151 CHAPTER 15 Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

QUESTIONS
1. In what way is business leverage similar to physical leverage? Both types of leverage involve magnification. In both, we carefully construct our system to produce the magnified result. The differences are in what is magnified income vs. physical force, and what serves as the lever fixed costs vs. a mechanical device. 2. Distinguish between operating leverage and financial leverage. Both operating and financial leverage result in the magnification of changes to earnings due to the presence of fixed costs in a company's cost structure. The difference is only the part of the income statement we are looking at. Operating leverage is the magnification on the top half of the income statementhow EBIT changes in response to changes in sales; the relevant fixed cost is the fixed cost of operating the business. Financial leverage is the magnification on the bottom half of the income statementhow earnings per share changes in response to changes in EBIT; the relevant fixed cost is the fixed cost of financing, in particular interest. 3. How much choice does a firm have over its operating leverage? Over its financial leverage? Choice over operating leverage depends on the technologies available to a company. Some companies have little control over their operating leverage. For example, airlines which have no substitute for airplanes and their associated support systemscan only operate with a large investment in fixed assets that create fixed costs. Other companies have a significant degree of control over their operating leverage. Many manufacturing companies, for example, can choose to produce using automated equipment or piecework labor. By contrast, most firms have total control over their financial leverage through their choice of financing (the exception is small firms that have limited access to financial markets, hence limited financing alternatives). A company can increase its financial leverage by using debt financing and can avoid financial leverage through financing with equity. 4. Describe the way in which earnings per share responds to changing EBIT in a firm with: a. No fixed financing costs. A firm with no fixed financing costs has no financial leverage. In such a firm, earnings per share will rise and fall with EBIT by the same percentage. For example, a 15% increase in EBIT will result in a 15% increase in EPS; a 9% decrease in EBIT will result in a 9% decrease in EPS. b. Some fixed financing costs. A firm with some fixed financing costs does have financial leverage. In such a firm, earnings per share will rise and fall with EBIT by a greater

152

Chapter 15
percentage. For example, a 15% increase in EBIT will result in a more-than-15% increase in EPS; a 9% decrease in EBIT will result in a more-than-9% decrease in EPS.

5. How does a firm's financial leverage affect: Financial leverage changes a firm's returns and risk. a. Its profitability? Financial leverage changes a firm's earnings per share. To the left of the indifference point (lower EBIT) between financing alternatives (refer to Figure 15.4, p. 533) financial leverage reduces EPS. To the right of the indifference point (greater EBIT) EPS is increased as the firm takes on financial leverage. This observation indicates the importance of knowing the indifference point and where a company's level of EBIT is relative to it. b. Its level of risk? Financial leverage increases the volatility of a firm's earnings per share. As a firm increases its financial leverage, its EPS will rise and fall by magnified amounts in response to changes in EBIT. This makes the EPS stream riskier for investors. Also, the possibility that EPS could be lower than if there were less financial leverage (if EBIT is left of the indifference point) and the power over the firm given to creditors should the firm have difficulty paying its debts create additional risks for shareholders. 6. A firm is considering two alternative capital structures, and has calculated its profitability at various EBIT levels under each structure. What should the firm do if its projected EBIT is: a. Below the indifference point? In this case, choose the capital structure with the lower degree of financial leverage. If EBIT is below (to the left of) the financing indifference point, higher financial leverage would decrease EPS (lower return) as it increases the volatility of the EPS stream (higher risk). However, lower financial leverage would increase EPS (higher return) and decrease the volatility of the EPS stream (lower risk), the combination preferred by risk-averse investors. b. Above the indifference point? In this case, the choice of capital structure is not obvious, since there is a tradeoff between the effects of financial leverage on risk and return. If EBIT is above (to the right of) the indifference point, higher financial leverage would increase EPS (higher return) but also increase the volatility of the EPS stream (higher risk). Lower financial leverage would decrease EPS (lower return) and decrease the volatility of the EPS stream (lower risk). Further analysis is required to identify which capital structure provides investors with the best risk-return combination. 7. Compare and contrast the net income approach, net operating income approach, and traditional approach to the optimal debt-equity mix. Which assumptions do you find reasonable? Unreasonable? The net income approach, net operating income approach, and traditional approach are three theoretical frameworks for how a company should set its debt-equity mix. All three examine how a company's cost of capital changes with the debt-equity mix and search for the lowest value of the cost of capital, hence the maximum value of the firm, to identify the best mix. They reach different conclusions because they make different assumptions about creditors' and investors' reactions to increasing debt. Each of us will have our own feelings about the reasonableness of the

