Abstract

The first serious study (and first quantitative study) of influence of capital structure of the company on its indicators of activities was the work by Nobel Prize Winners Modigliani and Miller. Their theory has a lot of limitations. One of the most important and seriouse assumptions of the Modigliani – Miller theory is that all financial flows as well as all companies are perpetuity. This limitation was lift out by Brusov–Filatova–Orekhova in 2008 (Filatova et al. 2008), who have created BFO theory – modern theory of capital cost and capital structure for companies of arbitrary age. Despite the fact that the Modigliani–Miller theory is currently a particular case of the general theory of capital cost and capital structure – Brusov–Filatova–Orekhova (BFO) theory – it is still widely used at the West. In current paper we discuss one more limitation of Modigliani – Miller theory: a method of tax on profit payments. Modigliani – Miller theory accounts these payments as annuity–immediate while in practice these payments are making in advance and thus should be accounted as annuity–due. We generalize the Modigliani–Miller theory for the case of advance payments of tax on profit, which is widely used in practice, and show that this leads to some important consequencies, which change seriously all the main statements by Modigliani and Miller. These consequencies are as following: WACC starts to depend on debt cost kd, WACC turns out to be lower than in case of Modigliani–Miller theory and thus company capitalization becomes higher than in ordinary Modigliani–Miller theory.We show that dependence of equity cost on leverage level L is still linear, but the tilt angle with respect to L–axis turns out to be smaller: this could lead to modification of the divident policy of the company. Correct account of a method of tax on profit payments demonstrates that shortcomings of Modigliani – Miller theory are dipper, than everybody suggested: the underestimation of WACC really turns out to be bigger, as well as overestimation of the capitalization of the company. This means that systematic risks arising from the use of modified Modigliani – Miller theory (MMM theory) (which is more correct than classical' one) in practice are higher than it was suggested by the classical version of this theory.

Highlights

  • INTRODUCTIONOne understands the relationship between equity and debt capital of the company

  • Under the capital structure, one understands the relationship between equity and debt capital of the company

  • Despite the fact that the Modigliani–Miller theory is currently a particular case of the general theory of capital cost and capital structure – Brusov–Filatova–Orekhova (BFO) theory – it is still widely used at the West

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One understands the relationship between equity and debt capital of the company. One of the most important assumptions of the Modigliani – Miller theory is that all financial flows are perpetuity. This limitation was lift out by Brusov– Filatova–Orekhova in 2008 (Filatova et al 2008), who have created BFO theory – modern theory of capital cost and capital structure for companies of arbitrary age (BFO–1 theory) and for companies of arbitrary life time (BFO–2 theory) (Brusov et al 2015). It gives the possibility to calculate the capitalization V, the weighted average cost of capital, WACC, equity cost ke and other financial parameters for companies of arbitrary age and for companies of arbitrary life–time. The traditional (empirical) approach has existed up to appearance of the first quantitative theory by Modigliani and Miller (1958)

Modigliani–Miller Theory Without Taxes
THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Main Assumptions of Modigliani–Miller Theory
Tax Shield
Capitalization of the Company
Equity Cost
CONCLUSIONS
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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