Capital structure

Capital structure in corporate finance is the way a corporation finances its assets
through some combination of equity, debt, or hybrid securities.

Overview
A firm's capital structure is the composition or 'structure' of its liabilities. For
example, a firm that has $20 billion in equity and $80 billion in debt is said to be 20%
equity-financed and 80% debt-financed. The firm's ratio of debt to total financing,
80% in this example, is referred to as the firm's leverage. In reality, capital structure
may be highly complex and include dozens of sources of capital.

Leverage (or gearing) ratios represent the proportion of a firm's capital that is
obtained through debt which may be either bank loans or bonds.

In the event of bankruptcy, the seniority of the capital structure comes into play. A
typical company has the following seniority structure listed from most senior to least:

 Senior debt
 Subordinated (or junior) debt
 Preferred stock
 Common stock

The Modigliani–Miller theorem, proposed by Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller in

1958, forms the basis for modern thinking on capital structure, though it is generally
viewed as a purely theoretical result since it disregards many important factors in the
capital structure process factors like fluctuations and uncertain situations that may
occur in the course of financing a firm. The theorem states that, in a perfect market,
how a firm is financed is irrelevant to its value. This result provides the base with
which to examine real world reasons why capital structure is relevant, that is, a
company's value is affected by the capital structure it employs. Some other reasons
include bankruptcy costs, agency costs, taxes, and information asymmetry. This
analysis can then be extended to look at whether there is in fact an optimal capital
structure: the one which maximizes the value of the firm.

Theory
Modigliani–Miller theorem
Consider a perfect capital market (no transaction or bankruptcy costs; perfect
information); firms and individuals can borrow at the same interest rate; no taxes; and
investment returns are not affected by financial uncertainty. Modigliani and Miller
made two findings under these conditions. Their first 'proposition' was that the value
of a company is independent of its capital structure. Their second 'proposition' stated
that the cost of equity for a leveraged firm is equal to the cost of equity for an
unleveraged firm, plus an added premium for financial risk. That is, as leverage
increases, risk is shifted between different investor classes, while total firm risk is
constant, and hence no extra value created.

Their analysis was extended to include the effect of taxes and risky debt. Under a
classical tax system, the tax-deductibility of interest makes debt financing valuable;
that is, the cost of capital decreases as the proportion of debt in the capital structure
increases. The optimal structure would be to have virtually no equity at all, i.e. a
capital structure consisting of 99.99% debt.

In the real world

If capital structure is irrelevant in a perfect market, then imperfections which exist in

the real world must be the cause of its relevance.[] The theories below try to address
some of these imperfections, by relaxing assumptions made in the M&M model.

Trade-off theory
Trade-off theory of capital structure allows bankruptcy cost to exist as an offset to the
benefit of using debt as tax shield. It states that there is an advantage to financing with
debt, namely, the tax benefits of debt and that there is a cost of financing with debt the
bankruptcy costs and the financial distress costs of debt. This theory also refers to the
idea that a company chooses how much equity finance and how much debt finance to
use by considering both costs and benefits. The marginal benefit of further increases
in debt declines as debt increases, while the marginal cost increases, so that a firm
optimizing its overall value will focus on this trade-off when choosing how much debt
and equity to use for financing. Empirically, this theory may explain differences in
debt-to-equity ratios between industries, but it doesn't explain differences within the
same industry.

Pecking order theory

Pecking order theory tries to capture the costs of asymmetric information. It states that
companies prioritize their sources of financing (from internal financing to equity)
according to the law of least effort, or of least resistance, preferring to raise equity as
a financing means "of last resort".[] Hence, internal financing is used first; when that is
depleted, debt is issued; and when it is no longer sensible to issue any more debt,
equity is issued. This theory maintains that businesses adhere to a hierarchy of
financing sources and prefer internal financing when available, and debt is preferred
over equity if external financing is required (equity would mean issuing shares which
meant 'bringing external ownership' into the company). Thus, the form of debt a firm
chooses can act as a signal of its need for external finance.

The pecking order theory has been popularized by Myers (1984) when he argued that
equity is a less preferred means to raise capital, because when managers (who are
assumed to know better about true condition of the firm than investors) issue new
equity, investors believe that managers think the firm is overvalued, and managers are
taking advantage of the assumed over-valuation. As a result, investors may place a
lower value to the new equity issuance.
Capital structure substitution theory
The capital structure substitution theory is based on the hypothesis that company
management may manipulate capital structure such that earnings per share (EPS) are
maximized. The model is not normative i.e. and does not state that management
should maximize EPS, it simply hypothesizes they do.

The 1982 SEC rule 10b-18 allowed public companies open-market repurchases of
their own stock and made it easier to manipulate capital structure. This hypothesis
leads to a larger number of testable predictions. First, it has been deducted that market
average earnings yield will be in equilibrium with the market average interest rate on
corporate bonds after corporate taxes, which is a reformulation of the 'Fed model'. The
second prediction has been that companies with a high valuation ratio, or low earnings
yield, will have little or no debt, whereas companies with low valuation ratios will be
more leveraged. When companies have a dynamic debt-equity target, this explains
why some companies use dividends and others do not. A fourth prediction has been
that there is a negative relationship in the market between companies' relative price
volatilities and their leverage. This contradicts Hamada who used the work of
Modigliani and Miller to derive a positive relationship between these two variables.

Agency costs
Three types of agency costs can help explain the relevance of capital structure.

 Asset substitution effect: As debt-to-equity ratio increases, management has

an incentive to undertake risky, even negative Net present value (NPV)
projects. This is because if the project is successful, shareholders earn the
benefit, whereas if it is unsuccessful, debtors experience the downside.
Underinvestment problem or debt overhang problem: If debt is risky e.g., in
a growth company, the gain from the project will accrue to debt holders rather
than shareholders. Thus, management have an incentive to reject positive NPV
projects, even though they have the potential to increase firm value.
 Free cash flow: unless free cash flow is given back to investors, management
has an incentive to destroy firm value through empire building and perks etc.
Increasing leverage imposes financial discipline on management.
資本結構
在金融學術語中，資本結構指公司通過債券（負債融資）、股票（權益融資）、
混合債券等方式融資後，負債、權益占公司資本的構成的比例關係。對於公司
來說，負債融資的資金計入公司總負債，權益融資獲得資金成為股本計入所有
者權益，所以公司資本結構的調整主要表現為對公司資本中債務構成，或者說
「負債融資的比例」進行調整。這個指標通常是以公司的權益負債率，或者其
他包含公司總負債帳戶的償債指標如資本負債率、債務資產比率、財務槓桿率
來衡量的。

 權益負債率=總負債/總所有者權益
 資本負債率=總負債/總所有者權益
 資產負債率=總負債/總負債+總所有者權益
 財務槓桿率=平均總資產/平均總所有者權益

其中，資產為所有者權益（即資本）與負債的加總。

這些指標衡量了公司對負債融資的依賴程度。舉例來說，一家資產總額為
￥150，000 的公司，其中有￥30，000 元來自公司的權益融資，￥120，000 元
來自公司的負債融資。此時公司的權益比率為 4.0，資本負債率為 4.0，資產負
債率為 0.8，財務槓桿率為 5.0。

現實世界中，由於融資工具種類的多樣化，估計公司的資本結構往往要更加複
雜。

完美市場中的資本結構
在給定條件的情況下，MM 定理給出了兩個重要的結論：公司的資本結構與公司
價值無關（更確切地說，兩者相互獨立）；公司的權益融資成本等於公司的債
務融資成本加上其財務風險的溢價，即 Es=Ed+rp。其衍生的結論是指當公司的
槓桿率上升時，投資者的風險會在債務融資和權益融資之間轉換，但總的風險
不變，因此也不存在風險溢價。

MM 定理成立的條件如下：

 完美市場假設；（沒有交易成本、破產成本，完全信息）
 公司和個人能夠以相同的貼現率借入資金；
 沒有所得稅；
 公司的投資決策不影響公司的融資決策；

當 MM 定理放寬至存在所得稅、存在債務風險的條件時，資本結構的變化會直接
影響公司價值。公司負債帶來的稅盾效應(tax shield)使得負債融資比權益融
資更加有效，此時只要公司的破產成本小於稅盾效應帶來的增值，負債越高，
公司的價值越大。如果沒有債務風險，則公司的最佳資本結構是 100%負債融資，
因為此時稅盾效應最為明顯。這個理論也被稱為權衡理論，它解釋了為何真實
世界的公司多數傾向於負債融資而不是權益融資。

真實世界中的資本結構
邏輯上講，如果完美市場假設下，公司資本結構與公司價值無關，那麼不完美
的市場，也就是真實世界，一定是導致兩者相關的重要原因。通過放寬 MM 定理
的假設以考察真實世界對公司資本結構、公司價值的影響，形成了如下理論。

權衡理論(Trade-off Theory)

權衡理論的認為在不完美的資本市場中，負債融資會比權益融資更有優勢。但
負債融資除了利息以外還存在其他融資成本：由於負債過度而導致投資者不願
投資的財務困境成本，和企業一旦破產清算帶來的損失：破產成本。在這種條
件下，企業融資成本存在邊際效應。當負債融資帶來的財務困境成本和破產成
本的增加高於稅盾效應帶來的收益時，企業價值會下降；這種類似經濟學上盈
虧均衡點的存在，意味著公司可以通過權衡負債融資和權益融資占資本結構的
比例來設計最優化的融資方案。現實世界中權衡理論可以通過考察不同企業間
的權益負債比率差異得到驗證，但是權衡理論不能解釋同一個公司在不同時期
權益負債率變化的原因。