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

153

assumptions. Without going into the Modigliani-Miller mathematics, the assumptions of the traditional approach usually seem most reasonable to most people. (1) The net income approach makes the simplest assumptions, that neither creditors nor investors increase their required rates of return as a company takes on debt. The cost of capital declines as higher-cost equity is replaced with lower-cost debt. This approach concludes that the optimal financing mix is all debt. (2) The net operating income approach assumes that creditors do not increase their required rate of return as a company takes on debt, but investors do. Further, the rate at which investors increase their required rate of return as the financing mix is shifted toward debt exactly offsets the weighting away from the more expensive equity and toward the cheaper debt. The result is that the cost of capital remains constant regardless of the financing mix. This approach concludes that there is no optimal financing mixany mix is as good as any other. (3) The traditional approach assumes that both creditors and investors increase their required rates of return as a company takes on debt. At first this increase is small, and the weighting toward lower-cost debt pushes the cost of capital down. Eventually, the rate at which creditors and investors increase their required rates of return accelerates and dominates the weighting toward debt, pushing the cost of capital back upward. The result is that the cost of capital declines with debt and reaches a minimum point before rising again. This approach concludes that there is a optimal financing mix consisting of some debt and some equity. 8. What role does each of MM's assumptions play in their theory of the debt-equity mix? MM's key assumptions and the role played by each are: (1) Unlimited borrowing and lending is available to all market participants at one rate of interest. Role: makes the cost of personal and corporate borrowing and lending the same. (2) Individual margin borrowing is secured by the shares purchased, the borrower's liability is limited to the value of these shares, there are no costs to bankruptcy. Role: makes the risk of personal and corporate borrowing and lending the same. (3) All companies can be grouped into equivalent risk classes. Role: enables investors to identify companies with identical business risk. (4) Capital markets are perfect. Role: permits investors to easily and costlessly arbitrage between securities of companies which differ only in their financing mix. (5) There are no corporate income taxes. Role: prevents the tax code from making debt financing more valuable by allowing interest and not dividends as a tax deduction. (6) Shareholders are indifferent to the form of their returns, all returns are taxed at the same rate. Role: prevents investors from seeing any difference in value between interest, dividends, and capital gains. 9. Describe homemade leverage. Homemade leverage is investors' method of substituting their own borrowing or lending for corporate borrowing. Investors who want more leverage than a company has taken on can buy the company's stock on marginthat is, borrow money from a broker and use the borrowed funds to pay for a portion of the stock order to add to in the corporate borrowing. Investors who want less leverage than the company has taken on can invest a portion of their funds in a risk-free investment to offset some of the corporate

154

Chapter 15

borrowing. MM argued that homemade leverage was a perfect substitute for corporate borrowing, given their assumptions. As a result, investors do not care how much debt any firm has since they can use homemade leverage to adjust their overall debt exposure to precisely reproduce the effect of any level of corporate debt on their returns and risk. 10. Is Professor Miller's personal tax model relevant in today's tax environment? Miller's personal tax model examined the effect of personal income taxes on the debt-equity mix decision. He observed that personal income taxes in the U.S. favor equity financing since profits from equity investments come primarily in the form of capital gains which are taxed later and at potentially lower rates than interest income from debt investments. Miller determined that the bias in personal income taxes toward equity essentially offset the bias toward debt in the corporate income tax code and concluded that this supported the original MM conclusion that the financing mix is irrelevant to a company's value. Since the time Miller wrote, the difference between the tax rates on ordinary income and capital gains has narrowed, somewhat weakening his argument. With today's personal tax rate structure, it is likely that the bias toward debt from the corporate income tax dominates the favoring of equity by personal taxes. However, some politicians continue to advocate for further reductions in capital gains tax rates; if this happens, we will once again move closer to Miller's conclusions. 11. What are the variables that enter compromise theory? What is the effect of each on the optimal debt-equity mix? In compromise theory, the value of a levered firm equals the value of the same firm without leverage modified by the impact of three factors: (1) Corporate income taxes the bias toward debt in the corporate income tax code adds value to companies with debt financing. (2) Bankruptcy costs the increased probability of loss should a company be unable to service its debt subtracts value from companies with debt financing. (3) Agency costs the increased difficulty of aligning management actions with shareholder needs in a company with debt subtracts value from companies with debt financing. 12. Define the meaning of each letter of FRICTO, and give an illustration of each. FRICTO is an acronym summarizing important issues that affect the debt-equity mix decision in practice: (1) F = flexibility the impact of alternative financing choices on the firm's future ability to raise funds in any form required. A company with flexibility will not be shut out of the financial markets nor forced to take a type of financing that is not its preferred choice. (2) R = risk the impact of alternative financing choices on the risks faced by the firm and its stakeholders. In general, taking on additional debt adds to the risks of creditors and shareholders. (3) I = income the impact of alternative financing choices on the firm's income stream. A firm with EBIT above the financing indifference point that increases its debt will increase its earnings per share. (4) C = control the impact of alternative financing choices on each shareholder's amount of control of the firm. In general, selling additional shares of common equity will dilute each shareholder's control.

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

155

(5) T = timing the impact of market conditions on alternative financing choices. Financial market conditions often favor one or another kind of financing. (6) O = other the impact of alternative financing choice on other issues and vice versa. An example is the ability to use collateral to reduce the cost and risks of debt financing. 13. What is meant by the pecking order approach? Give three explanations why it is an observed phenomenon. The pecking order approach is a sequence of raising financing that many companies seem to follow, even though it ignores the recommendations of the various debt-equity-mix theories. The approach is to finance first with retained earnings, second with payables and bank debt, third with bonds and other more complex debt, and fourth with common stock issues. Three explanations for the pecking order approach are: (1) It is the easiest way for financial managers to obtain funds since it requires the least amount of work and limits the need for potentially complex negotiations. (2) It raises funds in the order of low to high flotation costs, keeping these costs to a minimum. (3) The financial markets often take the announcement of a stock sale as negative information, assuming that management would only sell new shares if its share price were high, hence the stock was overvalued. When management announces a stock sale, it signals this previously inside information (asymmetric information) to the markets. By putting stock sales last on the list, the financial manager minimizes the possibility of this reduction in the firm's share price taking place.

