Company cash flow or earnings
is the most popular method for valuing a company
as a going concern. The value of the company is
based on projections of what its earnings or cash
flow is likely to be -- using past trends to predict
the future.
The business judgment
rule
The board must choose between
Plan A and Plan B:
|
Plan A |
|
Plan B |
|
Scenario 1 |
10% |
-$20 |
20% |
$30 |
Scenario 2 |
80% |
$50 |
60% |
$50 |
| Scenario
3 |
10% |
$200 |
20% |
$70 |
Which plan is better? Which
plan is most likely to lead to a shareholder
suit? What is the business judgment rule?
See attached
spreadsheet.
|
|
Example
In 1972, American Express bought
almost two million shares of Donaldson, Lufkin
& Jenrette, Inc. ("DLJ") common
stock for about $ 30 million. Three years later,
when the stock price had declined to about $ 4
million, American Express announced that it would
distribute the stock to its shareholders as a
dividend.

Two American Express shareholders
urged the company to sell the DLJ stock, rather
than distribute it as a dividend. They pointed
out that if American Express sold the DLJ stock,
it could reduce otherwise taxable capital gains
by an amount equal to the roughly $ 26 million
loss it would incur on the sale of its DLJ stock
and thus save approximately $ 8 million in federal
income taxes. On the other hand, by distributing
the DLJ stock as a dividend, American Express
would lose this potential tax saving and would
provide no significant tax benefits to its shareholders.
What should the board do? Create
real value for shareholders by reducing the company's
tax liability or supporting acccounting earnings?
(More>>)
|
Multiple cash flows and
discount rates. Although DCF forms the
core methodology of the income approach to valuation,
FASB recently has recommended an alternative approach
in its Concepts Statement No. 7.
Typically, the DCF methodology employs a single
set of estimated cash flows and a single discount
rate, which attempts to adjust the estimate of
future results to reflect the many varied inherent
risks and uncertainty. The FASB thinks this approach
is overly simplistic.The traditional approach
does not adequately capture the uncertainties
associated with the projected cash flows themselves.
Higher or lower expenses, new competition, government
regulation and numerous other factors may affect
the project favorably or unfavorably.The number
of possible outcomes is virtually limitless. Reducing
all of these possibilities to a single projection
of cash flows, and then applying a single discount
rate, is conducive to serious inaccuracies in
present value determinations according to FASB.
Concepts Statement No. 7 introduces the “expected
cash flow approach.”It differs from the
traditional approach by focusing on explicit assumptions
about the range of possible estimated cash flows
and their respective probabilities. The following
is an excerpt from the Statement which explains
the fundamentals of the proposed methodology (see
panel on right).
Example
General Electric likely
will have to pay to clean up the Hudson
River for PCB contamination downstream
from two of its factories in upstate New
York. How much and when, the company isn't
sure. But management guesses payments
will have to be made in five yeras in
the range of $100 million to $300 million
with the following estimated probabilities:
| Loss
Amount |
Probability |
| $100 million |
10% |
| $200 million |
60% |
| $300 million |
30% |
Using the Concepts Statement
No. 7 (Expected Cash Flow) approach, calculate
General Electric’s current liability
for the cleanup.
Answer:
First, calculate the expected
cash flow:
$100 x 10% = $10
$200 x 60% = $120
$300 x 30% = $90
Expected cash flow = $220 million
Assuming the risk-free
rate of interest is 5%, the present value
of the expected outflow can be easily
calculated:
PV = $220,000,000/ (1
+ 0.05)^5
Therefore, General Electric
should report a liability of $172,373,266.50
(the present value of the expected outflow).
|
|
FASB –
Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No.
7 [Excerpt (¶¶ 43-53)] February 2000
43. Accounting applications of present value
have traditionally used a single set of estimated
cash flows and a single interest rate, often described
as “the rate commensurate with the risk.”In
effect, although not always by conscious design,
the traditional approach assumes that a single
interest rate convention can reflect all the expectations
about the future cash flows and appropriate risk
premium. The Board expects that accountants will
continue to use the traditional approach for some
measurements. In some circumstances, a traditional
approach is relatively easy to apply. For assets
and liabilities with contractual cash flows, it
is consistent with the manner in which marketplace
participants describe assets and liabilities,
as in “a 12 percent bond.”
44. The traditional approach is useful for many
measurements, especially those in which comparable
assets and liabilities can be observed in the
marketplace. However, the board found that the
traditional approach does not provide the tools
needed to address some complex measurement problems,
including the measurement of nonfinancial assets
and liabilities for which no market for the item
exists. The traditional approach places most of
the emphasis on selection of an interest rate.
A proper search for “the rate commensurate
with the risk” requires analysis of at least
two items—one asset or liability that exists
in the marketplace and has an observed interest
rate and the asset or liability being measured.
The appropriate rate of interest for the cash
flows being measured must be inferred from the
observable rate of interest in some other asset
or liability and, to draw that inference, the
characteristics of the cash flows must be similar
to those of the asset being measured. Consequently,
the measurer must do the following: (More>>)
For discussion and analysis of Concepts
Statement No. 7, see:
|
|