啄食理論(The Pecking order Theory)

致力於從信息不對稱（不完美信息）帶來的額外融資成本進行資本結構研究的
理論被稱為啄食理論，它認為公司會根據信息不對稱的程度、代理成本的高低，
企業的融資方式可以分為通過公司自有資本進行的再融資：內源融資和從公司
之外的經濟實體獲得融資的方式：外源融資；其中外源融資又稱為權益融資和
負債融資。在這些融資方式中，公司根據獲取信息的難度（最少努力原則）和
代理成本的高度（最少阻力原則）確定公司的融資順序。在這種條件下，資本
結構不存在某個固定的債務比例為最優資本結構。

啄食理論的研究結論是：公司通常會按照如下順序選擇融資方式：

 內源融資，因為公司的管理者最清楚公司自有資金的來源，信息獲取最容易，
且代理成本最小。
 外源融資

在內源融資不能滿足公司需要時，才會考慮外源融資。其順序為：

 負債融資
 權益融資，因為與負債融資相比，權益融資意味著要引入更多地外部所有者，
使得代理成本提高。

這一理論在 Myers（1984）的發展下獲得了較大發展，Myers 堅持股權作為一種

外源融資方式並不有效，因為市場相信管理者比投資者更清楚公司情況，因此
外源融資會被投資者視為公司財務狀況不佳，公司價值存在高估的的信號，其
結果就是投資者對發行的新股給予較低的認購價格。

代理成本理論

在解釋資本結構的理論中，有三種代理成本被認為與之相關：
  資產替代效應：當債務資本比率上升時，管理者存在採納更具風險的投資項目
的激勵，即便項目的 NPV 是負值。這是由於如果投資的項目取得成功，股票的
持有者將從股價高企中獲益；當項目失敗時，債權人承擔了全部的損失。即項
目的採納意味著公司價值有可能會降低，從而使得一部分福利從債權人轉移到
股票持有者手中。
 投資不足現象：當負債存在風險時，債權人將從公司項目的收入中獲得跟過的
部分。因此管理者有可能拒絕 NPV 為正值的項目，即使這個項目能夠增加潛在
的公司價值。
 自由現金流：未能歸屬於投資者的自由現金流部分，管理者都有將之控制並相
機處理的激勵，這種處理有時可能是好的，但同樣有可能被管理者用於追求私
利，如鞏固自己在公司的地位或追求其他特權，從而使本可以投資於其他項目
的自由資金減少，進而減少公司價值。

MM 定理強調了公司的風險收益或損失會在股票持有者和債權人之間轉移，因此
隨著債務資本比重的提升，債權人的監督成本隨著增加，進而要求更高的利率
以補償其監督成本，這種代理成本在公司收益不變的情況下，要由股東承擔；
同時債務比率過高會導致股東價值的降低，因此在代理成本存在的條件下，股
東往往與管理層存在委託-代理問題。

信號理論(Signaling Theory)
　　信號理論是指由 2001 年諾貝爾經濟學獎獲得者斯賓塞(Spence)於 1973 年首先提出的
理論。信號理論是在信息不對稱的前提下發展起來的。儘管存在信息不對稱現象，但仍可
以實現潛在的交易收益。
　　斯賓塞的基本觀點是若高質量產品的賣主能夠找到某種活動，為此付出的成本較低質
量產品的賣主的低，作為一種高質量的信號，他可能會從這種活動中得到報償。即使買主
沒有意識到這種活動的潛在成本差異，他們也會瞭解到這種信號與較高質量相關，因而願
意支付一份額外的款項。因此，無論是發信號還是不發信號，只要某種交易的邊際成本對
於較高質量產品的賣主來說是較低的，則就會出現某種均衡，買主完全能夠根據賣主發出
的信號水平推測產品質量的高低。
作用及特點[1]
　　無論是個人、企業還是政府，當他們不能直接傳達其偏好或意圖時，“信號”可以提
供較大的幫助。例如，舉債經營傳達出來的一個信號：公司對未來收益有著良好的預期。
名牌商品向消費者傳達的一個準確無誤的信號：它是一種高質量的產品，應該比一般商品
更貴也更值錢。當然，如果品牌要保持自身陽春白雪的地位，必須限量生產。這一理論也
同樣可以解釋，為什麼企業喜歡向員工分紅派息而不是派現金，從信號理論的角度而言，
分紅派息強烈地表達了公司良好的前景。
　　下麵舉個實際生活中的例子來解釋信息不對稱情況下信號理論的應用。在二手車市場，
舊車賣方顯然比買方對車輛擁有更多的信息，為了牟利會以次充好；而買方則試圖通過低
價來彌補信息上的損失，這又導致賣方不願提供好的產品，造成質量越好的產品越早被排
擠出市場，最終的結果是次貨泛濫、市場崩潰。此時賣方試圖尋找一種方法告訴買方：他
有一輛好車。這就是所謂的信號理論。如果賣方的車從不拋錨，不需維修，能提供擔保書，
能表明比別人的車更好，那麼這種擔保即使不一定有價值，也傳遞了一個信號，即賣方有
一輛好車。當賣方能提供別人無法提供的產品時，信號就在起作用。
　　信號理論也有它固有的缺陷。在一產品市場尚處於發展初期時，由於消費者對市場熟
悉程度較低，市場上產品的性價比不穩定，這時候，價格和質量仍是消費數量的主要變數，
信號理論仍是適用的。而隨著市場的成熟，市場競爭使得產品的性價比趨於穩定，這時影
響消費者決策的是消費者偏好，信號理論將不再適用。
　　當網上交易市場還不夠成熟，交易雙方存在嚴重的信息不對稱時，在這種情況下如何
充分利用信號理論就很重要了。商家可用一些措施，如無條件退換貨、隱私保護、品牌等
向消費者傳遞信號，增加消費者信任與購物信心。
其他理論
擇時理論：行為金融學認為公司會傾向於在牛市時發行股票，避免在熊市時進
行上市或權益再融資。這種理論認為資本結構是公司管理者選擇融資時機的歷
史結果，這種由於累計「擇時」導致的資本結構的變化被稱為擇時效應。

加速投資效應：在沒有代理成本的情況下，存在槓桿效應的公司會選擇加速投
資以避免違約風險。

套利
針對公司資本結構的套利是指尋求通過同一公司發行的不同的融資工具間的價
格差異進行買賣獲利的行為。如一般債券和可轉換債券之間，一般債券只能獲
得固定的票面利率和本金作為收益，但可轉債可以通過觀察公司的股票價格，
適時選擇轉換為約定數量的股票套取差價，即可轉債的價格是一般債券加上期
權帶來的額外收益，當額外收益存在時，投資者就能獲得套利的機會。這種套
利存在的根源是兩種融資工具的定價方式：一些工具通過與公司達成的約定獲
得固定收益；另一些工具通過資本市場的變化進行定價。當兩種融資工具對債
券或者股票的定價差異過大，針對資本結構的套利就會使差異減少，直至兩者
趨同，期權溢價為 0。

應用
由於真實市場往往有悖於有效市場假說的特點，因此資本結構在大量研究中被
認為和公司的公司價值存在相關性。這種相關性的存在也促進了一種假說的提
出和觀察研究：企業的最優資本結構，這一學說在權衡理論實證結果顯著的市
場上得到了一定的發展，但其結果的可重複性備受爭議。
資本結構-理論延申

權衡理論
　　權衡理論是企業最優資本結構就是在負債的稅收利益和預期破產成本之間權衡。
　　權衡理論通過放寬 MM 理論完全信息以外的的各種假定，考慮在稅收、財務困境成本、
代理成本分別或共同存在的條件下，資本結構如何影響企業市場價值。它包括：
　　1、負債的好處：
　　①公司所得稅的抵減作用。由於債務利息和股利的支出順序不同，世界各國稅法基本
上都准予利息支出作為成本稅前列支，而股息則必須在稅後支付。
　　②權益代理成本的減少。負債有利於企業管理者提高工作效率、減少在職消費，更為
關鍵的是，它有利於減少企業的自由現金流量，從而減少低效或非盈利項目的投資。

　　2、負債的受限：
　　①財務困境成本，包括破產威脅的直接成本、間接成本和權益的代理成本；
　　②個人稅對公司稅的抵消作用。
　　因此，現實中企業的最優資本結構是使債務資本的邊際成本和邊際收益相等時的比例。

啄食順序理論概述

　　美國經濟學家梅耶（Mayer）很早就提出了著名的啄食順序原則：①內源融
資；②外源融資；③間接融資；④直接融資；⑤債券融資；⑥股票融資。即，
在內源融資和外源融資中首選內源融資；在外源融資中的直接融資和間接融資
中首選間接融資；在直接融資中的債券融資和股票融資中首選債券融資。

　　當公司要為自己的新項目進行融資時，將優先考慮使用內部的盈餘，其次
是採用債券融資，最後才考慮股權融資。也就是說，內部融資優於外部債權融
資，外部債權融資優於外部股權融資。所以從本質上說，Pecking Order 理論
認為存在一個可以使公司價值最大化(公司發行的股票和債券的價值最大化)的
最優資本結構，並且以對不同性質的資本進行排序的方式，給出了決策者應當
遵循的行為模式。正因為 Pecking Order 理論是關於資本結構優化的理論，所
以支持或反駁 Pecking Order 理論的討論，都是在現代公司金融中的資本結構
理論的背景框架下進行的。