PROBLEMS
SOLUTION PROBLEM 151 (a) Construct an income statement Sales Variable costs Contribution Fixed costs EBIT Interest $5,000,000 2,250,000 2,750,000 1,000,000 1,750,000 0 45% of $5 million

156
EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS 1,750,000 612,500 1,137,500 1,000,000 $1.14

Chapter 15

35% of $1,750,000

From the statement: EBIT = $1,750,000 EPS = $1.14 (b) Redo the income statement Sales up 5% Sales $5,250,000 Variable costs 2,362,500 Contribution 2,887,500 Fixed costs 1,000,000 EBIT 1,887,500 Interest 0 EBT 1,887,500 Taxes 660,625 EAT 1,226,875 #shares 1,000,000 EPS $1.23 From the statements: EBIT = $1,887,500 EPS = $1.23 Sales down 5% $4,750,000 2,137,500 2,612,500 1,000,000 1,612,500 0 1,612,500 564,375 1,048,125 1,000,000 $1.05 $1,612,500 $1.05

45% no change

35%

(c) For sales up by 5%: EBIT went from $1,750,000 to $1,887,500, an increase of 1,887,500 1,750,000 = 7.86% 1,750,000 EPS went from $1.14 to $1.23, an increase of $1.23 1.14 = 7.89% 1.14 For sales down by 5%: EBIT went from $1,750,000 to $1,612,500, a decrease of 1,612,500 1,750,000 = 7.86% 1,750,000

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

EPS went from $1.14 to $1.05, a decrease of $1.05 1.14 = 7.89% 1.14

157

(d) In all cases, EBIT and EPS change by the same percentage (within round-off error). Observe the following: (1) Since this company has fixed operating costs, it has operating leverage. EBIT changes by more than sales (7.86% vs. 5%). (2) Since this company has no fixed financing costs (no interest), it has no financial leverage. EPS changes by the same percentage as EBIT. (3) Leverage is symmetricalthe changes are the same regardless of whether sales is increasing or decreasing.

SOLUTION PROBLEM 152 (a) Construct an income statement Sales Variable costs Contribution Fixed costs EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS $5,000,000 3,250,000 1,750,000 0 1,750,000 750,000 1,000,000 350,000 650,000 1,000,000 $0.65 65% of $5 million

35% of $1 million

From the statement: EBIT = $1,750,000 EPS = $0.65

158

Chapter 15

(b) Redo the income statement Sales up 5% Sales $5,250,000 Variable costs 3,412,500 Contribution 1,837,500 Fixed costs 0 EBIT 1,837,500 Interest 750,000 EBT 1,087,500 Taxes 380,625 EAT 706,875 #shares 1,000,000 EPS $0.71 From the statements: EBIT = $1,837,500 EPS = $0.71 Sales down 5% $4,750,000 3,087,500 1,662,500 0 1,662,500 750,000 912,500 319,375 593,125 1,000,000 $0.59 $1,662,500 $0.59

65% still 0

35%

(c) For sales up by 5%: EBIT went from $1,750,000 to $1,837,500, an increase of 1,837,500 1,750,000 = 5.00% 1,750,000 EPS went from $0.65 to $0.71, an increase of $0.71 0.65 = 9.23% 0.65 For sales down by 5%: EBIT went from $1,750,000 to $1,662,500, a decrease of 1,662,500 1,750,000 = 5.00% 1,750,000 EPS went from $0.65 to $0.59, a decrease of $0.59 0.65 = 9.23% 0.65 (d) EPS changes by more than EBIT in both cases. Observe the following: (1) Since this company has no fixed operating costs, it has no operating leverage. EBIT changes by the same percentage as sales (both by 5.00%). (2) Since this company has fixed financing costs (interest), it has financial leverage. EPS changes by a greater percentage than EBIT (9.23% vs. 5.00%). (3) Leverage is symmetricalthe changes are the same regardless of whether sales is increasing or decreasing.

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

159

SOLUTION PROBLEM 153 (a) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS Alternative #1 1,000,000 250,000 750,000 262,500 487,500 200,000 $2.44 Alternative #2 1,000,000 350,000 650,000 227,500 422,500 150,000 $2.82

35%

(b) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS (c) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS

Alternative #1 1,100,000 250,000 850,000 297,500 552,500 200,000 $2.76 Alternative #1 900,000 250,000 650,000 227,500 422,500 200,000 $2.11

Alternative #2 1,100,000 350,000 750,000 262,500 487,500 150,000 $3.25 Alternative #2 900,000 350,000 550,000 192,500 357,500 150,000 $2.38

35%

35%

(d) Alternative #2 has the greater amount of leverage since it has higher fixed costs (interest). In these examples, EBIT is high enough so that Alternative #2 provides the greater amount of EPS, hence the higher returns. But alternative #2 also has the higher level of risk. Under Alternative #1, EPS swings from $2.44 down to $2.11( 13.52%) and up to $2.76(+13.11%). Under Alternative #2, EPS swings from $2.82 down to $2.38( 15.60%) and up to

1510

Chapter 15

$3.25(+15.25%), a greater range in percentage terms. There is a tradeoff here between returns and risk. SOLUTION PROBLEM 154 (a) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS Alternative #1 8,000,000 2,250,000 5,750,000 2,012,500 3,737,500 1,000,000 $3.74 Alternative #2 8,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 1,400,000 2,600,000 800,000 $3.25

35%

(b) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS (c) EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT #shares EPS

Alternative #1 9,200,000 2,250,000 6,950,000 2,432,500 4,517,500 1,000,000 $4.52 Alternative #1 6,800,000 2,250,000 4,550,000 1,592,500 2,957,500 1,000,000 $2.96

Alternative #2 9,200,000 4,000,000 5,200,000 1,820,000 3,380,000 800,000 $4.23 Alternative #2 6,800,000 4,000,000 2,800,000 980,000 1,820,000 800,000 $2.28

35%

35%

(d) Alternative #2 has the greater amount of leverage since it has higher fixed costs (interest). In this example, however, EBIT is not high enough for Alternative #2 to provide the greater returns Alternative #2 has lower returns (lower EPS) than Alternative #1. Also, Alternative #2 has the higher level of risk. Under Alternative #1, EPS swings from $3.74 down to $2.96( 20.86%) and up to $4.52(+20.86%). Under Alternative #2, EPS swings from $3.25 down to $2.28( 29.85%) and up to $4.23(+30.15%), a greater range in percentage terms. Alternative #1 is clearly preferable to Alternative #2.

