzell (pg 720, 1980). I will not derive or discuss the meanings of the
formulas. Typically, the formulas assume that the cashflows are in perpetuity and the
debt equity ratio is constant and the analysts assume that the formulas for perpetuity
are good approximations for finite cashflows.
In Section 3, I will use a simple numerical example to illustrate the application
of the formulas to cashflows in perpetuity. In Section 4, I will apply the same
formulas to a single-period example and compare the results with the results from
Section 3. Even though it is not technically correct, in the following discussion I will
use the terms “firm” and “project” interchangeably.
Joseph Tham 3
ProjN.Doc
SECTION 1: Two Points of View
A simple example would illustrate the difference between the two points of
view in the financial analysis. Suppose there is a single-period project which requires
an investment of $1,000 at the end of year 0 and provides a return of $1,200 at the end
of year 1. For now, we will assume that the inflation rate is zero and there are no
taxes. Later we will examine the impact of taxes. The CFS-TIPV for the simple
project is shown below.
Table 1.1: Cashflow Statement, Total Investment Point of View (CFS-TIPV)
End of year>> 0 1
Revenues 0 1,200
Investment 1,000 0
NCF (TIPV) -1,000 1,200
The rate of return from the TIPV = (1,200 - 1,000) = 20.00%. (1)
1,000
Now if there was no debt financing for this project, the CFS-TIPV would
apply to the equity holder, that is, the equity holder would invest $1,000 at the end of
year 0 and receive $1,200 at the end year 1.
Table 1.2: Cashflow Statement, All-Equity Point of View (CFS-AEPV)
End of year>> 0 1
Revenues 0 1,200
Investment 1,000 0
NCF (AEPV) -1,000 1,200
Thus, in this special case with no taxes, the CFS-AEPV will be identical with
the CFS-TIPV. Compare Table 1.1 and Table 1.2. We will see later that with taxes,
there will be a divergence between the CFS-AEPV and the CFS-TIPV.
Suppose the minimum required return on all-equity financing ρ is 20%. Then
this project would be acceptable. In this special case, for simplicity, the value of ρ
was chosen to make the NPV of the CFS-AEPV at ρ to be zero.
The PV in year 0 of the CFS-AEPV in year 1 is
= 1,200 = 1,000.00 (2)
1 + 20%
The NPV in year 0 of the CFS-AEPV is
= 1,200 - 1,000 = 0.00 (3)
1 + 20%
Joseph Tham 4
ProjN.Doc
Later, we consider an example where the NPV is positive. See line 21. Next, we will
consider the effect of debt financing on the construction of the cashflow statements
from the two points of view.
Debt financing
Suppose, to finance the project, we borrow 40% of the investment cost at an
interest rate of 8%.
Debt (as a percent of initial investment) = 40% (4)
Equity (as a percent of initial investment) = 1- 40% = 60% (5)
Debt-Equity Ratio = 40% = 0.667 (6)
60%
Amount of debt, D = 40%*1000 = 400.00 (7)
At the end of year 1, the principal plus the interest accrued will be repaid.
Repayment in year 1 = D*(1 + d) = 432.00 (8)
The loan schedule is shown below.
Table 1.3: Loan Schedule
End of year>> 0 1
Repayment 0 -432
Loan 400 0
Financing @ 8% 400 -432
We can obtain the Cashflow Statement from the Equity Point of View (CFS-
EPV) by combining the CFS-TIPV with the cashflow of the loan schedule. The CFS-
EPV is shown below.
Table 1.4: Cashflow Statement, Equity Point of View (CFS-EPV)
End of year>> 0 1
NCF (TIPV) -1,000 1,200
Financing 400 -432
NCF (EPV) -600 768
The rate of return (ROR) for the CFS-EPV,
e = (768 - 600)/600 = 28.00%. (9)
Joseph Tham 5
ProjN.Doc
With 40% financing, the equity holder invests only 600 at the end of year 0
and receives 768 at the end of year 1.
Note the difference between CFS-AEPV and CFS-EPV (Compare Table 1.2
and Table 1.4). With debt financing, the risk is higher for the equity holder and thus
the return must be higher to compensate for the higher risk. See Levy & Sarnat (pg
376, 1994)
The critical question is: what should be the appropriate financial discount rate
for the cashflow statements from the two points of view. We will apply M & M’s
theory which asserts that, in the absence of taxes, the value of the levered firm should
be equal to the value of the unlevered firm. That is, financing does not affect
valuation.