代理成本
代理成本，按照詹森和梅克林(Jensen and Meckling，1976)的定義，代理成本是指委托人
為防止代理人損害自己的利益，需要通過嚴密的契約關係和對代理人的嚴格監督來限制代
理人的行為，而這需要付出代價。
　　代理成本可化分為三部分：①委托人的監督成本，即委托人激勵和監控代理人，以圖
使後者為前者利益儘力的成本；②代理人的擔保成本，即代理人用以保證不採取損害委托
人行為的成本，以及如果採用了那種行為，將給予賠償的成本；③剩餘損失，它是委托人
因代理人代行決策而產生的一種價值損失，等於代理人決策和委托人在假定具有與代理人
相同信息和才能情況下自行效用最大化決策之間的差異①。顯然，①和②是制定、實施和
治理契約的實際成本，③是在契約最優但又不完全被遵守、執行時的機會成本。
資本結構-啄食順序理論延申

現代公司資本結構理論的重要邏輯起點是 Modigliani and Miller1958 年的論

文，也即 M—M 定理的最初形式,它指出：如果①不存在破產風險；②個體可以
在無風險市場上以市場利率借貸；③不存在稅收；④不存在交易成本，那麼公
司的價值與其資本結構無關；不存在可以使得公司價值最大化的最優資本結
構。如果 M—M 定理是嚴格成立的，那麼各種融資方式之間無差別，啄食
(Pecking Order)理論就不可能成立。但是 M—M 定理的假設條件是比較嚴格
的，有可能使得在應用這個理論對經濟現實進行解釋和說明時，存在極大的偏
差。因此，後人在不斷放鬆 M—M 定理前提假設的過程中，進一步發展了這一經
典理論，也豐富了討論啄食(Pecking Order)理論的背景框架。在放鬆上述假設
條件的過程中，因為不同學者的側重點不同，所以發展出了形形色色的資本結
構理論。

　　基本上講，這一階段的理論研究主要有以下幾個方向：

　　(1)在主要考慮債務融資給企業所帶來的稅收屏蔽效應以及財務、破產風險
和相應的成本的條件下，得出了資本結構和企業價值具有相關關係；至少在理
論上存在最優的資本結構，可以使企業價值最大化的結論。比較有代表性的是
權衡理論。

　　(2)在綜合考慮企業所得稅和個人所得稅以及破產風險(不考慮破產成本)對
企業的影響的條件下，得到了企業的價值仍然是同企業的資本結構無關的。這
方面的主要研究是由 Stopitz(1969)、Kraus and Litzenberger(1973)、
Millef(1977)完成的。

　　(3)在主要考慮企業內外關係人之間的信息不對稱以及相應的代理成本的條
件下，得到了企業價值同資本結構相關，存在最優的資本結構的結論。這方面
的工作主要是由 Jensen and Meckling(1976)、Ross(1977)、Myers and
Majluf(1984)所完成的。

對啄食理論的評議
　　要想證明 Pecking Order 理論，我們需要說明的是在任何條件下或者在比
較符合市場實際的條件下，如果企業需要進行融資都會按照內部留存收益——
外部債權融資——外部股權融資的順序進行自己的資本結構選擇。

　　在對基本的 M—M 定理的後續發展中，已經證明瞭在比較完備的市場中，如

果信息是對稱的，那麼稅收(同時存在公司所得稅和個人所得稅)和破產風險
(不考慮破產成本)都不會影響公司的價值，各種融資方式無差別，啄食理論也
就不可能成立。因此對 Pecking Order 理論的討論主要是在放鬆 M—M 框架下的
信息對稱與不存在破產成本的前提假設的條件下進行的。

　　一、公司資本結構的信息不對稱分析

　　首先考慮信息不對稱對公司資本結構的影響。在這方面 Pecking Order 理

論的主要支持是 Myers and Majluf 的模型。該模型認為當存在公司外部投資
者和內部經理人之間的信息不對稱時，由於投資者不瞭解公司的實際類型，只
能按照對公司價值的期望來支付公司價值，因此如果公司採用外部融資的方式
為公司的新項目融資時，會引起公司價值的下降，所以公司發行新股票是一個
壞消息，如果公司具有內部盈餘的話，公司應當首先選擇內部融資的方式。當
公司必須依靠外部資金時，如果可以發行與非對稱信息無關的債券，則公司的
價值也不會降低，因此債券融資比股權融資具有較高的優先順序。我們可以看
到在內部融資優於外部融資的分析上，Myers and Majluf 模型的論述是比較清
晰的，其假設與現實也比較貼近；但是，在債權融資比股權融資優先方
面，Myers and Majluf 模型對 Pecking Order 理論的支持是建立在很強的理論
假設的基礎上的。可以說，在這方面，這個模型基本上沒有考慮債務融資的代
理成本問題，這與現實的差距是比較大的。

　　二、公司資本結構的代理成本分析

　　信息不對稱還導致了另外一個嚴重的問題——各種融資方式之間的代理成
本差異。從代理成本的角度來考慮問題，由於內部經理人和外部投資者之間信
息的不對稱，進行任何的外部融資都會產生代理成本，引起公司價值的下降，
而如果採用內部融資的方法則不會增加公司的代理成本，因此內部融資是比外
部融資優先的融資方式。Jensen and Meckling(1976)的模型證明瞭，假設公司
僅採取外部股權的融資方式，由於信息不對稱，存在道德風險問題，內部經理
人有可能採取過度的在職消費行為，從而降低公司的價值。因此內部融資優於
外部股權融資。

[編輯]

中外企業融資順序分析
　　按照現代資本結構理論，企業融資一般遵循內源融資＞債券融資＞股權融
資的先後順序，即“ 啄食順序理論”（The Pecking order Theory）。但由於
發展中國家與發達國家市場化程度不同，特別是經濟證券化程度不同及資本市
場的發達程度不同，因此不同類型國家企業融資方式和融資順序是不同的。由
於美國企業融資模式和企業的融資順序較具有代表性，我們著重從美國企業融
資的實際來進行分析，並將我國和美國的企業融資順序進行比較。

　　一、中美企業融資順序比較

　　（1）美國企業融資順序。

　　經過長期的演進和發展，美國的金融市場體系已經相當成熟和完善，資本
市場十分發達，企業制度也已非常完善，企業行為非常理性化, 完全在市場引
導下進行。 美國企業融資的選擇,先依靠內源融資（留利和折舊）,然後才外源
融資。外源融資中, 主要是通過①發行企業債券；②發行股票，從資本市場上
籌措長期資本。可見，美國企業融資方式的選擇遵循的是“啄食順序理論”。

　　美國企業融資特點：一是企業內源融資總額比重大。據統計，1979~1992
年，美國企業內源融資占資金來源總額的比重，一直在 65%以上，1992 年甚至
達到 97%，平均為 71%；二是美國企業在外源融資中優先選擇債務融資，而股權
融資則相對受到冷落，美國企業從證券市場籌集的資金中，債權融資所占的比
重比股權融資要高得多。據統計，從 1970~1985 年，美國企業通過債權融資籌
集的資金在企業外部籌資中所占的比重為 91.7％，遠遠大於股權融資所籌資金
的比重。

　　（2）我國企業融資順序。

　　目前我國企業融資順序是內源融資比例低，而外源融資比例高。而在外源
融資中，股權融資比例高，債券融資比例低。《中國證券報》的相關數據統計
顯示：1997 年我國上市公司累計籌資 958.86 億，其中的股權籌資額就占
72.5%，1998、1999 年這個比例分別為 72.6%和 72.3%，而這兩年債權融資額的
比例則分別為 17.8%、24.9%，研究結果顯示：約 3/4 的企業偏好股權融資，在
債務融資中偏好短期債務融資。我國企業的融資順序偏好是：股權融資>內源融
資〉債務融資，可見與“啄食順序理論”的不同。

　　中國企業融資的啄食順序是：①外源融資；②內源融資；③直接融資；④
間接融資；⑤股票融資；⑥債券融資。中國企業之所以會採取這樣的順序，其
根本原因是由於信用缺失。

　　（3）日德企業的融資模式

　　在日德模式中,以日本銀行融資模式最為典型和突出。日本在經濟高速增長
時期,主要企業的融資始終是以銀行為中心,1957 年～1974 年間,在企業的資本
結構中,內部融資(折舊和利潤留成)所占比重僅在 25.6%～37.7%,企業融資主要
依賴外源融資。在外源融資中,最引人註目的是銀行融資所占比例很高,一直在
40%左右,而股票和債券等證券融資所占比例從 1957～1959 年的 18.5%下降到
1970～1974 年的 8.3%,呈下降趨勢。正是這種企業自我積累能力低,而證券市場
又不發達的情況下,日本企業形成了以依靠銀行貸款為主的融資結構模式。值得
註意的是,20 世紀 70 年代中期,隨著日本經濟高速增長的終結,企業經營戰略的
轉變及股票市場的不斷發展,日本企業的融資方式從以銀行融資為中心,轉變為
以證券融資、間接融資和內源融資等三種方式並重。進入 80 年代以來,日本主
要企業內源融資成為主要融資方式,借款所占比重急劇下降,1985 年～1988 年僅
占 3.2%。這與高速增長時期形成了鮮明的對照。它說明銀行融資已逐步退居次
要地位,證券融資比重則大幅提高。1985～1988 年,證券融資比重已高達 28.7%,
成為企業外部融資的主要方式。從公司治理結構來看,日本作為一個後起國家,
證券市場不發達,其融資體制也不同於歐美國家,主要採取的是“銀行導向型融
資”。日本所有大企業都有自己的主辦銀行。與此相對的是,日本公司在證券融
資中形成了獨特的法人相互持股的股權結構。企業通過這種持股方式集結起來
容易形成企業集團,有助於建立長期穩定的交易關係,也有利於加強企業經理者
對公司的自主控制。因此,在此基礎上形成的日本公司治理結構,具有與英美等
國很不相同的特點:一方面,日本公司經理人員擁有做出經營決策的極大自主權,
由於法人之間具有持股關係,很少干預對方的經營活動;另一方面,企業經理者又
會受到銀行特別是主辦銀行的監督。