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

1511

SOLUTION PROBLEM 155 (a) Try a couple of values for EBIT and calculate EPS for each: Plan A: EBIT = $500,000 EPS = $0 EBIT = $3,000,000 EPS = $4.06 Plan B: EBIT = $800,000 EPS = $0 EBIT = $3,000,000 EPS = $5.72 Plot these points and join them with a straight line:
EPS ($) 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1,300,000 2 3 EBIT ($million) A B

(b)

(EBIT iA)(1 = (EBIT iB)(1 t) t) SharesA SharesB (EBIT 500,000)(1 .35) = (EBIT 800,000)(1 .35) 400,000 250,000 400,000(EBIT 800,000) = 250,000(EBIT 500,000) 400,000EBIT 320,000,000,000 = 250,000EBIT 125,000,000,000 150,000EBIT = 195,000,000,000 EBIT = 1,300,000

(c) EPS

= (EBIT i)(1 t) #shares

Use either alternative, since EPS is the same at this level of EBIT. Using Alternative A: EPS = (1,300,000 500,000)(1 .35) = 800,000(.65) = $1.30

1512
400,000 400,000

Chapter 15

(d) Looking at the graph, EPS is higher: Plan A - left of break-even, i.e., for EBIT < $1,300,000 Plan B - right of break-even, i.e., for EBIT > $1,300,000

SOLUTION PROBLEM 156 (a) Try a couple of values for EBIT and calculate EPS for each: Plan X: EBIT = $2,000,000 EPS = $0 EBIT = $6,000,000 EPS = $10.40 Plan Y: EBIT = $1,200,000 EPS = $0 EBIT = $6,000,000 EPS = $6.93 Plot these points and join them with a straight line:
EPS ($) 12 10 8 6 4 2 1 2 3 3,000,000 4 5 6 EBIT ($million) Y

(b)

(EBIT iX)(1 t) SharesX

(EBIT iY)(1 t) SharesY (EBIT 1,200,000)(1 .35) 450,000

(EBIT 2,000,000)(1 .35) = 250,000

250,000EBIT 300,000,000,000 = 450,000EBIT 900,000,000,000 200,000EBIT = 600,000,000,000 EBIT = 3,000,000

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

1513

(c)

EPS

(EBIT i)(1 t) #shares

Use either plan, since EPS is the same at this level of EBIT. Using Plan X: (3,000,000 2,000,000)(1 .35) = 1,000,000(.65) = $2.60 250,000 250,000 (d) Looking at the graph, EPS is higher: Plan X - right of break-even, i.e., for EBIT > $3,000,000 Plan Y - left of break-even, i.e., for EBIT < $3,000,000 EPS = SOLUTION PROBLEM 157 (a) The optimal debt-equity mix is the one which minimizes the cost of capital. (b) Percent Cost of Percent Cost of Cost of debt debt + equity equity = capital 0% 4.0% 100% 10.5% 10.50% 10 4.0 90 11.0 10.30 20 4.0 80 11.6 10.08 30 4.2 70 12.4 9.94 40 4.5 60 13.6 9.96 50 4.9 50 15.3 10.10 60 5.4 40 17.8 10.36 70 6.2 30 21.5 10.79 80 7.5 20 26.0 11.20 (c) The optimal mix is 30% debt and 70% equity. At this mix, the cost of capital reaches its minimum value of 9.94%. : : : : : : : : : : (d) The traditionalists argue that both debt and equity investors increase their required rates of return as the firm takes on more debt due to the increasing risk they must bear. The change is slow at first, as a small amount of debt does not cause much risk, but required rates rise more rapidly as the mix continues to move toward more debt. Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1514

Chapter 15

SOLUTION PROBLEM 158 (a) Percent Cost of Percent Cost of Cost of debt debt + equity equity = capital 0% 3.5% 100% 9.0% 9.00% 10 3.5 90 9.0 8.45 20 3.5 80 9.2 8.06 30 3.5 70 9.6 7.77 40 3.7 60 10.2 7.60 50 4.0 50 11.4 7.70 60 4.5 40 13.0 7.90 70 5.2 30 15.2 8.20 80 6.2 20 18.2 8.60 (b) The optimal mix is 40% debt and 60% equity. At this mix, the cost of capital reaches its minimum value of 7.60%. : : : : : : : : : : (c) Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Cost of debt Increase 3.5% 0 3.5 0 3.5 0 3.5 0.2% 3.7 0.3% 4.0 0.5% 4.5 0.7% 5.2 1.0% 6.2 Cost of equity Increase 9.0% 0 9.0 0.2% 9.2 0.4% 9.6 0.6% 10.2 1.2% 11.4 1.6% 13.0 2.2% 15.2 3.0% 18.2 Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

The pattern is the same for both debt and equity. Small increases in the debt ratio do not change creditors' nor stockholders' required returns. Larger debt ratios raise required returns, and by an accelerating rate. Stockholders' required rate of return rises faster than creditors' as they bear more risk.