Value of unlevered firm, (VUL)
= (VL), Value of levered firm (10)
In turn, the value of the levered firm is equal to the value of the equity (EL) and the
value of the debt D.
(VL) = (EL) + D (11)
In other words, in the absence of taxes, the correct discount rate for the CFS-TIPV is
equal to the required return on all-equity financing, namely ρ.
The discount rate w for the CFS-TIPV is also commonly known as the
Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). The present value of the cashflow
statement from the all-equity point of view at ρ is equal to the present value of the
cashflow statement from the total investment point of view discounted at the WACC.
See equation 12 below.
PV[CFS-AEPV]@ ρ = PV[CFS-TIP]@ w (12)
In present value terms, we can also write the following equivalent expression
for line 11. The present value of the CFS-TIP is equal to the present value of the
equity in the levered firm plus the present value of the debt.
PV[CFS-TIP]@ w = PV[CFS-EPV]@ e + PV[CFS-Loan]@ d (13)
Combining equations (12) and (13), we can write the following expression,
PV[CFS-AEPV]@ ρ = PV[CFS-EPV]@ e + PV[CFS-Loan]@ d (14)
The present value of the cashflow statement with all-equity financing is equal to the
present value of the equity cashflow plus the present value of the loan.
We can verify the above identity in the context of the simple example above.
Compare line 2 and line 15.
Joseph Tham 6
ProjN.Doc
PV[Cashflow]TIP@ ρ = 1,200 = 1,000.00 (15)
1 + 20%
The present value of the CFS-TIP, discounted at ρ, is 1,000; as shown below
in line 16 and line 17, the present value of the CFS-EPV at e, is 600, and the present
value of the loan repayment at d is 400, respectively.
PV[Cashflow]Equity@ e = 768 = 600.00 (16)
1 + 28%
PV[Cashflow]Loan@ d = 432 = 400.00 (17)
1 + 8%
What these calculations show is a simple but powerful idea. It has been shown
numerically that the discount rate w for CFS-TIP is a weighted average of the return
on equity and the cost of debt; the value of weights are based on the relative values of
the debt and equity. It is easy to confirm the above statements with algebra. We
simply provide a simple numerical confirmation of the fact that the WACC is equal to
ρ. See equation 1 and Table 1.2.
w = Percent Equity*Return on Equity + Percent Debt *Cost of Debt
= %E*e + %D*d
= 60%*28% + 40%*8% = 16.80% + 3.20% = 20.00% (18)
We can also use a well-known expression to calculate the value of e. Note that the
following expression for e in line 19 is a function of the return to all-equity financing
ρ, the cost of debt d, and the debt equity ratio D/E.
e = ρ + (ρ - d)*D
E
= 20% + (20% - 8%)*40%
60%
= 20% + 8.00% = 28.00% (19)
Again, this calculation of the value of e in line 19 matches the previous calculation.
See Table 1.4 and compare line 19 with line 9.
Cashflow with positive NPV
In the previous example, we had chosen specific numerical values to ensure
that the NPV of the CFS-AEPV was zero. See line 3. In practice, it would be rare to
find a project whose NPV was exactly zero. Instead, suppose that the annual revenues
was 1,250. Then the cashflow statement would be as shown in Table 1.5.
Table 1.5: Cashflow Statement, All-Equity Point of View (CFS-AEPV)
Joseph Tham 7
ProjN.Doc
End of year>> 0 1
Revenues 0 1,250
Investment 1,000 0
NCF (AEPV) -1,000 1,250
The rate of return (ROR) for the CFS-AEPV,
= (1,250 - 1,000) = 25.00%. (20)
1,000
In this case, the rate of return of the CFS-AEPV is greater than ρ. Compare line 20
with line 1.