　　二、中美企業融資偏好差異成因分析

　　我國企業的融資偏好和美國的企業完全不同，為什麼會出現這種情況呢？

　　（1）我國企業的股權融資成本低。

　　目前我國企業股權融資成本呈現過低的主要原因是：一是股票發行時的市
盈率高。據推算，目前我國上市公司發行股票的平均市盈率在 30~40 倍之間，
近兩年雖有所下降，但一般也維持在 20 倍左右，而全球股市的平均市盈率一般
都在 20 倍以下，其中美國 1874~1988 年的平均市盈率僅為 13.2 倍，而香港更
是在 10 倍以下。高市盈率導致較高的股票發行價，從而使同樣股利水平條件
下，股權融資成本較低；二是我國股票股利的低分配和不分配現象較普遍，低
派現率使得上市公司股權融資成本進一步降低；三是股權融資不需要償還，債
務融資卻需要支付固定本息。

　　（2）我國企業的財務管理水平低。

　　我國上市企業的財務管理水平較低也是造成股權融資偏好的重要原因之
一。由於財務管理水平低，加上其它方面的原因，使得許多企業可用於內源融
資的留存收益很少，只能依靠外源融資。許多上市企業的財務經理們，把主要
精力放在反應、控制與融資方面，真正有效實施財務管理的企業少之又少，因
此企業在融資方式選擇上的粗糙和單一就在所難免了。

　　（3）某些企業經理的行為的非理性。

　　在我國上市公司中，由於法人治理結構的不完善和經理股票期權等機制的
缺乏，導致公司經理的代理問題相當嚴重。公司經理不是以公司的真實價值最
大化為目標，而往往傾向於公司經理自身利益的最大化。這決定了公司經理的
融資和投資行為決策不可能完全理性。從而出現了上市公司存在嚴重的“圈錢
饑渴症”以及“投資饑渴症”。深層次的原因則在於導致公司經理非理性行為
的上市公司股東與公司經理之間的“代理問題”。

　　而美國的上市公司都有設計較好的機制來解決代理問題，使公司經理的行
為集中於公司價值的最大化。這些制度安排包括經理股票期權和經理負債。這
樣一些制度設計，可以使得公司經理的個人利益與公司的價值掛鉤，從而使得
從私利出發的公司經理能夠以公司價值最大化為行為準則。

　　（4）不同國家文化的影響。

　　在我國傳統的社會思想文化中，認為“無債一身輕”，企業應較少負債。
這種思想使我國上市企業的管理者們在融資方式的選擇上過於保守：在外部融
資選擇時，較多使用不需要償還且不需要支付固定股利的股權融資方式。此
外，我國上市公司在使用債務融資時，首先大量使用短期債務，然後才考慮使
用長期債務。在美國則沒有這樣的觀念。

　　（5）我國公司管制尚不到位。

　　許多上市公司並沒有建立起真正的法人治理結構，內部人控制現象仍然存
在，信息披露不及時、準確、透明，證券欺詐屢有發生。此外，市場中的操縱
股價行為屢禁不止。而在美國，資本市場發達，信息披露及時。

　　（6）企業債券市場不發達。

　　企業的信用度低，造成投資者對企業債券不感興趣，企業債券也因此發行
困難，成本較高。

　　（7）信用制度不發達。
　　美國有統一的信用評級標準，並有不隸屬於任何金融機構的信用局，整個
社會的信用度高。我國缺乏這種機構和制度。因此發行股票就變成一種軟約
束，使得企業樂於發行股票和增發，發行股票後，就不再對投資者負責，不保
護投資者的利益，尤其是中小投資者。

　　三、我國企業融資偏好的評價

　　根據比較中美兩國的企業融資偏好，我們認識到我國的企業融資順序存在
不合理的方面，主要表現在企業過於偏好股權融資。偏好股權融資會帶來以下
的問題：

　　由於資本市場的不完善和不發達，企業一窩蜂選擇股權融資，一方面使得
真正需要股權資金髮展的企業可能因得不到充足的資金而失去良機，因為社會
資源是有限的，他們的股權融資機會因其它股權融資申請者的存在而減小，如
一些競爭性的行業；另一方面使得那些不需要多少股權資金的企業閑置了大量
資金，這將導致資源配置的低效率，如一些公共事業部門。同時，如果一個已
經具有成熟盈利模式的上市公司，因股權融資而擁有大量的閑置資金，它必然
要尋求其它的利潤增長點，而進入一個自己不熟悉的行業，這易產生盲目的投
資行為而導致投資失敗。

　　如果企業的股權融資比例過高，會嚴重影響企業的經營效率。這是因為債
權對於企業來說是一種硬約束，而股權約束相對偏軟，股權比例過高的資產結
構只會造成對企業經理監督不力，企業經理努力工作的壓力不足，這樣股東、
債權人、企業經理三者之間就容易產生衝突，不能形成一套制衡、激勵機制來
保證企業健康發展，最終損害的還是股東和債權人的利益。

　　此外，適度的負債經營可以降低企業的資金成本，帶來稅負結構利益和財
務杠桿效應，過高的股權比例顯然無法獲得以上好處。

　　四、創造適合我國國情的企業融資順序新理論——“倒啄食順序理論”

　　（1）“啄食順序理論”值得參考和借鑒，但不能照搬。

　　在“啄食順序理論”中企業首選內源融資，內源融資獲得權益資本,企業之
所以可以外源融資,首先取決於企業內源融資的規模和比重。內源融資規模大,
才能吸引更多的投資者投資, 同樣的, 也才能獲得借入資本。從融資原理分析,
企業負債經營, 首先是企業自有資本實力的體現, 自有資本為企業負債融資提
供了信譽保證。而且, 經濟效益好的企業, 投資回報率高, 股東收益好, 更應
註重內源融資。如果增發股票, 無異是增加更多的股東, 良好的投資回報會被
新的投資者分享, 這是得不償失的做法。

　　但我國的客觀情況是，有相當數量的企業是國有企業，沒有內部積累，自
註資金能力弱，沒辦法用內源融資。我國企業主要依賴於外源融資, 內源融資
比例很低, 這說明 :體制決定了企業對銀行的依賴性；企業缺乏自我積累的動
力和約束力; 企業的經濟效益低，形不成內部積累 。用句通俗的話說，就是企
業確實沒有錢。所以我國的企業，尤其是國有企業實際是沒辦法將內源融資放
在第一位的。

　　所以我國的企業只能將“啄食順序理論”作為參考和借鑒，不能照搬。
　　（2）“倒啄食順序理論”是適合我國國情的企業融資順序偏好。

　　根據我國的實際國情提出債券融資>股權融資>內源融資的企業融資順序。
因為該順序與“啄食順序理論”相反，將它命名為“倒啄食順序理論”。為什
麼是這樣呢？原因如下：

　　第一，在我國的現狀下，應首選外源融資。

　　在我國大部分企業是國有企業沒有內部積累，而且許多國有企業的經營效
益不佳，自註資金能力弱，確實沒辦法用內源融資。因此，我國企業的客觀情
況造成了必須要依賴和首選外源融資。

　　第二，在外源融資中，應首選債券融資，而不是股權融資。原因如下：

　　（1）從行為金融學的角度分析：對於融資的企業本身來說，資金結構中有
一定的企業債券，可以形成對經理層的有效監督，對於解決企業自身的公司經
理和股東之間的代理問題有很好的作用。因為企業債券一般面對社會公眾發
行，它相對於股權融資，是一種最硬的融資方式，不但要求固定利息，而且必
須還本付息。這樣對公司的經理形成很大的壓力，促使他們努力工作。

　　（2）從現代資本結構理論的信號傳遞理論的角度分析：當公司必須依靠外
部資金時，如果發行與非對稱信息無關的債券，公司的價值不會降低。因此債
券融資比股權融資具有較高的優先順序。

　　（3）從發達國家的相關數據分析：2001 年，美國公司債（相當於我國的
企業債）的餘額為 51749 億美元，占美國 GDP 比重達到 36.185%；2000 年, 日
本這一數字是 23％；而我國 2002 年末的這個比例還不到 1％，其發展空間可想
而知。