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

1515

(d) Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

: : : : : : : : : :

Cost of equity 9.0% 9.0 9.2 9.6 10.2 11.4 13.0 15.2 18.2

Cost of debt = Difference 3.5% 5.5% 3.5 5.5 3.5 5.7 3.5 6.1 3.7 6.5 4.0 7.4 4.5 8.5 5.2 10.0 6.2 12.0

These differences confirm the observations of part (c). The cost of equity rises at a faster rate than the cost of debt due to the greater risk assumed by stockholders. SOLUTION PROBLEM 159 (a) The compromise theory relationship is: VLEVERED = VUNLEVERED + CT BC AC = VLEVERED 35,000 35,800 35,600 35,300 33,900 31,400 27,800 23,100 17,300 (b) The optimal mix is 10% debt and 90% equity. At this mix, the value of the firm reaches its highest (optimal) value of $35,800,000. Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 : : : : : : : : : : VUNLEVERED + CT BC 35,000 0 0 1,000 0 2,000 1,000 3,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 5,000 7,000 6,000 11,000 7,000 16,000 8,000 22,000 AC 0 200 400 700 1,100 1,600 2,200 2,900 3,700

1516

Chapter 15

(c) The "acceptable range" appears to be from a little over 0% debt through about 30% debt. In this region, the firm's value seems to hold close to $35.5 million. (d) The corporate tax numbers (CT) increase at a constant rate with the debt ratio since they are related to it in a linear fashion. More debt more interest more tax deductions more present value of tax benefits. The bankruptcy cost (BC) and agency cost (AC) numbers, on the other hand, reflect increasing risk perceptions which grow at an accelerating rate as the debt ratio increases. SOLUTION PROBLEM 1510 (a) The compromise theory relationship is: VLEVERED = VUNLEVERED + CT BC AC = VLEVERED 0 80,000 0 82,000 0 84,500 4,000 82,800 8,000 80,900 14,000 76,800 22,000 70,500 32,000 62,000 44,000 51,300 (b) The optimal mix is 20% debt and 80% equity. At this mix, the value of the firm reaches its highest (optimal) value of $84,500,000. (c) The "acceptable range" appears to be a narrow band around 20% debt. At debt ratios away from 20%, the firm's value drops off rapidly. (d) Agency costs arise with the very first dollar of debt since a new stakeholder has been added to the company. Management must integrate/align the creditors with other stakeholder needs, creating a potential for loss of value by shareholders. Bankruptcy costs, on the other hand, only begin when the amount of debt grows large enough to pose default risks. SOLUTION PROBLEM 1511 (a) Debt ratio Now = 3,000,000 10,000,000 = 30% Debt ratio 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 : : : : : : : : : : VUNLEVERED + CT 80,000 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 24,000 BC AC 0 1,000 1,500 2,200 3,100 4,200 5,500 7,000 8,700

Leverage and the Debt-Equity Mix

After = 3,000,000 + 2,000,000 10,000,000 = 50%

1517

(b) There would be $5,000,000 of debt after the change: Amount 3,000,000 2,000,000 (c) Now: Debt Equity After: Debt Equity Proportion 30% 70% 50% 50% Cost 5% 12% 5.6% 14.0% Proportion 60% 40% Cost 5% 6.5% Proportion Cost 3.00% 2.60 5.60% Proportion Cost 1.50% 8.40 9.90% 2.80% 7.00 9.80%

(d) Other things equal, yes - alter the debt-equity mix. This will reduce the cost of capital and increase the value of the firm. SOLUTION PROBLEM 1512 (a) Debt ratio Now = 40,000,000 50,000,000 After (b) Cost of Capital Now: Debt Equity After: Debt Equity Proportion 80% 20% Cost 10% 19% Proportion Cost 8.00% 3.80 11.80% 5.00% 6.00 = 80%

= 40,000,000 15,000,000 = 50% 50,000,000

50% 50%

10% 12%

1518
11.00% (c) Refunding the 10% debt: Debt Equity 50% 50% 6% 12% 3.00% 6.00 9.00%

Chapter 15

(d) Yes - alter the mix and refund the expensive debt. The combined refinancing reduces the cost of capital from 11.80% to 9%, significantly increasing the value of the firm.

15B1 APPENDIX 15B Measuring the Degree of Leverage

PROBLEMS
SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B1 Construct the top lines of the company's income statement: Sales Variable cost Contribution $300,000 120,000 40% of sales 180,000 (1 v) = 60% of sales

Now continue down the income statement for each case: (a) F = $0 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (b) F = $40,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (c) F = $80,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (d) F = $120,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT 180,000 0 $180,000 180,000 40,000 $140,000 180,000 80,000 $100,000 180,000 120,000 $ 60,000

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B2

15B2
Construct the top lines of the company's income statement: Sales Variable cost Contribution $1,750,000 1,137,50065% of sales 612,500 (1 v) = 35% of sales

Appendix 15B

Now continue down the income statement for each case: (a) F = $0 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (b) F = $150,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (c) F = $300,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (d) F = $450,000 Contribution Fixed cost EBIT 612,500 0 $612,500 612,500 150,000 $462,500 612,500 300,000 $312,500 612,500 450,000 $162,500

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B3 Redo the income statements of problem 15B with sales of $400,000: 1 (a) (b) (c) (d)

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT EBIT was $400,000 160,000 240,000 0 $240,000 180,000 $400,000 160,000 240,000 40,000 $200,000 140,000 $ 60,000 $400,000 160,000 240,000 80,000 $160,000 100,000 $ 60,000 $400,000 160,000 240,000 120,000 $120,000 60,000 $ 60,000

15B3

Change to EBIT $ 60,000

Measured in absolute dollars, EBIT increases by $60,000 in all four cases.

Note : 40% of sales, from problem 15B 1

Percentage change to EBIT (a) $60,000/$180,000 (b) $60,000/$140,000 (c) $60,000/$100,000 (d) $60,000/$60,000

= 33.33% = 42.86% = 60.00% = 100.00%

Note:

greater percentage change with higher fixed costs.

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B4 Redo the income statements of problem 15B with sales of $2,000,000: 2 Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT EBIT was Change to EBIT $ (a) $2,000,000 1,300,000 700,000 0 $ 700,000 612,500 87,500 $ (b) $2,000,000 1,300,000 700,000 150,000 $ 550,000 462,500 87,500 $ (c) $2,000,000 1,300,000 700,000 300,000 $ 400,000 312,500 87,500 $ (d) $2,000,000 1,300,000 700,000 450,000 $ 250,000 162,500 87,500

Measured in absolute dollars, EBIT increases by $87,500 in all four cases.