In year 0, the NPV of the CFS-AEPV is
= 1,250 - 1,000 = 41.67 (21)
1 + 20%
Compare line 21 with line 3. In year 0, the PV of the CFS-AEPV in year 1
= 1,250 = 1,041.67 (22)
1 + 20%
Compare line 22 with line 2. Since the NPV of the CFS-AEPV is positive in line 21,
we have to make an adjustment in the calculation of the WACC. In the calculation of
the total value of the debt plus equity, we have to use the total value of 1,041.67 in
line 22 and recalculate the percentage of debt and equity.
Debt (as a percent of total value) = 400 = 38.40% (23)
1,041.67
Equity (as a percent of total value) = 1 - 38.40% = 61.60% (24)
Debt-Equity Ratio = 38.40% = 0.623 (25)
61.60%
Thus, the percentage of debt as a percentage of the total value is 38.40% and
not 40%. Compare line 23, line 24 and line 25 with line 4, line 5 and line 6
respectively.
Also, we have to recalculate the return to equity e with the new debt-equity
ratio.
e = ρ + (ρ - d)*D
E
= 20% + (20% - 8%)*38.40%
Joseph Tham 8
ProjN.Doc
61.60%
= 20% + 7.48% = 27.48% (26)
Using the revised debt and equity ratios and the return to equity, we can
calculate the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC).
w = Percent Equity*Return on Equity + Percent Debt *Cost of Debt
= %E*e + %D*d
= 61.60%*27.48% + 38.40%*8%
= 16.93% + 3.07% = 20.00% (27)
As expected, the WACC in line 27 is equal to the WACC in line 18 and the
value of ρ in line 1. Using the value of WACC, we can find the PV of the CFS-TIP in
year 1
= 1,250 = 1,041.67 (28)
1 + 20%
The results of the two cases are summarized in the following table. Case 1 is the
original numerical example with zero NPV (See line 3) and Case 2 is the numerical
example with positive NPV (See line 21) In practice, it is the rare case where the NPV
is zero; however, as shown here, with a positive NPV, we simply have to adjust the
debt and equity ratios by using the value shown in line 28.
Table 1.6: Summary results for case 1 (NPV = 0) and case 2 (NPV > 0)
Case1 Case1 Case2 Case2
No debt With debt No debt With debt
%Debt 0% 40% 0% 38.40%
%Equity 100% 60% 100% 61.60%
D/E Ratio 0.00 0.667 0.00 0.623
Equity Return 20% 28% 25% 27.48%
WACC ********** 20% ********** 20%
Net Present Value 0.00 0.00 41.67 41.67
PV of Cashflow 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,041.67 1,041.67
In summary, the above numerical example demonstrates that the present value
of the CFS-TIP at the WACC is equal to the present value of the CFS-EPV (Table
1.4) plus the present value of the loan repayment (Table 1.3).
Joseph Tham 9
ProjN.Doc
In this section, we had assumed that there were no taxes. In the next section,
we will examine the complications that arise in the presence of taxes. With taxes,
there are similar formulas for the calculation of the WACC.
SECTION II: Impact of taxes
In the previous example we did not have taxes. With taxes, some adjustments
have to be made in the above formulas. Because of the tax benefit from the interest
deduction, it can be shown that the value of the levered firm is equal to the value of
the unlevered firm plus the present value of the tax shield. See any standard corporate
finance textbook. In particular, see Copeland & Weston (pg 442, 1988)
Value of levered firm
= Value of unlevered firm + Present Value of Tax Shield
(VL) = (VU) + PV(Tax Shield) (29)
= (EL) + D (30)
Compare line 30 with line 11. With debt financing, the value of the equity is increased
by the present value of the tax shield.
It is commonly assumed that the appropriate discount rate for the tax shield is
d, the cost of debt. See Copeland & Weston (pg 442, 1988) and Brealey & Myers (pg
476, ) With taxes, there are two equivalent ways of expressing the CFS-TIP. In
constructing the Total Investment Cashflow, we can either exclude or include the
effect of the tax shield in the CFS-TIP. If we do not include the tax shield in the
cashflow, then the Total Investment Cashflow would be identical to the all-equity
cashflow CFS-AEPV. Thus, we will use the following abbreviations.
CFS-AEPV = Cashflow Statement without the tax shield.
