What is our cost of debt financing?




Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер179.7 Kb.

Nokia in 1999

Pentti Kukkola, Chief Financial Officer of Nokia, the Finnish telecommunications equipment company, was concerned. He and his colleagues were on a flight back from meeting with analysts in Dallas, and were discussing an issue that had been raised by some analysts, a question that he had not been able to answer: namely, what was the company’s cost of equity? And following that, what was the company’s overall cost of capital? And finally, what was the company doing to improve shareholder value by minimizing the cost of financing.


Kukkola had attempted to answer these questions by pointing to the very low interest rates that Nokia had been able to negotiate on its debt. For example, the company had recently succeeded in placing a EUR 100 million, 3-year bond at a rate only 105 basis points above the yield on equivalent German government bonds. This sort of answer, however, had not satisfied the questioners. They wanted a more comprehensive picture of Nokia’s cost of capital.
Nokia’s financial management had traditionally been conservative, taking the attitude that the risks should be taken on the business side, not in the corporate treasury department. Still, Kukkola wondered aloud, what kind of capital structure – debt versus equity – should a company in our line of business have? He determined to look into this further, and to compare Nokia’s capital structure to those of other major European multinationals.
Kukkola tapped on his laptop computer. He decided to gather some information and hand it over to one of his bright assistants. He wrote:
Who are our shareholders? Why would they care about our cost of capital?

What is our cost of debt financing?


What is our cost of equity financing?

What is our overall cost of capital?

Could we lower this by changing our capital structure?

Would more debt create unnecessary risk?

How would a financial restructuring affect the value of our company?

What does the competition do?


Who are our shareholders?

Registered Shareholders





K Shares

A Shares

Total

% Share

% Votes

Nokiterra Oy

27626768

4513574

32140342

5.3

12.1

Pohjola Insurance Corp

8100000

707262

8807262

1.5

4.7

UPM-Kymmene Corp

6284968




6284968

1.0

3.6

Ilmarinen Mutual Pension

5176400

590700

5767100

1.0

3.0

Suomi Mutual Life

4350000

580400

4930400

0.8

2.5

Industrial Insurance

4350000

550000

4900000

0.8

2.5

Local Gov Pensions Inst

3120888

1084800

4205688

0.7

1.8

Svenska Litteratursallskapet

2775864

8272

3784126

0.6

2.2

Varma-Sampo Mutual

2581000

8100

2589100

0.4

1.5

Pohjola Life Assur.

2107000

228000

2335000

0.4

1.2


Nominee Shareholders





K Shares

A Shares

Total

% Share

% Votes

Merita BankLtd

17867269

431247084

449114353

72.4

34.9

Other

508047

13701581

14209628

2.3

1.1


Shares by number of shares held

By Number of shares owned

No of shareholders

Percentage of shareholders

Total Number of Shares

Percentage of capital


1-500

19 523

64.2

3 113 486

0.5

501 - 1000

3 919

13.0

2 939 315

0.5

1001 – 10,000

6 127

20.2

17 673 038

2.9

10,001 – 100,000

698

2.3

16 535 219

2.7

> 100,000

72

0.3

102 001 525

16.9

Total

30 339

100

142 272 583

23.5

Nominee Shares







463 323 981

76.5

Total










100.0

Why do investors care about our capital structure?

The optimal debt ratio leads to the minimal cost of capital. If the value of the firm is the net present value of future cash flows, then the lowest cost of capital results in the maximal firm value. The cost of capital is higher with both too little and too much debt.



Advantages of debt:

- Tax savings. Interest expenses are tax deductible while cash flows to equity (dividends) are not. This benefit increases with the tax rate.

- Added discipline by increasing the cost of failure.
Disadvantages of debt:

- Higher expected bankruptcy cost (probability of bankruptcy times the cost). The probability of default is greater for firms that have volatile cash flows.

- Agency costs. Debt exposes the firm to the possibility of conflicts between stock- and bondholders over investment, financing, and dividend decisions. The convenants that bondholders write into bond agreements to protect themselves against expropriation cost the firm in both monitoring costs and lost flexibility.

- Loss of flexibility. This is more likely to be a problem for firms that have substantial and unpredictable investment opportunities.