Note : 65% of sales, from problem 15B 2

Percentage change to EBIT (a) $87,500/$612,500 (b) $87,500/$462,500 (c) $87,500/$312,500

= = =

14.29% 18.92% 28.00%

Note:

greater percentage change with higher fixed costs.

15B4
(d) $87,500/$162,500 = 53.85%

Appendix 15B

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B5 (1) Construct income statements for each sales level: Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (a) $700,000 350,000 350,000 300,000 $ 50,000 (b) $800,000 400,000 400,000 300,000 $100,000 (c) $900,000 450,000 450,000 300,000 $150,000 (d) $1,000,000 500,000 500,000 300,000 $ 200,000

(2) Increase each sales number by 10% and construct new income statements: Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (a) $770,000 385,000 385,000 300,000 $ 85,000 (b) $880,000 440,000 440,000 300,000 $140,000 (c) $990,000 495,000 495,000 300,000 $195,000 (d) $1,100,000 550,000 550,000 300,000 $ 250,000

Note : 50% of sales

(3) Compare EBIT levels: (a) Change = $85,000 $50,000 = $35,000 Percentage change = $35,000 = 70.00% $50,000 (b) Change = $140,000 $100,000 Percentage change = $40,000 $100,000 (c) Change = $195,000 $150,000 Percentage change = $45,000 $150,000 (d) Change = $250,000 $200,000 Percentage change = $50,000 $200,000 = $40,000 = 40.00% = $45,000 = 30.00% = $50,000 = 25.00%

While the absolute change increases as sales goes up, the percentage change decreases as the firm's EBIT rises.

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

15B5

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B6 (1) Construct income statements for each sales level: Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (a) $250,000 100,000 150,000 120,000 $ 30,000 (b) $300,000 120,000 180,000 120,000 $ 60,000 (c) $350,000 140,000 210,000 120,000 $ 90,000 (d) $400,000 160,000 240,000 120,000 $120,000

(2) Increase each sales number by 25% and construct new income statements: Sales Variable cost Contribution Fixed cost EBIT (a) $312,500 125,000 187,500 120,000 $ 67,500 (b) $375,000 150,000 225,000 120,000 $105,000 (c) $437,500 175,000 262,500 120,000 $142,500 (d) $500,000 200,000 300,000 120,000 $180,000

Note : 40% of sales

(3) Compare EBIT levels: (a) Change = $67,500 $30,000 = $37,500 Percentage change = $37,500 = 125.00% $30,000

(b) Change = $105,000 $60,000 Percentage change = $45,000 $60,000 (c) Change = $142,500 $90,000 Percentage change = $52,500 $90,000 (d) Change = $180,000 $120,000 Percentage change = $60,000 $120,000

= $45,000 = 75.00% = $52,500 = 58.33% = $60,000 = 50.00%

While the absolute change increases as sales goes up, the percentage change decreases as the firm's EBIT increases.

15B6

Appendix 15B

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B7 DOL = contribution EBIT From problem 15B 1: (a) DOL = $180,000 $180,000 (b) DOL = $180,000 $140,000 (c) DOL = $180,000 $100,000 (d) DOL = $180,000 $ 60,000 = 1 With no fixed operating costs, DOL always = 1

= 1.29 As fixed operating costs rise, EBIT declines = 1.80 relative to contribution, and DOL rises. = 3.00

In problem 15B sales increased to $400,000 (from $300,000 in problem 15B a 33.33% 3, 1), increase. Applying the DOL numbers from above to the 33.33% change in sales gives the percentage change in EBIT in problem 15B 3: (a) 33.33%(1) = 33.33% (b) 33.33%(1.29) = 43.00%, within roundoff of 42.86% (c) 33.33%(1.80) = 60.00% (d) 33.33%(3.00) = 100.00% SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B8 DOL = contribution EBIT From problem 15B 2: (a) DOL = $612,500 $612,500 (b) DOL = $612,500 $462,500 (c) DOL = $612,500 $312,500 (d) DOL = $612,500 $162,500 = 1 With no fixed operating costs, DOL always = 1

= 1.32 As fixed operating costs rise, EBIT declines = 1.96 relative to contribution, and DOL rises. = 3.77

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

15B7

In problem 15B sales increased to $2,000,000 (from $1,750,000 in problem 15B a 14.29% 4, 2), increase. Applying the DOL numbers from above to the 14.29% change in sales gives the percentage change in EBIT in problem 15B 4: (a) 14.29%(1) = 14.29% (b) 14.29%(1.32) = 18.86%, (c) 14.29%(1.96) = 28.01% within roundoff error (d) 14.29%(3.77) = 53.87% SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B9 DOL = contribution EBIT Prior to the sales increase: (a) DOL = $350,000 $ 50,000 (b) DOL = $400,000 $100,000 (c) DOL = $450,000 $150,000 (d) DOL = $500,000 $200,000 After the sales increase: (a) DOL = $385,000 $ 85,000 (b) DOL = $440,000 $140,000 (c) DOL = $495,000 $195,000 (d) DOL = $550,000 $250,000 = 7.00 = 4.00 = 3.00 = 2.50

= 4.53 = 3.14 = 2.54 = 2.20

Note how as sales, hence EBIT, rises, DOL declines. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B10 DOL = contribution EBIT

15B8
Prior to the sales increase: (a) DOL = $150,000 $ 30,000 (b) DOL = $180,000 $ 60,000 (c) DOL = $210,000 $ 90,000 (d) DOL = $240,000 $120,000 After the sales increase: (a) DOL = $187,500 $ 67,500 (b) DOL = $225,000 $105,000 (c) DOL = $262,500 $142,500 (d) DOL = $300,000 $180,000 = 2.78 = 2.14 = 1.84 = 1.67 = 5.00 = 3.00 = 2.33 = 2.00