CFS-TIP = Cashflow Statement with the tax shield
The value of the WACC that is used for discounting the Total Investment
Cashflow will depend on whether the tax shield is excluded or included. See Levy &
Sarnat (pg 488, 1994) If the tax shield is excluded, then in the construction of the
income statement, the interest deduction will be excluded in order to determine the
tax liability as if there was no debt financing. If the tax shield is included, then in the
construction of the income statement, the interest deduction will be included in order
to determine the correct tax liability.
Method 1: Excluding the tax shield and using CFS-AEPV
Line 31 and line 32 show the equations for calculating w and e in the traditional
approach. Since the cashflow statement does not include the tax shield, the value of
the tax shield is taken into account in the WACC by multiplying the cost of debt d by
the factor (1 - t).
w = Percent Equity*Return on Equity + Percent Debt *Cost of Debt*(1 - tax rate)
Joseph Tham 10
ProjN.Doc
w = %E*e + %D*d*(1 - t) (31)
e = ρ + (1 - t)*(ρ - d)*D (32)
E
Compare line 31 with line 18; and compare line 32 with line 19. The value of
the equity E includes the present value of the tax shield and thus the debt and equity
ratios will be different from the original values. Similarly, in the expression for the
return to equity in line 32, there is the additional factor (1-t).
Method 2: Including the tax shield and using CFS-TIP
In this case the cashflow statement includes the value of the tax shield.
Consequently, unlike in Method 1, there is no need to adjust the expressions for the
calculation of the WACC and the return to equity e. The appropriate formulas are
shown in line 33 and line 34.
w = Percent Equity*Return on Equity + Percent Debt *Cost of Debt
w = %E*e + %D*d (33)
e = ρ + (1 - t) (ρ - d)*D (34)
E
Compare line 31 with line 33 and compare line 32 with line 34. Note that line 33 is
the same as line 18. There is no difference between line 32 and line 34. Again,
note that the value of the equity E in line 31 to line 34 includes the present value of
the tax shield and thus the debt and equity ratios will be different from the original
values. For further details, see line 42 and line 43 below.
In terms of valuation, it makes no difference whether method 1 or method 2 is
used. In the past, method 1 was preferred because it was computationally simpler. See
Levy & Sarnat (pg 489, 1944). However, these days, computation time is probably
not a relevant consideration.
SECTION III: Cashflows in perpetuity
In this section, we will apply the above formulas to a specific numerical
example. We will continue to assume that the inflation rate is zero. The corporate tax
rate is 40%. The framework in this section, with all the standard assumptions, is based
on Copeland & Weston (pg 442, 1988). We will compare the cashflow statements
with and without debt financing.
Assume that a simple project generates annual revenues of 11,000 in
perpetuity. The annual operating costs are 3,000. To maintain the constant annual
revenues, the annual reinvestment will be equal to the annual depreciation which is
assumed to be 2,000. With the reinvestment assumption, the annual Net Operating
Joseph Tham 11
ProjN.Doc
Income (NOI) after tax will be equal to the annual cashflow from the Equity Point of
View. See Copeland & Weston (pg 441, 1988)
The detailed income statement for the project is shown below.
Table 3.1: Income Statement (in perpetuity)
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 15,000.00 ===>>>>
Operating Cost 3,000.00 ===>>>>
Depreciation 2,000.00 ===>>>>
Gross Margin 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Interest Deduction 00.00 ===>>>>
Net Profit before taxes 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Taxes 4,000.00 ===>>>>
Net Profit after taxes 6,000.00 ===>>>>
The Net Operating Income (NOI) before tax is 10,000; the value of the tax payments
is 4,000 and the Net Operating Income (NOI) after tax is $6,000. It is assumed that
the required return on equity with all-equity financing ρ is 6%. The detailed
cashflow statement is shown below. The annual free cashflow is 6,000. As noted
before, the annual cashflow in perpetuity is equal to the Net Operating Income (NOI)
after tax in perpetuity.
Table 3.2: Cashflow Statement, Total Investment Point of View/Equity Point of
View
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 15,000.00 ===>>>>
Total Inflows 15,000.00 ===>>>>
===>>>>
Investment 2,000.00 ===>>>>
Operating Cost 3,000.00 ===>>>>
Total Outflows 5,000.00 ===>>>>
Net Cashflow before tax 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Taxes 4,000.00 ===>>>>
Net Cashflow after tax 6,000.00 ===>>>>
The value of the unlevered cashflow is shown below.