The following factors have an influence on the optimal debt ratio, i.e. they determine whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of taking on debt.

Tax rate

It has a direct influence on tax savings. If the tax rate is high, the optimal debt ratio is also higher, because the tax savings increase by taking on more debt (until the point when the cost of debt gets too high).

The ability to pay interest

as reflected in the EBITA/Firm value ratio (pretax returns on the firm) or the interest coverage ratio. If the company is able to pay interest easily (high coverage ratio), it can take on more debt.
Variance in operating income

This is shown in the beta reflecting the default risk. The beta increases with higher debt ratios and at the same time raises the cost of equity. The cost of equity increases with higher debt rates. The variance also influences the bond rating - reflecting the interest rate, probability of bankruptcy and estimated cost of bankruptcy and therefore also the flexibility for the future. The higher the probability and cost of bankruptcy, the less the optimal debt.



Default spreads

of different ratings classes decrease the optimal debt ratio as they tend to increase during recessions (penalizing companies that borrow money) or increase the ratio as they go down .

Firm projects

Does the company need much flexibility in the future? if so, the optimal debt ratio is lower to allow for future borrowings. Firms operating in businesses where projects earn substantially higher returns than their hurdle rate should value flexibility more than those that operate in stable businesses where excess returns are small.

What is our cost of debt financing?




Cost of Debt



Assumption:

The mobile phone portion of Nokias business is both young and very dynamic; thus one could argue it makes little sense to apply a long-term analysis to both Nokias historical data and forward debt estimation.


Although Nokia has issued some bonds that are openly documented in their annual report, they are nominated among others in Finish Markka, German Deutschmarks and British Pounds.

We use the A-1 short-term debt rating that the company has from S & P. (Annual Report 1998) with spread of 1.25 % over the T bond rate.


Using the risk free rate of 5.7 percent for 1-Year (short term) Government bond (H.15 Daily Update) gives a pre tax cost of borrowing of 6.95 % which we shall call 7.0 %.


After Tax cost of Debt


The tax rate in Finland where Nokia pays two thirds of its taxes is 28 %. We shall round up the marginal tax rate to 30 percent to allow for the tax differentials in other countries where Nokia is also liable for tax.


After Tax cost of debt = 7 (1 – 0.30) = 4.9 %

Note: Nokias effective tax rate over the last five years was 24.57 %. For the last quarter it was 30.02: Source www.marketguide.com


What is our cost of equity financing?

The Capital Asset Pricing Model is used to calculate the cost of equity.


Rj = Rf + (Rm-Rf) = Rf(1-) + Rm
Using historical data collected from www.yahoo.com, Nokia stock returns (Rj) are regressed against returns on the Standard and Poors 500 index (Rm).
Regression equation Rj = a + bRm Where the slope b corresponds to the stocks 


5 Year Monthly Return

Alpha (a) = 2.4 %

Beta (b) = 1.993

R Squared = 33.69

No. of Points = 56

Standard Error = 0.384


Looking at the intercept a of the regression compared to Rf(1-) gives us a measure of the Nokias stocks performance relative to the CAPM. Assuming a monthly risk free rate (Rf) equal to 0.4 %
a - Rf(1-) = 2.8%
This suggests that Nokia performed 2.8% better on a monthly basis and 39.3 % on an annual basis, compared to monthly expectations generated using the CAPM between April 1995 and November 1999.
The value R2 provides an estimate of the proportion of the risk that can be attributed to market risk and the proportion that can be attributed to the firm risk. In the case of Nokia, 33.69 % of the risk (variance) comes from market sources (interest rate risk, inflation risk, etc.). The remaining portion (100 – 33.69 = 66.31% ) can be attributed to the firm specific risk, which is diversifiable and therefore not rewarded in the CAPM.
The standard error of the b estimate equals 0.384. Under the assumption of a normal distribution, the true for Nokia could range from 1.993-0.384=1.609 to 1.993+0.384=2.377 with 67% confidence and from 1.993-2*0.384=1.225 to 1.993+2*0.384 =2.761 with 95% confidence.