Appendix 15B

Note how as sales, hence EBIT, rises, DOL declines. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B11 Construct the bottom lines of the company's income statement: EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS (a) $500,000 0 500,000 175,000 325,000 20,000 $ 16.25 (b) $500,000 100,000 400,000 140,000 260,000 20,000 $ 13.00 (c) $500,000 200,000 300,000 105,000 195,000 20,000 $ 9.75 (d) $500,000 300,000 200,000 70,000 130,000 20,000 $ 6.50

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B12 Construct the bottom lines of the company's income statement: EBIT Interest (a) $2,500,000 0 (b) $2,500,000 500,000 (c) $2,500,000 1,000,000 (d) $2,500,000 1,500,000

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS 2,500,000 875,000 1,625,000 150,000 $ 10.83 2,000,000 700,000 1,300,000 150,000 $ 8.67 1,500,000 525,000 975,000 150,000 $ 6.50 1,000,000 350,000 650,000 150,000 $ 4.33

15B9

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B13 Redo the income statements of problem 15B with EBIT of $550,000: 11 EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS EPS was Change to EPS (a) $550,000 0 550,000 192,500 357,500 20,000 $ 17.88 $16.25 $ 1.63 (b) $550,000 100,000 450,000 157,500 292,500 20,000 $ 14.63 $13.00 $ 1.63 (c) $550,000 200,000 350,000 122,500 227,500 20,000 $ 11.38 $ 9.75 $ 1.63 (d) $550,000 300,000 250,000 87,500 162,500 20,000 $ 8.13 $ 6.50 $ 1.63

Measured in absolute dollars, EPS increases by $1.63 in all four cases. Percentage change to EPS (a) $1.63/$16.25 = 10.03% (b) $1.63/$13.00 = 12.54% (c) $1.63/$ 9.75 = 16.72% (d) $1.63/$ 6.50 = 25.08% (10% without roundoff error) Note: greater percentage (12.50% without roundoff error) change with higher (16.67% without roundoff error) fixed costs (interest). (25.00% without roundoff error)

15B10

Appendix 15B

SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B14 Redo the income statements of problem 15B with EBIT of $3,000,000: 12 EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS EPS was (a) $3,000,000 0 3,000,000 1,050,000 1,950,000 150,000 $ 13.00 $ 10.83 (b) $3,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 875,000 1,625,000 150,000 $ 10.83 $ 8.67 (c) $3,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 700,000 1,300,000 150,000 $ 8.67 $ 6.50 (d) $3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 525,000 975,000 150,000 $ 6.50 $ 4.33

Change to EPS $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 $ 2.17 Measured in absolute dollars, EPS increases by $2.17 in all four cases. Percentage change to EPS (a) $2.17/$10.83 = 20.04% (b) $2.17/$ 8.67 = 25.03% (c) $2.17/$ 6.50 = 33.38% (d) $2.17/$ 4.33 = 50.12% SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B15 (1) Construct income statements for each EBIT level: EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS (a) $400,000 200,000 200,000 70,000 130,000 35,000 $ 3.71 (b) $600,000 200,000 400,000 140,000 260,000 35,000 $ 7.43 (c) $800,000 200,000 600,000 210,000 390,000 35,000 $ 11.14 (d) $1,000,000 200,000 800,000 280,000 520,000 35,000 $ 14.86 (20% without roundoff error) Note: greater percentage (25% without roundoff error) change with higher (33.33% without roundoff error) fixed costs (interest). (50% without roundoff error)

(2) Increase each EBIT number by 10% and construct new income statements: EBIT Interest (a) $440,000 200,000 (b) $660,000 200,000 (c) $880,000 200,000 (d) $1,100,000 200,000

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS (3) Compare EPS levels: (a) Change = $4.46 $3.71 = $0.75 Percentage change = $0.75 = 20.22% $3.71 (b) Change = $8.54 $7.43 = Percentage change = $1.11 $7.43 (c) Change = $12.63 $11.14 Percentage change = $1.49 $11.14 $1.11 = 14.94% = $1.49 = 13.38% 240,000 84,000 156,000 35,000 $ 4.46 460,000 161,000 299,000 35,000 $ 8.54 680,000 238,000 442,000 35,000 $ 12.63 900,000 315,000 585,000 35,000 $ 16.71

15B11

(d) Change = $16.71 $14.86 = $1.85 Percentage change = $1.85 = 12.45% $14.86 While the absolute change increases as EBIT goes up, the percentage change decreases as the firm's EBT rises. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B16 (1) Construct income statements for each EBIT level: EBIT Interest EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS (a) $250,000 80,000 170,000 59,500 110,500 12,000 $ 9.21 (b) $300,000 80,000 220,000 77,000 143,000 12,000 $ 11.92 (c) $350,000 80,000 270,000 94,500 175,500 12,000 $ 14.63 (d) $400,000 80,000 320,000 112,000 208,000 12,000 $ 17.33

(2) Increase each EBIT number by 25% and construct new income statements: EBIT Interest (a) $312,500 80,000 (b) $375,000 80,000 (c) $437,500 80,000 (d) $500,000 80,000

15B12
EBT Taxes EAT # Shares EPS (3) Compare EPS levels: (a) Change = $12.59 $9.21 = $3.38 Percentage change = $3.38 = 36.70% $9.21 (b) Change = $15.98 $11.92 = $4.06 Percentage change = $4.06 = 34.05% $11.92 (c) Change = $19.36 $14.63 = $4.73 Percentage change = $4.73 = 32.33% $14.63 (d) Change = $22.75 $17.33 = $5.42 Percentage change = $5.42 = 31.28% $17.33 232,500 81,375 151,125 12,000 $ 12.59 295,000 103,250 191,750 12,000 $ 15.98 357,500 125,125 232,375 12,000 $ 19.36 420,000 147,000 273,000 12,000 $ 22.75