(VUL) = NOI*(1 - t) = FCF = 10,000*(1 - 40%)
ρ ρ 6%
= 6,000.00 = 100,000.00 (35)
6%
Thus, based on the annual cashflow of 6,000 in perpetuity, the value of the
unlevered firm is 100,000.
Joseph Tham 12
ProjN.Doc
Debt Financing
Next we consider the cashflow statement with debt financing. We will assume
that the debt of the levered firm as a percent of the total value of the unlevered firm is
30%; thus, the value of the debt is 30,000. The interest rate on the debt d is 5% and
the annual interest payment on the debt
= D*d = 30,000*5% = 1,500.00. (36)
The annual tax savings is equal to t*d*D
= t*d*D = 40%*5%*30,000 = 600.00. (37)
The present value of the tax shield in perpetuity = t*D
= 40%*30,000 = 12,000.00. (38)
The income statement, with the interest deduction, is shown below.
Table 3.3: Income Statement
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 15,000.00 ===>>>>
Operating Cost 3,000.00 ===>>>>
Depreciation 2,000.00 ===>>>>
Gross Margin 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Interest Deduction 1,500.00 ===>>>>
Net Profit before taxes 8,500.00 ===>>>>
Taxes 3,400.00 ===>>>>
Net Profit after taxes 5,100.00 ===>>>>
The value of the tax payments is 3,400 and the net profit after taxes is 5,100.
Previously, the tax payments was 4,000. The difference in the values of the two tax
payments in Table 3.2 and Table 3.3 is equal to the tax savings from the deduction of
the interest payments.
The Total Investment Cashflows, without and with the tax shield, are shown
below in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 respectively.
Table 3.4: Cashflow Statement, Total Investment Point of View, without tax
shield
Yr>> 0 1 2
Net Cashflow before tax 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Taxes 4,000.00 ===>>>>
Net Cashflow after tax 6,000.00 ===>>>>
If we exclude the value of the tax shield in the cashflow, then the cashflow in year 1
in the CFS-TIPV will be 6,000. See Table 3.4. Again, recall that the cashflow will be
Joseph Tham 13
ProjN.Doc
identical to CFS-AEPV. In this case, the tax liability is 4,000 and the FCF available
for distribution to the debt holders and the equity holders is 6,000.
If we include the value of the tax shield in the cashflow, then the cashflow in
year 1 in the CSF-TIPV will be 6,600 as shown below.
Table 3.5: Cashflow Statement, Total Investment Point of View, with tax shield
Yr>> 0 1 2
Net Cashflow before tax 10,000.00 ===>>>>
Taxes 3,400.00 ===>>>>
Net Cashflow after tax 6,600.00 ===>>>>
The difference in the cashflows in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 is the present value
of the tax shield.
Calculation of the value of the levered firm
We know that the value of the levered firm is equal to the value of the
unlevered firm plus the present value of the tax shield.
(VL) = (VUL) + Present Value of tax shield
= 100,000 + 12,000.0 = 112,000.0 (39)
In this case, the value of the tax shield is equal to 12,000 and thus the value of
the levered firm increases from 100,000 to 112,000 due to the tax shield.
Equivalently, the value of the equity in the levered firm increases by the present value
of the tax shield to 82,000.
(EL) = (VL) - D = 112,000 - 30,000 = 82,000.0 (40)
The amount of debt of the levered firm as a percent of the value of the
unlevered firm was 30%; however, with the increase in the value of the levered firm
from the tax shield, the amount of debt as a percent of the value of the levered firm
decreases from 30% to 26.8%.
Debt (as a percent of total value) = 30,000 = 26.78571% (42)
112,000
Similarly, the new debt equity ratio = 30,000 = 0.366 (43)
82,000
The annual FCF available for distribution to the debt holders and the equity
holders is 6,600. The Cashflow Statement from the Equity Point of View is shown
below.
Table 3.6: Cashflow Statement, Equity Point of View
Joseph Tham 14
ProjN.Doc
Yr>> 0 1 2
NCF, TIP, after taxes 6,600.0 ===>>>>
Interest Payment 1,500.0 ===>>>>
NCF, Equity 5,100.00 ===>>>>
Note that the FCF is equal to the net profit after taxes because we have assumed that
the annual reinvestment is equal to the annual depreciation. See Table 3.3.
Return to equity
After paying the annual interest payments of 1,500, the annual FCF to the
equity holder is 5,100. Based on an equity value of 82,000, the return to equity (with
debt financing) is
e = 5,100 = 6.21951% (43)
82,000
Alternatively, we could use the formulas which we had presented before. See line 32
and line 34.
The rate of return to the equity owner
e = ρ + (1 - t)*(ρ - d)*D
E
= 6% + (1 - 40%)*(6% - 5%)*30,000 = 6.21951% (44)
82,000
If there was no tax and the FCF remained the same, then the return to equity would be
e = ρ + (ρ - d)*D
E
= 6% + (6% - 5%)*30,000 = 6.42857% (45)
70,000
See line 19. Compare the rate of return to equity in line 44 and line 45. With the tax
shield, the return to equity is reduced from 6.429% to 6.22%. Alternatively, if there
were no taxes, and assuming that the FCF remained the same, the return to the equity
would be
(6,000 - 1,500) = 6.429% (46)
70,000
which is the same as the answer in line 45.
Calculation of the WACC
Joseph Tham 15
ProjN.Doc
We will calculate the WACC in two different ways and use them to estimate
the value of the levered firm. As expected both values of the WACC will give the
same answer.
WACC with Method 1
w1 = Percent Debt*Cost of Debt*(1 - t) + Percent Equity*Cost of Equity
= %D*d*(1 - t) + %E*e
= 26.78571%*5%*(1 - 40%) + 73.21429%*6.21951%
= 0.80357% + 4.55357% = 5.35714% (47)
For the debt and equity ratios, see line 42. For the return to equity, see line 44.
We can use the value of the WACC in line 46 to calculate the value of the levered
firm.
PV[Cashflow]TIP@ w1 = 6,000 = 112,000 (48)
5.35714%
Compare line 48 with line 39. They are the same.
WACC with Method 2
w2 = Percent Debt*Cost of Debt + Percent Equity*Cost of Equity
= %D*d + %E*e
= 26.78571%*5% + 73.21429%*6.21951%
= 1.33929% + 4.55357% = 5.89286% (49)
PV[Cashflow]TIP@ w2 = 6,600 = 112,000 (50)
5.89286%
As expected, both the valuations of the levered firm with the different WACC values
give the same result. Again, compare line 50 with line 39.
Also, compare the present values in line 48 and line 50. If we exclude the tax
shield in the FCF, then the correct WACC is 5.34% from line 47; alternatively, if we
include the tax shield in the FCF, then the correct WACC is 5.89% from line 49.
We can also verify the following identity for the value of the levered firm.
(VL) = (EL) + D (51)
Joseph Tham 16
ProjN.Doc
PV[Cashflow]TIP@ w1
= PV[Cashflow]Equity@ e + PV[Cashflow]Loan@ d (52)
PV[Cashflow]Equity@ e = 5,100 = 82,000.0 (53)
6.21951%
PV[Cashflow]Loan@ d = 1,500 = 30,000.0 (54)
5%
Line 52 is equal to the sum of line 53 and line 54.
For comparative purposes, we can also calculate the WACC in the absence of
taxes using the return to equity in line 45.
WACC with no taxes
w = Percent Debt*Cost of Debt + Percent Equity*Cost of Equity
= %D*d + %E*e
= 30%*5% + 70%*6.42857%
= 1.50% + 4.50% = 6.00% (55)
The results of the above analyses, with and without taxes, are summarized in
the following table.
Joseph Tham 17
ProjN.Doc
Table 3.7: Summary of the example with and without tax
No Tax With Tax
FCF 6,000 6,000
Cost of Debt 5% 5%
Amount of Debt 30,000 30,000
PV of tax shield 0 12,000
Debt (as % of VUL) 30% 30%
Debt (as % of VL) 30% 26.79%
Debt (as % of EL) 42.86% 36.59%
Value of Equity 70,000 82,000
Return to Equity 6.429% 6.220%
Value of firm 100,000 112,000
WACC (1) 6% 5.357%
WACC (2) 6% 5.893%
For practical project appraisal, we can summarize the above discussion as
follows. If we exclude the tax shield in the cashflow statement, then to find the value
of the levered firm, we discount the Total Investment Cashflow (CFS-AEPV) at
5.357%; if we include the tax shield in the cashflow statement, then to find the value
of the levered firm, we discount the Total Investment Cashflow (CFS-TIP) at 5.893%.
