Chapter 11: A Framework for Analyzing Dividend Policy

 

Problem 1.

Current

Projected

EBITDA

1200

1350

Less Depreciation

200

250

EBIT

1000

1100

Less Interest Expenses

200

200

EBT

800

900

Less Taxes

320

360

Net Income

480

540

Free Cash Flow Computation

EBIT

1000

1100

Less Interest

200

200

Less Taxes

320

360

Less (Cap. Exp.- Depr.) x (1- proportion financed by debt)

210

168

Less (Change in Working Cap.) x(1- prop. financed by debt)

35

35

Free Cash Flow to equity

235

337

  1. The current payout ratio = (2x50m.)/480 =0.208333
  2. It's currently paying out 100/95 =42.55% of free cash flow to equity

Project

Investment

Beta

IRR (Using Cash flows to equity)

Reqd. return to equity

A

$190m.

0.6

12.00%

11.80%

accept

B

$200m.

0.8

12.00%

12.90%

reject

C

$200m.

1

14.50%

14.00%

accept

D

$200m.

1.2

15.00%

15.10%

reject

E

$100m.

1.5

20.00%

16.75%

accept

  1. The required rate of return on equity = .085 + 1(.055) = .14 or 14%.

Projects C, D and E are NPV>0 projects according to this yardstick

The total capital expenditure needs for next year are: 200 + 100 + 190 = 490 m.

d. The maximum amount available is 337m.

e. We are told that the investment opportunities for the firm are changing. It is unclear exactly what this means. However, if this implies uncertainty, the firm might not want to pay out 100% of its free cash flow to equity.

 

f. Cash balance next year =

Cash balance this year

100

Plus Free Cash flow to equity

337

Less Dividends next year

125

=

312

Problem 2.

a.

Change in FCFE =

Reduction in prod. Costs

20000

plus reduction in inventory

15000

Plus addnl depreciation

2400

less capital expenditures

12000

less addnl taxes

13040

(tax rate)x(cost reductions-depreciation)

=

12360

b. The amount of depreciation will decrease over time because we are using (accelerated) MACRS depreciation. The inventory reduction will contribute to cash flow only in the first year since there will not be any incremental reductions in inventory after this year.

Problem 3.

a. No, because there would be double taxation, i.e. both at the corporate level and at the personal level.

b. In that case, it might be preferable to increase dividends now. The alternative would be to either take a large capital gain when the business would be sold, or a large dividend just before the business is sold. Hence, unless there are other capital losses that can be offset only by capital gains, it would be preferable to take larger dividends now.

Problem 4.

Project

Investment Requirement

After-tax return on capital

A

15

27%

B

10

20%

C

25

16%

D

20

14%

E

30

12%

The afer-tax cost of debt = 12%(1-0.5) = 6%

The cost of equity = .08 + 1.25(0.055) = 14.875%

The market value of debt = $500m.

The market value of equity = 15(100) = $1500 m.

Hence, the WACC = (500/2000)(6%) + (1500/2000)(14.875%) = 12.656%

Assuming that the projects are as risky as the firm, all of them except E have NPV > 0. Hence, capital needed for investment = $70m. However, 25% of this will come from debt issues. Hence free cash flow to equity = 100 - (0.75)(70) = $47.5m.

a., b. Since the company has an extra $47.5m., it should return that amount to shareholders. However, the firm should also look at estimates of future investment needs and future cash flows.

Problem 5.

Project

Initial Investment

Beta

IRR (to equity investors)

Reqd. rate of return

A

$500

2

21%

20%

accept

B

$600

1.5

20%

17%

accept

C

$500

1

12%

15%

reject

Free Cash flow to equity =

Net Income

1000

Less (1-0.2)(Cap. Exp. - Depreciation)

480

Less (1-0.2)(Change in WC)

80

=

440

Note: Change in Working capital is computed as 5000(0.08).

Hence it can return a maximum of $440 to shareholders

Problem 6.

The weighted average cost of capital =

Initial Investment

EBIT

Annual Depr.

Lifetime

Salvage

Cash flow per yr.

NPV

10

1

0.5

5

2.5

1.1

-4.97358

40

5

1

10

10

4

-16.7809

50

5

1

10

10

4

-26.7809

a. Since all projects have NPV < 0, none of them should be accepted.

b. The firm has free cash flow to equity equal to Net Income + (1-d )(Capital expenditures - Depreciation) = 90 + 8 = $98m. This is the maximum that it can pay out in dividends. This assumes that some of the depreciation is used to pay back debt. Alternatively, I would add back the entire depreciation to the net income to get $ 100 million as FCFE.

Problem 7.

Current

Next year

in 2 yrs

in 3 yrs

EBIT

80

72

64.8

58.32

Depreciation

70

63

56.7

51.03

Working Capital

70

63

56.7

51.03

Change in WC

-7

-6.3

-5.67

Net Income

48

43.2

38.88

34.992

Dividends

24

21.6

19.44

17.496

Increase in Cash

91.6

82.44

74.196

If these funds are invested at 10%, the size of the war chest will be 91.6(1.1)2 + 82.44(1.1) + 74.20 = $275.72m.

Problem 8. The strategy described may or may not be optimal. A disadvantage is that a large amount of cash is being accumulated. If there are no desirable projects in the telecommunications industry, these resources may be misused by management. On the other hand, there may be strategic advantages in acquiring a large target in three years. For that purpose, it may be necessary to have high flexibility in the form of cash.

Problem 9.

Current

1

2

3

Net Income

$ 100.00

$ 110.00

$ 121.00

$ 133.10

+ Deprec'n

$ 50.00

$ 54.00

$ 58.32

$ 62.99

- Cap Ex

$ 60.00

$ 60.00

$ 60.00

$ 60.00

- Chg in WC

$ 10.00

$ 10.00

$ 10.00

$ 10.00

= FCFE

$ 80.00

$ 94.00

$ 109.32

$ 126.09

Dividends Paid

$ 66.00

$ 72.60

$ 79.86

Cash Balance

$ 50.00

$ 78.00

$ 114.72

$ 160.95

Total cash at the end of three years = $ 160.95 million

Problem 10.

Project

Equity Investment

CF to Equity

Return to Equity

Beta

Cost of Equity

A

100000

12500

12.50%

1

11.75%

B

100000

14000

14.00%

1.5

14.50%

C

50000

8000

16.00%

1.8

16.15%

D

50000

12000

24.00%

2

17.25%

I am assuming that the cash flow to equity divided by the equity investment to get the return on equity. Take projects A and D. The capital expenditures will be $ 150,000.

Net Income next year = (Gross Profit - Interest - Depreciation) (1-tax rate) = ($1,000,000(1.1)(1-0.4)-100,000-100,000)(1-0.4) = $276,000.

a. FCFE = = Net Income - (Net Cap. Expenditures)(1-d ) - D WC(1-d ) = $276,000 - (150,000-100,000)(1-0.4) - (1,000,000-500,0000)(0.10)(1-0.4) = $216,000. This is the amount that the company can afford to pay out in dividends.

b. If the company actually pays out $1 per share, or $100,000 next year, it will have $150,000 + 216,000 - 100,000 = $266,000 at the end of next year.

Problem 11.

a. The firm has net positive financing needs, since its net income is less than projected net capital expenditures. Hence it cannot afford to pay any dividends; as it is, it must raise additional equity capital.

b.

Current

1

2

3

4

Net Income

$ 10.00

$ 14.00

$ 19.60

$ 27.44

$ 38.42

- (Cap Ex-Depr)

$ 20.00

$ 22.00

$ 24.20

$ 26.62

$ 29.28

It will be 4 years before dividends can be paid.

Problem 12.

Year

Net Income

Cap. Exp.

Depr.

Noncash Working Capital

Change in Noncash WC

Dividends

FCFE

1991

240

314

307

35

25

70

220.8

1992

282

466

295

-110

-145

80

266.4

1993

320

566

284

215

325

95

-44.2

1994

375

490

278

175

-40

110

271.8

1995

441

494

293

250

75

124

275.4

a. Conrail could have paid dividends each year equal to its FCFE.

b. The average accounting return on equity that Conrail is earning = 13.5%, compared to a required rate of return = 0.07 + 1.25(0.125-0.07) = 13.875. Hence Conrail’s projects have done badly on average. It’s average dividends have been much lower than the average FCFE. Hence, it would seem that Conrail has been paying too low dividends.

Problem 13.

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Net Income

485.10

533.61

586.97

645.67

710.23

Cap. Exp.

339.12

366.25

395.55

427.19

461.37

Depreciation

331.56

358.08

386.73

417.67

451.08

Noncash Working Capital

262.50

275.63

289.41

303.88

319.07

Change in Noncash WC

12.50

13.13

13.78

14.47

15.19

Proportion of Net Cap. Exp. Financed by debt

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

0.30

FCFE

471.06

518.71

571.15

628.87

692.40

a. Conrail can use its FCFE each year to pay dividends or buy back stock.

b. The greater the uncertainty the lower should the payout be as a proportion of FCFE.

