Abstract

AbstractMassari et al. (2008) argue that the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) approach to discounting expected cash flows is generally inconsistent with the adjusted present value (APV) approach. We show that their argument results from, first, taking a WACC expression that assumes a fixed level of debt in perpetuity and applying it to a scenario where the debt level varies stochastically; and, second, discounting the tax savings from stochastic debt at the rate appropriate for fixed debt. Our paper draws attention to the fundamental proposition by which such errors are avoided when cross‐referencing valuation methods. The outcome is that the APV and WACC methods are shown to be algebraically consistent with each other.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.