　　在發達國家成熟市場上，企業債券的發行規模一般比股票發行規模大 3～
10 倍。從機構上看，中美兩國的債券市場，呈現出完全相反的兩個三角型：美
國的債券市場是由國債、抵押貸款債券、聯邦機構債券、市政債券、公司債
券、金融債券等組成的。美國迄今發展最快、發行量最大的是企業債券；其次
是市政債，擁有全球最大的地方政府債券市場；發行量最小的是國債。我國債
券市場目前發行量最大的是國債，還沒有地方政府債券，而企業債在債券市場
結構中的位置，剛好處於與美國相反的位置上，數量最少。由此可見，我國的
企業債券融資發展空間大，所以，應該借鑒美國債券市場的發展經驗來大力發
展債券市場。

　　（4）從籌資者的角度看，在發達的資本市場，債券籌資的發行成本應該比
股票籌資低，債券利息可從稅前利潤扣除，而股息則從稅後利潤支付，存在公
司法人和股份持有人雙重課稅的問題。債券融資不影響原有股東的控制權，債
券投資者只有按期收取本息的權力，沒有參與企業經營管理和分配紅利的權
力，對於想控制股權，維持原有管理結構不變的企業管理者來說，發行債券比
發行股票更有吸引力。

　　（5）投融資環境已經得到一些改善，尤其是國債市場已得到很大的改進，
國債的市場化發行，使得政府不必通過限制發行企業債券來完成國債的發行任
務，客觀上為企業的債券發行提供了一個寬鬆的環境。
　　（6）隨著國民經濟的高速增長，一大批企業規模日益擴大，經濟效益不斷
提高，為企業債券發行提供了必要條件。

　　（7）當前國內企業債券市場的投資者已經完成了由個人投資者為主到機構
投資者為主的轉變。機構投資者包括： 基金公司、保險公司、信托投資公司、
財務公司等非銀行金融機構。投資主體的變化，有利於債券市場的穩定和發
展。

[編輯]

啄食理論信息不對稱融資分析
　　一、問題提出

　　任何企業融資結構和融資方式的選擇都是在一定的市場環境背景下進行
的。在特定的經濟和金融市場環境中,單個企業選擇的具體融資方式可能不同,
但是大多數企業融資方式的選擇卻具有某種共性。所謂的啄食理論是指企業融
資一般會遵循內源融資>債務融資>股權融資的先後順序，換言之，企業先依靠
內部融資(留利和折舊)，然後再求助於外部融資。；而在外部融資中，企業一
般優先選擇發行債券融資，資金不足時再發行股票融資。這一融資順序的選擇
反映在企業資本結構中是內部融資占最重要地位，其次是銀行貸款和債券融
資，最後是發行新股等資。為什麼中國的上市公司不追求通常認為的資金成本
較低的債券融資而偏好股權融資方式呢？這裡將主要考慮信息不對稱對公司資
本結構的影響，對啄食理論進行信息不對稱的理論分析，並解釋我國上市公司
融資過程中的啄食理論的反常表現。

　　二、我國融資結構的信息不對稱分析

　　美、中企業資金來源結構對比（占融資總額的%）

國別 美國（1944-1990 平均） 中國（1995-2000 平均）

內源資金 75 15

外源資金 25 85

股權 1 50

債權 24 35

外源資金合
25 85
計
　　註：美國資料：載《中國證券報》1997．12，15

　　中國資料：國信證券課題組，《上市公司為何偏好股權融資》，2002。表
顯示：美國企業的資金來源主要為內源融資，在其外源融資中主要是債權融
資，印證了啄食理論，這與美國證券市場極為發達有著相關的原因。而我國上
市公司恰恰相反，與目前不太成熟的市場經濟環境和資本市場的發展進程密切
相關。Singh(1992)發現與西方的融資優序理論不同，發展中國家的上市公司具
有”異常融資優序”現象— — 外部資本優於內部資金，外部資本中股權資本
優於債權資本，偏好於股權融資。就我國的上市企業和資本市場而言，信息不
對稱是造成異常的融資順序的重要原因。

　　（1）信息成本高昂。

　　信息不對稱會導致各種融資方式之間的信息成本差異。從信息成本的角度
來考慮問題，由於內部經理人和外部投資者之間信息的不對稱，進行任何的外
部融資都會產生信息成本，引起公司價值的下降，而如果採用內部融資的方法
則不會增加公司的信息成本。因此內部融資是比外部融資優先的融資方式
Jensenand MeckIing(1976)的模型證明假設公司僅採取外部股權的融資方式，
由於信息不對稱，存在道德風險問題。內部經理人有可能採取過度的在職消費
行為，從而降低公司的價值。因此內部融資優於外部股權融資從企業的股權結
構來看，美國經濟是以個人產權制度為基礎的企業幾乎是由個人股東持股。但
近二十年來，美國機構持股得到快速發展，主要的機構投資者是共同基金，保
險公司，養老基金和捐贈基金等。這些機構投資者剋服了小額投資者的信息搜
尋困難，理解專業信息的成本大為降低，避免了嚴重的信息不對稱，為美國個
人投資於企業開闢了交易成本更低，風險更小的中介機制。而我國目前也在積
極發展機構投資者，相繼引進 QFIl，保險資金，銀行資金入市。為什麼不見成
效呢？這主要市場力量欠缺所致，美國監管嚴格，市場力量的作用包括股票市
場、商品市場、經理人市場等多種形式。這些市場機制都能對企業經理人員施
加影響，使其目標行為有利於所有者。這些市場力量中，數股票市場對經理人
員的約束作用最強，也最直接。但在我國，本來大力發展機構投資者旨在改善
信息的不對稱，因為市場不成熟，結果事與願違，進一步提高信息成本。

　　在我國，監督力量薄弱，小額投資者作為所有者(委托方)難以真正對企業
經理人員(代理人)起到監督作用。這是因為，一方面，占有股權微不足道的小
股東有”措便車“的傾向，他們既不關心，也無力左右企業經理人員的工作；
另一方面，由於機構投資者並不是真正的所有者，而只是機構性的代理人、代
理基金的受益人運作基金，他們是”被動的投資者”，主要關心企業能付給他
們多少的紅利而不是企業經營的好壞和投資項目的運營情況，當機構投資者發
現所持股票收益率下降時就會立即拋出所持股票套現退出，而根本無意介入改
組企業經理人員。還有我國小額投資者處於信息的弱勢方又缺乏理性，投機心
理極強，未充分發育的市場更是助長此種心態，通過”用腳投票”機制來約束
企業經營名存實亡，藉以改善企業治理結構的作用是很小的，對企業經理人員
的約束主要來自於市場的力量和作用。

　　（2）信號傳遞效應。債務融資向市場傳遞的是積極信號，有助於提高企業
市場價值。信息不對稱時企業資本結構變動和財務決策披露具有信號效應，外
部投資者依據這些變動和決策披霜所傳遞的信息理性地調整對企業價值的判
斷，從而導致公司股票價格的波動，股票價格下跌意味著股東利益被稀釋，這
種決策披露後形成的企業價值損失稱為決策的信息成本。
　　為了改變信息不對稱狀況，籌資方就會進行積極的信息顯示。羅斯的信號
一激勵模型(Ross)中，經理使用公司的負債比例向外部投資者傳遞公司利潤分
佈的信息，投資者把較高的負債率看作是公司高質量的表現。為了使債務比例
成為可靠的信息機制，羅斯對破產公司的管理者施加“懲罰“約束，從而使公
司負債比例成為正確的信號。梅葉斯(Myers)和梅吉拉夫(Majluf)認為，資本結
構的確定是為了緩和由於信息不對稱而導致的公司投資決策的無效率由於投資
者不瞭解公司的實際類型，只能按照對公司價值的期望來支付公司價值，因此
如果公司採用外部融資的方式為公司的新項目融資時，會引起公司價值的下
降，所以公司發行新股票是一個壞消息。如果公司具有內部盈餘的話，公司應
當首先選擇內部融資的方式，當公司必須依靠外部資金時；如果可以發行與非
對稱信息無關的債券，則公司的價值也不會降低，因此債券融資比股權融資具
有較高的優先順序。

　　我們發現,在成熟的金融市場上符合上述結論，當公司需要進行外部融資
時，往往是公司前期的生產經營狀況比較好，需要進一步擴大規模的時候。在
這種條件下 ROSS(1 977)的模型表明 如果信息是不對稱的。那麼”優質公
司”應當比”劣質公司”具有更高的負債率，以向市場傳遞自己公司類型的信
息，使得市場能夠對本公司的價值正確估價，避免公司價值的市場低估。但我
國市場制度執行不力，上市公司信托責任淡薄，籌集的資金用途隨意改變卻無
後續處罰措施，這種情況下促使了股權籌資偏好。

　　三、結論

　　我國上市公司的偏好股權融資是我國籌資和投資雙方嚴重信息不對稱的必
然結果。這種情況摧毀股東財富，不利經濟的發展。隨著資本市場透明度提高
及其逐漸發展成熟，相信我國融資偏好一定會符合啄食理論。
Weighted Average
Cost of Capital
(WACC) Guide
What is WACC?
Definition: The weighted average cost of capital (WACC) is a financial ratio that
calculates a company’s cost of financing and acquiring assets by comparing the debt
and equity structure of the business. In other words, it measures the weight of debt
and the true cost of borrowing money or raising funds through equity to finance new
capital purchases and expansions based on the company’s current level of debt and
equity structure.

Management typically uses this ratio to decide whether the company should use debt
or equity to finance new purchases.