Appendix 15B

While the absolute change increases as EBIT goes up, the percentage change decreases as the firm's EBT rises. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B17 DFL = EBIT earnings before taxes

From problem 15B 11: (a) DFL = $500,000 $500,000 = $500,000 $400,000 = $500,000 $300,000 = $500,000 $200,000 = 1 With no fixed financing costs (interest), DFL always = 1

(b) DFL (c) DFL (d) DFL

= 1.25 As fixed financing costs (interest) rise, EBT = 1.67 declines relative to EBIT, and DFL rises. = 2.50

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

15B13

In problem 15B EBIT increased to $550,000 (from $500,000 in problem 15B 13, 11), a 10% increase. Applying the DFL numbers from above to the 10% change in EBIT gives the percentage change to EPS in problem 15B 13: (a) 10%(1) = 10.00% (b) 10%(1.25) = 12.50% (c) 10%(1.67) = 16.67% (d) 10%(2.50) = 25.00% SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B18 DFL = EBIT earnings before taxes

From problem 15B 12: (a) DFL = $2,500,000 = 1 $2,500,000 With no fixed financing costs (interest), DFL always = 1

= $2,500,000 = 1.25 $2,000,000 As fixed financing costs (interest) rise, EBT (c) DFL = $2,500,000 = 1.67 declines relative to EBIT, and DFL rises. $1,500,000 (d) DFL = $2,500,000 = 2.50 $1,000,000 In problem 15B EBIT increased to $3,000,000 (from $2,500,000 in problem 15B 14, 12), a 20% increase. Applying the DFL numbers from above to the 20% change in EBIT gives the percentage change to EPS in problem 15B 14: (a) 20%(1) = 20.00% (b) 20%(1.25) = 25.00% (c) 20%(1.67) = 33.33% (d) 20%(2.50) = 50.00% (b) DFL SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B19 DFL = EBIT__ earnings before taxes

Prior to the EBIT increase: (a) DFL = $400,000 = 2.00

15B14
$200,000 $600,000 = $400,000 $800,000 = $600,000 $1,000,000 = $800,000

Appendix 15B

(b) DFL (c) DFL (d) DFL =

= =

1.50 1.33 1.25

After the EBIT increase: (a) DFL = $440,000 = 1.83 $240,000 (b) DFL = $660,000 = 1.43 $460,000 (c) DFL = $880,000 = 1.29 $680,000 (d) DFL = $1,100,000 = 1.22 $900,000 Note how as EBIT, hence EBT rises, DFL declines. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B20 DFL = EBIT earnings before taxes

Prior to the EBIT increase: (a) DFL (b) DFL (c) DFL (d) DFL = $250,000 $170,000 = $300,000 $220,000 = $350,000 $270,000 = $400,000 $320,000 = 1.47 = 1.36 = 1.30 = 1.25

After the EBIT increase: (a) DFL (b) DFL (c) DFL = $312,500 $232,500 = $375,000 $295,000 = $437,500 $357,500 = 1.34 = 1.27 = 1.22

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

(d) DFL = $500,000 $420,000 = 1.19

15B15

Note how as EBIT, hence EBT rises, DFL declines. SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B21 (a) Sales $2,000,000 Variable cost 1,100,000 Contribution 900,000 Fixed cost 600,000 EBIT 300,000 Interest 100,000 EBT 200,000 Taxes 70,000 EAT 130,000 #shares 150,000 EPS $0.87 (b) DOL = contribution = $900,000 = 3.00 EBIT $300,000 DFL DTL (c) (d) Sales $2,300,000 Variable cost 1,265,000 Contribution 1,035,000 Fixed cost 600,000 EBIT 435,000 Interest 100,000 EBT 335,000 Taxes 117,250 EAT 217,750 #shares 150,000 EPS $1.45 up 15% (55% of sales) up 45% = EBIT = $300,000 EBT $200,000 = 1.50 55% of sales

= contribution = $900,000 = 4.50 EBT $200,000

DOL DFL = 3.00 1.50 = 4.50

up 67%

15B16

Appendix 15B

From DOL, EBIT should increase by 15%(3.00) = 45% From DFL, EPS should increase by 45%(1.50) = 67.5% (roundoff error)

From DTL, EPS should increase by 15%(4.50) = 67.5% SOLUTION PROBLEM 15B22 (a) Sales $500,000 Variable cost 175,000 Contribution 325,000 Fixed cost 125,000 EBIT 200,000 Interest 50,000 EBT 150,000 Taxes 52,500 EAT 97,500 #shares 75,000 EPS $1.30 (b) DOL = contribution = $325,000 = 1.63 EBIT $200,000 DFL DTL (c) = EBIT = $200,000 EBT $150,000 = 1.33 35% of sales

= contribution = $325,000 = 2.17 EBT $150,000

DOL DFL = 1.63 1.33 = 2.17

Measuring the Degree of Leverage

(d) Sales $625,000 Variable cost 218,750 Contribution 406,250 Fixed cost 125,000 EBIT 281,250 Interest 50,000 EBT 231,250 Taxes 80,938 EAT 150,312 #shares 75,000 EPS $2.00 up 25% (35% of sales) up 40.6%

15B17

up 53.9%

From DOL, EBIT should increase by 25%(1.63) = 40.8% (roundoff error) From DFL, EPS should increase by 40.6%(1.33) = 54.0% (roundoff error) From DTL, EPS should increase by 25%(2.17) = 54.3% (roundoff error)17