It does not matter which value of WACC is used; both WACCs used with the
appropriate cashflow statements will give the correct value for the levered firm. See
Table 3.4 and Table 3.5.
SECTION IV: Single Period Cashflow
In this section, we will apply the same formulas in line 31 through line 34 to a
single-period project. We will continue to assume that the inflation rate is zero and
the corporate tax rate is 40%. We will follow the pattern of the analysis in Section III
and compare the cashflow statements with and without debt financing.
Assume a simple project that generates revenues of 2,800 at the end of year 1.
The initial investment required at the end of year 0 is 2,000. The annual operating
cost is 500. The value of the depreciation is equal to the value of the initial
investment. The detailed income statement is shown below.
Joseph Tham 18
ProjN.Doc
Table 4.1: Income Statement
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 2,800.00
Operating Cost 500.00
Depreciation 2,000.00
Gross Margin 300.00
Interest Deduction 00.00
Net Profit before taxes 300.00
Taxes 60.00
Net Profit after taxes 240.00
At the end of year 1, the Gross Margin is 300. For the moment, we are
assuming that there is no debt financing and thus the interest deduction is zero. The
tax liability is equal to the Gross Margin times the tax rate.
= 300*20% = 60.00. (56)
The Net Profit after taxes is $240. We assume that ρ, the required rate of return with
all-equity financing, is 12%. The Cashflow Statement from the Equity Point of View
is shown below.
The free cashflow (FCF) in year 1 is equal to the net income plus depreciation.
FCF = Depreciation + Net Profit after Taxes (57)
Table 4.2: Cashflow Statement, Total Investment Point of View/Equity Point of
View
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 2,800.00
Total Inflows 2,800.00
Investment 2,000.00
Op Cost 500.00
Total Outflows 2,000.00 500.00
Net Cashflow before tax -2,000.00 2,300.00
Taxes 60.00
Net Cashflow after tax -2,000.00 2,240.00
NPV @ ρ = 12.0 % 0.00
IRR 12.00%
The rate of return on this project is 12% which is equal to the required return
on equity of 12% for a project with all-equity financing.
The present value of the FCF = 2,240 = 2,000.00 (58)
1 + 12%
Joseph Tham 19
ProjN.Doc
Thus, based on the FCF of 2,240 at the end of year 1, the value of the
unlevered firm is 2,000. As shown below, the NPV of the project is zero. As
explained above, for simplicity we have assumed a project with zero NPV. If the NPV
of the project was positive, some minor adjustments would have to be made in the
formulas. See the explanations for Table 1.5 in Section 1.
The NPV of the FCF = -2,000 + 2,240 = 0.00 (59)
1 + 12%
Next we consider the cashflow statement with debt financing. We will assume
that the debt of the levered firm as a percent of the total value of the unlevered firm is
60%; thus, the value of the debt is 1,200. The interest rate on the debt d is 8% and at
the end of year 1, the interest payment on the debt is
= D*d = 1,200*8% = 96.00. (60)
The loan schedule is shown below.
Table 4.3: Loan Schedule
Yr>> 0 1 2
Beg Balance 1,200.00 0
Interest 96.00
Payment 1,296.00
End balance 1,200.00 0.00
Financing 1,200.00 -1,296.00
NPV @ = 8.0 % 0.00
IRR 8.00%
At the end of year 1, the total repayment for the loan, principal plus interest, is
1,296. The income statement, with the interest deduction, is shown below.
Table 4.4: Income Statement
Yr>> 0 1 2
Revenues 2,800.00
Operating Cost 500.00
Depreciation 2,000.00
Gross Margin 300.00
Interest Deduction 96.00
Net Profit before taxes 204.00
Taxes 40.80
Net Profit after taxes 163.20
The interest payment in year 1 = 8%*1,200 = 96.00. (61)
Joseph Tham 20