This ratio is very comprehensive because it averages all sources of capital; including
long-term debt, common stock, preferred stock, and bonds; to measure an average
cost of borrowing funds. It is also extremely complex. Figuring out the cost of debt is
pretty simple. Bonds and long-term debt are issued with stated interest rates that can
be used to compute their overall cost. Equity, like common and preferred shares, on
the other hand, does not have a readily available stated price on it. Instead, we must
compute an equity price before we apply it to the equation.

That’s why many investors and creditors tend not to focus on this measurement as
the only capital price indicator. Estimating the cost of equity is based on several
different assumptions that can vary between investors. Let’s take a look at how to
calculate WACC.
What is the WACC Formula?
The WACC formula is calculated by dividing the market value of the firm’s equity by
the total market value of the company’s equity and debt multiplied by the cost of
equity multiplied by the market value of the company’s debt by the total market value
of the company’s equity and debt multiplied by the cost of debt times 1 minus the
corporate income tax rate.

Wow, that was a mouthful. Here’s what the equation looks like.

Here’s a list of the elements in the weighted average formula and what each mean.

 Re = total cost of equity

 Rd = total cost of debt
 E = market value total equity
 D = market value of total debt
 V = total market value of the company’s combined debt and equity or E + D
 E/V = equity portion of total financing
 D/V = debt portion of total financing
 Tc = income tax rate
WACC Calculation
Now let’s break the WACC equation down into its elements and explain it in simpler
terms.

The WACC calculation is pretty complex because there are so many different pieces
involved, but there are really only two elements that are confusing: establishing the
cost of equity and the cost of debt. After you have these two numbers figured out
calculating WACC is a breeze.

Cost of Equity
The cost of equity, represented by Re in the equation, is hard to measure precisely
because issuing stock is free to company. A company doesn’t pay interest on
outstanding shares. In addition, each share of stock doesn’t have a specified value or
price. It simply issues them to investors for whatever investors are willing to pay for
them at any given time. When the market it high, stock prices are high. When the
market is low, stock prices are low. There’s no real stable number to use. So how to
measure the cost of equity?

We need to look at how investors buy stocks. They purchase stocks with the
expectation of a return on their investment based on the level of risk. This
expectation establishes the required rate of return that the company must pay its
investors or the investors will most likely sell their shares and invest in another
company. If too many investors sell their shares, the stock price could fall and
decrease the value of the company. I told you this was somewhat confusing. Think of
it this way. The cost of equity is the amount of money a company must spend to meet
investors’ required rate of return and keep the stock price steady.
Cost of Debt
Compared with the cost of equity, the cost of debt, represented by Rd in the
equation, is fairly simple to calculate. We simply use the market interest rate or the
actual interest rate that the company is currently paying on its obligations. Keep in
mind, that interest expenses have additional tax implications. Interest is typically
deductible, so we also take into account the amount of tax savings the company will
be able to take advantage of by making its interest payments, represented in our
equation Rd(1 – Tc)

So what does all this mean?

What is WACC Used For?

To put it simply, the weighted average cost of capital formula helps management
evaluate whether the company should finance the purchase of new assets with debt
or equity by comparing the cost of both options. Financing new purchases with debt
or equity can make a big impact on the profitability of a company and the overall
stock price. Management must use the equation to balance the stock price, investors’
return expectations, and the total cost of purchasing the assets. Executives and the
board of directors use weighted average to judge whether a merger is appropriate or
not.

Investors and creditors, on the other hand, use WACC to evaluate whether the
company is worth investing in or loaning money to. Since the WACC represents the
average cost of borrowing money across all financing structures, higher weighted
average percentages mean the company’s overall cost of financing is greater and the
company will have less free cash to distribute to its shareholders or pay off additional
debt. As the weighted average cost of capital increases, the company is less likely to
create value and investors and creditors tend to look for other opportunities.
WACC Analysis
You can think of this as a risk measurement. As the average cost increases, the
company must equally increase its earnings and ability to pay the higher costs or
investors won’t see a return and creditors won’t be repaid. Investors use a WACC
calculator to compute the minimum acceptable rate of return. If their return falls
below the average cost, they are either losing money or incurring opportunity costs.

Let’s take a look at an example.

WACC Example
Assume the company yields an average return of 15% and has an average cost of
5% each year. The company essentially makes a 10% return on every dollar it
invests in itself. An investor would view this as the company generating 10 cents of
value for every dollar invested. This 10-cent value can be distributed to shareholders
or used to pay off debt.

Now let’s look at an opposite example. Assume that the company only makes a 10%
return at the end of the year and has an average cost of capital of 15 percent. This
means the company is losing 5 cents on every dollar it invests because its costs are
higher than its returns. No investor would be attracted to a company like this. Its
management should work to restructure the financing and decrease the company’s
overall costs.

As you can see, using a weighted average cost of capital calculator is not easy or
precise. There are many different assumptions that need to take place in order to
establish the cost of equity. That’s why many investors and market analysts tend to
come up with different WACC numbers for the same company. It all depends on what
their estimations and assumptions were. This is why many investors use this ratio for
speculation purposes and tend to value more concrete calculations for serious
investing decisions.
What is Net Present Value (NPV)?
Definition: Net present value (NPV) is the current or present estimated dollar
value of an asset, investment, or project based expected future cash inflows
and outflows adjusted for interest rates and the initial purchase price.

Net present value uses initial purchase price and the time value of money to
calculate how much an asset is worth. In other words, net present value is the
present value of an asset less the initial purchase price.

What Does NPV Mean?

The time value of money concept is simple. Over time money can be invested
and will earn interest. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow
because the dollar today can be invested today and earn more interest than
the future dollar.

Example
Net present value takes the time value of money concept and applies it to
business investments and capital purchases. Take a large equipment
purchase as an example. A company is trying to decide whether to purchase
a large CNC machine for its factory or lease one. Managerial accountants
have analyzed the production capacity of the new machine and anticipate that
is will bring in $5,000 of cash inflows every year for the next 8 years.

The new machine costs $15,000 and the current market rate of interest is 12
percent. The cash inflows are compounded by the market rate of interest and
the original purchase price is subtracted from the total. Here is the net present
value calculation.
Download this accounting example in excel.

 As you can see, the net present value of this machine is $5,373.50. This
means that the machine will not only pay for itself, it will also make $5,373.50.
The general rule of thumb is that if the net present value of an investment or
capital purchase is greater or equal to zero, it is a good investment
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Internal rate of return (IRR) is the minimum discount rate that management
uses to identify what capital investments or future projects will yield an
acceptable return and be worth pursuing. The IRR for a specific project is the
rate that equates the net present value of future cash flows from the project to
zero. In other words, if we computed the present value of future cash flows
from a potential project using the internal rate as the discount rate and
subtracted out the original investment, our net present value of the project
would be zero.

Definition – What is the Internal Rate of Return

Ratio?
This sounds a little confusing at first, but it’s pretty simple. Think of it in terms
of capital investing like the company’s management would. They want to
calculate what percentage return is required to break even on an investment
adjusted for the time value of money. You can think of the internal rate of
return as the interest percentage that company has to achieve in order to
break even on its investment in new capital. Since management wants to do
better than break even, they consider this the minimum acceptable return on an
investment.
IRR Formula
The IRR formula is calculated by equating the sum of the present value of
future cash flow less the initial investment to zero. Since we are dealing with
an unknown variable, this is a bit of an algebraic equation. Here’s what it
looks like:

As you can see, the only variable in the internal rate of return equation that
management won’t know is the IRR. They will know how much capital is
required to start the project and they will have a reasonable estimate of the
future income of the investment. This means we will have solve for
the discount rate that will make the NPV equal to zero.

Example of Calculating IRR

It might be easier to look at an example than to keep explaining it. Let’s look
at Tom’s Machine Shop. Tom is considering purchasing a new machine, but
he is unsure if it’s the best use of company funds at this point in time. With the
new $100,000 machine, Tom will be able to take on a new order that will pay
$20,000, $30,000, $40,000, and $40,000 in revenue.

Let’s calculate Tom’s minimum rate. Since it’s difficult to isolate the discount
rate unless you use an excel IRR calculator. You can start with an
approximate rate and adjust from there. Let’s start with 8 percent.

As you can see, our ending NPV is not equal to zero. Since it’s a positive
number, we need to increase the estimated internal rate. Let’s increase it to 10
percent and recalculate.

As you can see, Tom’s internal return rate on this project is 10 percent. He
can compare this to other investing opportunities to see if it makes sense to
spend $100,000 on this piece of equipment or investment the money in
another venture.

Internal Rate of Return Analysis

Remember, IRR is the rate at which the net present value of the costs of an
investment equals the net present value of the expected future revenues of
the investment. Management can use this return rate to compare other
investments and decide what capital projects should be funded and what ones
should be scrapped.

Going back to our machine shop example, assume Tom could purchase three
different pieces of machinery. Each would be used for a slightly different job
that brought in slightly different amounts of cash flow. Tom can calculate the
internal rate of return on each machine and compare them all. The one with
the highest IRR would be the best investment.

Since this is an investment calculation, the concept can also be applied to any
other investment. For instance, Tom can compare the return rates of investing
the company’s money in the stock market or new equipment. Now obviously
the expected future cash flows aren’t always equal to the actual cash received
in the future, but this represents a starting point for management to base their
purchase and investment decisions on.
What is Capital
Asset Pricing Model
(CAPM)?
Definition: The capital asset pricing model or CAPM is a method of determining the
fair value of an investment based on the time value of money and the risk incurred.
CAPM is used to estimate the fair value of high-risk stock and security portfolios by
linking the expected rate of return with risk.