2 Year Weekly Return

A second regression was made using weekly data over a period of two years


Alpha = 1.66

Beta = 1.62

R Squared = 46.38

No. of points = 110


This reduction of the Beta from 1.99 to 1.62 when looking at the last two years compared with the last five years could be attributed to the fact that Nokia has grown considerably. This generally implies less risk.

Analyst Research


As a comparison for our results, a survey of the following web sites gave the following beta values for Nokia;
Newsalert.com (www.newsalert.com)

Data Broadcasting Corporation (www.dbc.com)

Market Guide Inc 1.97
Bloomberg.com

Multex Broker Research 1.96




Bottom-Up Approach


Using the bottom up approach – (reference beta.xls )





Business

u.Beta

Weight %

Mobile Phones

Foreign Electronic/Entertainment

0.78

60

Telecommunications Products

Telecom. Equipment

1.28

33

Communications

Computers and Peripherals

1.33

7













Weighted Average 0.468 + 0.4224 + 0.0931 = 0.98

Comment:
Selecting the industry category for the mobile phone area of business proved difficult. We feel that comparison to well followed American equities are not valid for several reasons. The market penetration for mobiles phones is significantly higher in Europe and Asia, especially for non-business users, where fashion plays an important role. Furthermore, the fierce competition between mobile phone operators has created the unusual scenario of one industry heavily subsidizing another. In order to attract customers, operators discount heavily, in many cases completely, the cost of a new mobile telephone. This allows customers to replace their handsets far more frequently than would normally be the case. We would argue that his lends the business some unusual market characteristics, which are not adequately reflected in any of the lists generated by American research bodies.
Using an expected risk premium of stocks over treasury bonds of 5.5 % (based on the geometric mean):

Cost of Equity


The Cost of Equity = Risk Free Rate + Beta * Expected Risk Premium


17.85 = 7.0 + 1.97 * 5.5


What is our overall cost of capital?

Market capitalization:

Company Financial Statement, Dec 31 1998:


Total Number of Shares: 605,596,564

Shares outstanding: 573,436,000

Average for 1998 569,170,000

Market Capitalization 70,399,490,000


Equity and Debt Ratios




















Market Value of Debt (D)

302,940,000




Market Value of Equity (E)




70,399,490,000




Preferred Stock (PS)

23,778,300,000




Total

94,480,730,000
















Debt Ratio (D/(D+E+PS)

0.32 %




Equity Ratio (E/D+E+PS)

74.5 %




Preferred Stock Ratio (PS/D+E+PS)

25.1%

Cost of Capital


The cost of capital is the weighted average cost of equity, debt and preferred stock:

4.9 (0.32) + 17.85 (74.4) + 0.00034 (25.1) = 13.2 %

The above figures were calculated using the 1998 annual report and looking at interest bearing long term debt

Could we lower the cost of capital by changing our capital structure?

The input numbers for the analyses have been taken from the 1998 annual report. Nokia should take on more debt (up to 20 %) according to the two calculations below.



Using capstru.xls:


INPUTS FOR ANALYSIS






















Capital Structure




Financial Market




Income Statement




Current MV of Equity

$68,760

Current Beta for Stock

1.99

Current EBITDA

$3,529

Current Outstanding Debt

$1,549

Current Bond Rating

A-

Current Depreciation

$600

# of Shares Outstanding

573

Current T.Bill Rate

5.70%

Current Tax Rate

30.00%

Riskless rate to use in CAPM

6.30%

Current T. Bond Rate

6.30%

Current Capital Spending

$896

Risk Premium




5.50%

Current Interest Rate

7.50%

Current Interest Expense

$246.00































RESULTS FROM ANALYSIS






















Current

Optimal

Change







D/(D+E) Ratio

2.20%

20.00%

17.80%




























Beta for the Stock

1.99

2.30

0.31







Cost of Equity

17.25%

18.96%

1.72%




























AT Interest Rate on Debt

4.62%

6.16%

1.54%




























WACC




16.97%

16.40%

-0.57%







Implied Growth Rate

6.00%













Market Value of Firm (C)

$70,309

$72,737

$2,428







Market Value of Firm (G)

$70,309

$74,367

$4,058







Market Price/share (C)

$120.00

$124.24

$4.24







Market Price/share (G)