Problem 14.

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Net Income

66.00

77.22

90.35

105.71

123.68

144.70

Cap. Exp.

150.00

165.00

181.50

199.65

219.62

241.58

Depreciation

50.00

57.50

66.13

76.04

87.45

100.57

Noncash Working Capital

43.00

47.30

52.03

57.23

62.96

69.25

Change in Noncash WC

4.30

4.73

5.20

5.72

6.30

Proportion of Net Cap. Exp. Financed by debt

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

FCFE (without any debt)

-34.58

-29.76

-23.10

-14.21

-2.60

FCFE (with 25% borrowing)

-6.63

0.27

9.10

20.26

34.22

a., b. The payout will be constrained by the FCFE, which is given in the last two rows.

Problem 15. The required rate of return on equity was .07+1.2(.055) = 13.6%, while Cracker Barrel earned 25% on equity. Hence management is using its resources well, and the money is better retained and invested in the business than returned to investors.

Problem 16.

1995

1996

Net Income

128

140.8

Cap. Exp.

50

55

Depr.

24

26.4

WC

500

550

Change in WC

50

FCFE

70.06

a. Manpower will have $160.06m. next year to pay out as dividends

b. At the end of next year, Manpower should have 143+70.06-12 = $201.06.

Problem 17.

If Manpower does not plan to use debt, but instead plans to payoff its debt, its FCFE would be 62.2 - 100 = -37.8, as shown below. In this case, its cash balance would drop by 37.8 + 12 = $49.8m. from this year to the next.

1995

1996

Net Income

128

140.8

Cap. Exp.

50

55

Depr.

24

26.4

WC

500

550

Change in WC

50

FCFE

62.2

Problem 18.

Company

FCFE

Dividends Paid

ROE

Beta

Reqd. ROR

Is ROE > Cost of Equity?

Dividends/FCFE

Alexander & Brown

55

35

8%

0.8

11.40%

no

63.64%

American President

60

12

14.50%

1.3

14.15%

yes

20.00%

OMI Corporation

-15

5

4.00%

1.25

13.88%

no

-33.33%

Overseas Shipholding

20

12

1.50%

0.9

11.95%

no

60.00%

Sea Containers

-5

8

14%

1.05

12.78%

yes

-160.00%

a. Alexander and Brown and Overseas Shipholding both have a bad record on returns on equity, while paying low dividends relative to FCFE. They should increase dividends.

b. Sea Containers should pay less in dividends, since it already has negative FCFE, while earning a high rate of return relative to its cost of equity.

c. If returns in this industry were expected to be higher in the future, I would moderate my recommendations for higher dividends.

Problem 19.

Company

Payout ratio

Div. Yld

Exp. Growth

Black and Decker

24

1.3

23

Average for competitors

32

2.58

19.1

a., b., Black and Decker has a low payout ratio and low dividend yield, relative to competitors. However, this is consistent with the higher growth rate that Black and Decker has. Ceteris paribus, higher growth rates go hand in hand with lower payout ratios. By using the relationship Growth rate = ROEx(Retention ratio), we see that Black and Decker’s ROE is 30.26%, while that for its competitors is 30.16. This means that there is no significant difference in Black and Decker’s performance. Consequently, it would seem that Black and Decker should increase its payout ratio.

Problem 20.

  1. Based on the regression, the predicted dividend yield for Black and Decker is 0.0478 - 0.0157(1.3) - 0.0000008(5,500) + 0.006797(0.35) + 0.0002(0.145) -0.09(0.04) = 2.21%
  2. In this case, we are using a larger set of firms for comparison. Furthermore, we are using other bases for comparing Black and Decker with other firms. Even though we don’t need as many independent variables in the first part of the problem because we are making intra-industry comparisons, nevertheless, the adjustment is not exactly the same in both cases. Note that the qualitative answer is the same in both cases.

Problem 21. Using the relationship Growth rate = ROEx(Retention ratio), we can estimate Handy and Harman’s ROE to be .23/(1-0.23) = 29.87%. The comparable number for the industry is 18.18%. If Handy and Harman’s cost of equity is similar to that of other firms in the industry, its lower payout ratio is justified.

Problem 22. The high payout policy could end up draining the firm of its assets, thus reducing the value of existing bonds. This could increase equity values even though the value of the firm as a whole might drop due to the poor projects.