What Does CAPM Mean?

This model assumes that there are many investors with the same investment horizon
and equal access to information and securities. All investors share homogenous
beliefs about the investment opportunities offered in the market and are all price
takers. They all borrow at a risk-free rate and pay no taxes or commissions.

This model helps these investors calculate the risk on their investments and what
type of return they should expect to get based on the level of risk involved with the
investment.

Let’s look at an example.

Example
CAPM calculates the expected rate of return and discounts the expected future cash
flows to their present value. The model assumes that the expected rate of return is
equal to the risk-free rate plus a risk premium. Therefore, if the actual return on
investment is not equal or higher than the expected return, the investment should not
be undertaken.

To calculate the expected rate of return, Rs, we need to know:

 rf = risk-free rate
 rm = the expected return of the market
 b = systematic risk

Therefore, the CAPM formula is: Rs = rf + b x (rm – rf)

Pedro is an investment banking analyst at Lazard, and he wants to calculate the
expected rate of return for a security. Pedro finds that the systematic risk b of the
security is 1.2. He also knows that the risk-free rate is 3%, and the expected return of
the market is 12%.

Pedro uses the CAPM model to calculate the expected rate of return and determine if
the investment should be undertaken. Therefore:

R = rf + b x (rm-rf) = 0.03 + [1.2 x (0.12 – 0.03)] = 0.03 + (1.2 x 0.09) = 0.03 + 0.0918
= 0.1218 = 12.2%

If 12.2% is equal to or greater than the required return on investment, the investment
should be undertaken.
What is the Dividend
Discount Model
(DDM)?
Definition: The dividend discount model, or DDM, is a method of valuing a stock on
the basis of present value of its expected dividends. The model discounts the
expected future dividends to the present value, thereby estimating if a share is
overvalued or undervalued.

What Does Dividend Discount Model

Mean?
This model holds that the value of a stock is equal to the sum of the net present value
or NPV of all the expected future dividends. The DDM comes in several versions
based on different assumptions about expected dividend growth.

But, its simplest form is the Gordon Growth Model (GGM), which values a stock on a
stable dividend growth assumption. To calculate the fair value of a stock using the
Gordon Growth model, we need to know:

 D1 = the expected future value of dividends

 r = expected rate of return
 g = the stable dividend growth rate, in perpetuity

Thus the dividend discount model formula to calculate the fair value of a stock is:

P = D1 / ( r – g )

Let’s look at an example.

Example
Marion analyzes a stock that pays an annualized dividend of $1.20 per share. By
looking at the stock’s historical data, Marion finds out that the company has raised
its dividend consecutively for 15 years at an average dividend growth rate of
approximately 7% annually. However, due to the ongoing financial crisis, the dividend
growth has slowed down over the last five years. Therefore, Marion estimates an
average dividend growth rate of 4% annually.

The second step is to estimate r. With a stock that pays an annualized dividend of
$1.20 per share and has a stable dividend growth of 4% annually, Marion estimates
an expected rate of return of 10%. By discounting the annualized dividend of $1.20
per share at an expected rate of return 10%, she gets an expected dividend of $1.32
per share.

The third step is to calculate the fair value of the stock. So, Marion plugs in the
numbers and finds that

P = D1 / (r – g) = $1.32 / (10% – 4%) = $1.32 / 6% = $22

What is a Sunk Cost?
Definition: A sunk cost, also known as a stranded cost, is an expense that
has already occurred and can’t be changed or avoided. In other words, it’s
a cost that has already been paid and can’t be refunded or reduced. It’s in the
past and has no bearing on any future decision making processes.

What Does Sunk Cost Mean

What is the definition of sunk cost? Just like the name implies, sunk costs
are gone and can’t be recovered. Accountants focus on this fact when making
business decisions because costs that occurred in the past should not affect
the actions in the future.

Example
Take a new market for example. When a business decides to branch out into a
new market or product line, it can spend large amounts of money on market
research, product development, and advertising. After a failed entrance
attempt into the market, many managers tend to focus on the overall past
investment into a project as a reason to keep it going. They don’t want to see
all the money, time, and energy spent trying to infiltrate a market lost by
pulling out, so they continue to “invest” in the project.

This is an ineffective way of looking at the situation. Previously spent

research, development, and advertising dollars are sunk costs and
are unavoidable. They have no bearing on the current decisions that will affect
the future. These costs are in the past and should not be a reason to continue
to pour money into a loosing market, segment, or product. Instead, managers
should ignore these previously spent costs and focus on the current market. If
it has potential, they should continue to invest. If it looks like it will continue to
lose money, they should stop investing and end the operations.

All large corporations have faced this dilemma at some point in their history.

Microsoft faced this situation after a failed attempt to infiltrate the portable
MP3 player market with the Zune. After a large failed product launch,
Microsoft ceased Zune production and cut its losses.

Summary Definition
Define Sunk Cost: Sunk costs are expenses that a company has already
incurred and avoid no matter what course of action it takes.
Lease vs. Buy: Why Equipment Leasing
is Right for Your Business
Did you know that approximately 80% of U.S. companies lease some or all of the
equipment they use to conduct business? When it comes to leasing equipment in
today’s business world, people often think about standard office equipment such as
printers and copiers, but there are multiple types of equipment used to conduct
business that can be leased — from forklifts and phones to software and surveillance
systems and everything in between.

When a company evaluates a "lease vs. buy" decision, there is no one correct answer;
each situation is unique and there are always pros and cons. For example, your credit
score could play a role in your ability to obtain a competitive loan rate, or your
organization’s tax situation could be a factor in whether you should lease your office
equipment rather than take out a loan or purchase it outright. It’s important to note,
however, that lease payments can often be deducted as a business expense.

Leasing business and office equipment comes with a variety of benefits – not the least
of which is that it allows flexibility and customization to do what's right for your
organization's specific needs. Below are four reasons equipment leasing is a good idea
and should be a viable option for your business:

1. Minimal Upfront Capital Outlay

Companies big and small are looking for ways to streamline the budgeting process
and forecast expenses. When a major piece of equipment shows up as a line item, it
can disrupt an entire organization’s business strategy and limit growth potential
depending on the equipment financing solution they choose. This is a major reason
companies choose to lease business equipment. Unlike a long-term loan or outright
purchase, a lease agreement typically requires little to no down payment to get started.

Leasing allows your business to utilize its cash or credit line to meet other business
needs and reserve cash flow to address unexpected liabilities or major initiatives that
have the highest potential for ROI. Whereas purchasing equipment can require a
major outlay of capital up front, leasing allows for payments to be stretched out over a
longer period of time.

2. Protection against Outdated Equipment

That new smartphone in your pocket with all its added features or the influx of digital
assistants to the market should indicate just how quickly things can change...and how
quickly other technologies can become obsolete. Consider the technology innovations
that have come and gone in the last few years alone. Likewise, business equipment
obsolescence is a real concern for organizations that want to avoid unanticipated
replacement costs and stay one step ahead of their competitors.
The pace of innovation in your business environment is rapid and constant. Leasing
rather than owning equipment, which can become obsolete prior to the end of its
expected life, allows your business to use it during the lease term and then return it if
so desired. That’s because leases can typically be modified during the lease term so
you can upgrade your equipment to take advantage of newer technology or, if you still
like your equipment, you can make arrangements to extend the lease. Some
companies prefer to arrange a lease-to-own agreement which gives them the option of
purchasing equipment outright at the end of the lease term.

As quickly as business environments and markets can shift, it’s good to have the
flexibility of a leasing option to mitigate the risks of obsolescence and rapidly
evolving technology.

3. Flexibility
Leases can be structured to meet the specific needs of your business. The length or
term of your lease can be adjusted to help you reach a more desirable monthly
payment amount that fits into your budget. Or, if you prefer quarterly payments rather
than monthly installments that can likely be arranged, too. Other terms of the lease
can also be modified, including the commencement date and first payment date, as
well as which day of the month you’d like payments to be due.

You’ll also want to consider your end-of-term stipulations and which options will be
best suited for your business model and financial situation. Leasing provides a broad
range of flexible options that are often lacking in standard loan agreements, especially
when you choose to work with a localized leasing agent that is experienced in your
industry, familiar with your local market and willing and able to structure lease
agreements to meet your needs.

4. Fixed Payments
Perhaps nothing is more disruptive to business than fluctuating or unexpected
expenses from one month to the next. Leasing offers the advantage of being able to
more accurately forecast expenses and manage budgets and cash flow because the
periodic lease payment is a fixed amount over the lease term. This constant payment
amount provides your business with consistency for planning purposes.

The fixed payment amount also provides protection against interest rate increases.
While inflation and interest rates have remained relatively low in recent years, there’s
no guarantee that will remain the case in the future, and leasing can hedge against
such potential increases in inflation.

For most businesses — whether a large manufacturer or service firm that needs major
equipment, or a small office that just needs a good printer — leasing is often the most
economical and sensible choice versus buying equipment. The next time your
organization considers an investment in equipment, contact the Gordon Flesch
Company’s team of experts to see whether leasing is the option that’s right for you
6 Intelligent Reasons behind
Leasing
Leasing is an alternative to purchasing. Because the lessee is obligated to make a
series of payments, a lease arrangement resembles a debt contract. Thus, the
advantages cited for leasing are often based on a comparison between leasing and
purchasing using borrowed funds.

This post reveals 7 intelligent reasons behind the decision to leasing. These
reasons do not necessarily mean that leasing is always better than purchasing.
Leasing could be not a right option for certain conditions. But the reasoning
revealed here may enlighten to a better decision whether to lease or to
purchase. Enjoy!

Reason 1: Cost

Many lessees find true leasing attractive because of its apparent low cost. This
is particularly evident where a lessee cannot currently use tax benefit
associated with equipment ownership due to such factors as lack of currently
taxable income or net operating loss carry forwards.

If it were not for the different tax treatment for owning and leasing equipment, the
costs would be identical in an efficient capital market. However, due to the different
tax treatment as well as the diverse abilities of taxable entities to currently utilize the
tax benefit associated with ownership, no set rule can be offered as to whether
borrowing to buy or a true lease is the cheaper form of financing.

The  cost  of  a  true  lease  depends  on  the  size  of  the  transaction  and whether
the  lease  is tax-oriented or nontax-oriented. the equipment  leasing market  can  be 
classified  into  the  following  three market  sectors:  (1) a  small-ticket  retail market
with  transactions  in  the  $5,000  to  $100,000 range,  (2)  a middle market with 
large-ticket  items  covering  transactions between $100,000 and $5 million, and (3) a
special-products market involving equipment cost in excess of $5 million.

Tax-oriented leases generally fall into the second and third markets. Most of the
leveraged lease transactions are found in the third market and the upper range of the
second market. The effective interest cost implied by these lease arrangements is
considerably below prevailing interest rates that the same lessee would pay on
borrowed funds. Even so, the potential lessee must weigh the lost economic benefit
from owning the equipment against the economic benefit to be obtained from leasing.

Nontax-oriented leases fall primarily into the small-ticket retail market and the lower
range of the second market. There is no real cost savings associated with these
leases compared to traditional borrowing arrangements.
 In most cases, however, cost is not the dominant motive
of the firm that employs this method of financing.

From a tax perspective, leasing has advantages that lead to a reduction in cost for a
company that is in a tax-loss-carry forward position and is consequently unable to
claim tax benefit associated with equipment ownership currently or for several years
in the future.

Reason 2: Conservation of Working Capital

The most frequent advantage of leasing cited by leasing company

representatives and lessees is that it conserves working capital. The reasoning
is as follows:

When a firm borrows money to purchase equipment, the lending institution rarely
provides an amount equal to the entire price of the equipment to be financed.
Instead, the lender requires the borrowing firm to take an equity position in the
equipment by making a down payment. The amount of the down payment will
depend on such factors as the type of equipment, the creditworthiness of the
borrower, and prevailing economic conditions. Leasing, in contrast, typically provides
100% financing since it does not require the firm to make a down payment.
Moreover, costs incurred to acquire the equipment, such as delivery and installation
charges, are not usually covered by a loan agreement. They may, however, be
structured into a lease agreement.

The validity of this argument for financially sound firms during normal
economic conditions is questionable. Such firms can simply obtain a  loan for
100% of  the  equipment or borrow  the down payment  from  another source  that 
provides  unsecured  credit. However, there is doubt that the funds needed by a
small firm for a down payment can be borrowed, particularly during tight money
periods. Also, some leases do, in fact, require a down payment in the form of
advance lease payments or security deposits at the beginning of the lease term.

Reason 3: Preservation of Credit Capacity by Avoiding Capitalization

Current financial reporting standards for leases require a leasing obligation

classified as a capital lease (discussed later) be capitalized as a liability and
the equipment recorded as an asset on the balance sheet.

According to Financial accounting standards board

(FASB) Statement No. 13, the principle for classifying a
lease as a capital lease for financial reporting purposes is
as follows:

A lease that transfers substantially all of the benefit and

risks incident to ownership of property should be
accounted for as the acquisition of an asset and the
incurrence of an obligation by the lessee.
FASB statement No. 13 specifies four criteria for classifying a lease as a capital
lease. Leases not classified as capital leases are considered operating leases.
Unlike a capital lease, an operating lease is not capitalized. Instead, certain
information regarding such leases must be disclosed in a footnote to the financial
statement.

Many CFOs are of the opinion that avoiding capitalization

of leases will enhance the financial image of their
corporations. By allowing a company to avoid
capitalization, an operating lease
preserves credit capacity.

An operating lease—and particularly a leveraged lease enables a lessee to

utilize institutional (lessor) equity as a source of funding somewhat like
subordinated debt. Because there is generally ample room for designing lease
arrangements so as to avoid having a lease classified as a capital lease, CFOs
generally prefer that lease agreements be structured as operating leases.

As  a  practical matter, most  long-term  true  leases  (payout-type  leases for 
the  lessors)  are  structured  to  qualify  as  operating  leases  for  financial
accounting purposes for the lessees at the request of the lessees. Further, the
reality is that credit rating services evaluate a company’s balance sheet by including
the assets and liabilities of operating leases. Hence, structuring a lease as an
operating lease does not, in practicality, remove it from consideration as a liability.

Reason 4: Risk of Obsolescence and Disposal of Equipment

When a firm owns equipment, it faces the possibility that at some future time
the equipment may not be as efficient as more recently manufactured
equipment. The owner may then elect to sell the original equipment and purchase
the newer, more technologically efficient version. The sale of the equipment,
however, may produce only a small fraction of its book value. By  leasing,  it  is 
argued,  the firm may  avoid  the  risk of obsolescence  and the problems of disposal
of  the equipment. The validity of this argument depends on the type of lease and the
provisions therein.

With a cancelable operating lease, the lessee can avoid the risk of
obsolescence by terminating the contract. However, the avoidance of risk is
not without  a  cost  since  the  lease  payments  under  such  lease 
arrangements reflect  the  risk of obsolescence perceived by  the lessor. At the
end of the lease term, the disposal of the obsolete equipment becomes the problem
of the lessor. The risk of loss in residual value that the lessee passes on to the lessor
is embodied in the cost of the lease.

The risk of disposal faced by some lessors, however, may not be as great as
the risk that would be encountered by the lessee. Some lessors, for example, 
specialize  in  short-term  operating  leases  of  particular  types  of  equipment, 
such  as  computers or  construction  equipment,  and have  the  expertise to release
or sell equipment coming off lease with substantial remaining useful  life.
A manufacturer-lessor has less investment exposure since its manufacturing
costs will be significantly less than the retail price. Also, it is often equipped to
handle reconditioning and redesigning due to technological improvements.
Moreover, the manufacturer-lessor will be more active in the resale market for the
equipment and thus be in a better position to find users for equipment that may be
obsolete to one firm but still satisfactory to another. IBM is the best example of a
manufacturer-lessor that has combined its financing, manufacturing, and marketing
talents to reduce the risk of disposal. This reduced risk of disposal, compared with
that faced by the lessee, is presumably passed along to the lessee in the form of a
reduced lease cost.

Nonetheless, financial institutions and other lessors are financing ever larger,
more complex, and longer-lived assets, and uncertainty over the residual value
of those assets is one of the biggest risks for lessors. A steel plant, for example,
could have an estimated useful life of 30 years, but its actual useful life could be as
short as 25 years or as long as 40 years. If the useful life of the plant turns out to be
less than the lessor has projected, the lessor could suffer a loss on a lease that
appeared profitable in the original analysis.

For some types of assets there is abundant data to support estimates of residual
value and for other types of assets there is very little data—particularly for new,
unique, complex, or infrequently traded assets. The primary factors that affect
residual value are the three components of depreciation: useful life (deterioration),
economic obsolescence, and technological obsolescence.

Rode, Fishbeck, and Dean suggest that lessors use the best information available to
simulate the behavior of these three factors as well as the correlation among the
three factors, based on probabilistic ranges of outcomes, to produce distributions of
useful life curves, estimated values, and confidence intervals. Because conditions
inevitably change over time, lessors should update their modeling frequently during
the life of the equipment.

Reason 5: Restrictions on Management

When a lender provides funds to a firm for an extended period of time,

provisions to protect the lender are included in the loan agreement. The
purpose of protective provisions, or protective covenants, is to ensure that the
borrower remains creditworthy during the period over which the funds are borrowed.

Protective provisions impose restrictions on the borrower. Failure to satisfy

such a protective covenant usually creates an event of default that, if not cured upon
notice, gives the lenders certain additional rights and remedies under the loan
agreement, including the right to perfect a security agreement or to demand the
immediate repayment of the principal. In practice, the remedy and ability to cure vary
with the seriousness of the event of default.

An advantage of leasing is that a lease agreement typically does not impose

financial covenants and restrictions on management as does a loan agreement
used to finance the purchase of equipment. The historical reason for this in true
leases is that the internal revenue service discouraged true leases from having
attributes of loan agreements. Leases, however, may contain restrictions as to
location of the property and additional investments by the lessee in the leased
equipment in order to ensure compliance with tax laws.

Reason 6: Impact on Cash Flow and Book Earnings

In a properly structured true lease arrangement, the lower lease payment from
leasing rather than borrowing can provide a lessee with a superior cash flow.
Whether the cash low on an after-tax basis after taking the residual value of the
equipment into account is superior on a present value basis must be ascertained.

Leasing versus buying has a different effect on book earnings. Lease

payments under a true lease will usually have less impact on book earnings
during the early years of the lease than will depreciation and interest payments
associated with the purchase of the same equipment