$120.00

$127.08

$7.08



using apv.xls:



ANALYZING CAPITAL STRUCTURE


INPUTS FOR ANALYSIS






















Capital Structure




Financial Market




Income Statement







Current MV of Equity

$68,760

Current Beta for Stock

1.99

Current EBITDA

$3,529




Current Outstanding Debt

$1,836

Current Bond Rating

AA-

Current Depreciation

$600




# of Shares Outstanding

573

Current T.Bill Rate

5.00%

Current Tax Rate

30.00%




Riskless rate to use in CAPM

6.30%

Current T. Bond Rate

6.30%

Current Capital Spending

$896




Risk Premium

5.50%

Current Interest Rate

7.50%

Current Interest Expense

$246.00

































Summary of Firm Values at Different Debt Ratios




Debt Ratio

$ Debt

Tax Rate

Unlevered Firm Value

Tax Benefits

Bond Rating

Probability of Default

Expected Bankruptcy Cost

Value of Levered Firm




0

$0

30.00%

$70,094

$0

A+

0.40%

$71

$70,023




0.1

$7,060

30.00%

$70,094

$2,118

A+

0.40%

$71

$72,141




0.2

$14,119

30.00%

$70,094

$4,236

BB

12.20%

$2,153

$72,177




0.3

$21,179

30.00%

$70,094

$6,354

CCC

50.00%

$8,824

$67,623




0.4

$28,238

27.54%

$70,094

$7,777

CCC

50.00%

$8,824

$69,047




0.5

$35,298

18.04%

$70,094

$6,368

C

80.00%

$14,119

$62,343




0.6

$42,357

15.03%

$70,094

$6,368

C

80.00%

$14,119

$62,343




0.7

$49,417

12.89%

$70,094

$6,368

C

80.00%

$14,119

$62,343




0.8

$56,476

11.28%

$70,094

$6,368

C

80.00%

$14,119

$62,343




0.9

$63,536

10.02%

$70,094

$6,368

C

80.00%

$14,119

$62,343






































Would more debt create unnecessary risk?

The value of Nokia would be the highest with a debt ratio of 20 %, but this would lead to a significantly worse rating (BB). In order to remain with the same ranking, Nokia could take a debt ratio of 10 %, or a little more, resulting in only a slightly smaller firm value than with the optimal debt ratio of 20 %. Nokia’s reason for a low debt ratio is twofold. They want to maintain their good bond rating and allow for high flexibility to invest in potential projects with high than expected returns.


What Do Other Companies Do?

An Industry Comparison

The following numbers have been taken from Morningstar Quicktake Reports based on the third quarter of 1999. Since we used the annual report of 1998 throughout this case study, Nokias numbers as of September 1999 are also shown to allow for an up-to-date direct comparison.


Nokia and its main competitors :




Nokia Mil $

%

Ericsson Mil $

%

Motorola Mil $

%
Assets



















Cash

3544.7

26.2

1436.8

6.8

3527.0

10.3

Other Current Assets

6676.6

49.2

14040.2

66.8

12488.0

36.4

Long-term Assets

3294.7

24.4

5552.5

26.4

18257.0

53.3
Total

13516.0

100.0

21029.5

100

34272.0

100.0


















Liabilities and Equity



















Current Liabilities

6216.0

46.0

8575.1

40.8

11898.0

34.7

Long-term Liabilities

521.3

3.9

5262.8

25.0

7938.0

23.2

Shareholders’ Equity

6778.7

50.2

7191.6

34.2

14436.0

42.1
Total

13516.0

100.0

21029.5

100.0

34272.0

100

The comparison shows that Nokia has considerably less long-term liabilities than Ericsson or Motorola, whereas the short-term liabilities are more comparable but exceeding the competitors’.


Comparison with companies of different industries:

Nokia’s long-term debt seems extremely low also compared to other companies of different sectors like Novartis (17.8 %) and IBM (32.5 %).

_______________________________________________________________________

Ian Giddy

February 2000
Work done by:

Michael Osborne osb@zurich.ibm.com



Sonja Buchegger sob@zurich.ibm.com

Jan Van Lunteren jvl @zurich.ibm.com


База данных защищена авторским правом ©shkola.of.by 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка