Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Riskfree Rate
1. Estimating the riskfree rate when the government is not default free
We have implicitly assumed in our discussion of risk free rates that the government is a default-free
entity and that it issues long term bonds. There are a number of economies where one or both of these
assumptions can be challenged. In some emerging market countries, where governments in the past
have failed to meet their promised obligations, the government is not viewed as default free. There are
many other markets where the government does not issue long term bonds, and the best that one can
obtain is a short term government rate.
There are three solutions to this problem. One is to bypass it entirely by doing the analysis in a
different currency (such as the U.S. dollar) where a riskfree rate is easy to obtain. The other is to find
the rate at which the largest and safest corporations in that country can borrow long term at in the local
currency and reduce that rate by a small default premium (say 20 or 30 basis points) to arrive at a long
term riskfree rate. The third solution exists only if there are long term forward contracts on the local
currency.Since interest rate parity drives forward contract pricing, the long term local currency rate can
be obtained from the price of the forward contract and the long term interest rate on the foreign
currency.
2. Real versus Nominal Riskfree Rates
Real riskfree rates do not include a premium for expected inflation and should be used if the cash flows
are estimated using a similar premise. In practice, it is a good idea to steer away from nominal cash
flows and discount rates when inflation hits double digits. One solution is to use a different currency
which is more stable; in high-inflation economies, it is common to do investment analyses and
valuations in U.S. dollars. The other is to use real cash flows and discount rates.
Obtaining real riskfree rates can be trivial if a inflation-protected government bond trades in the
market. In the United States, for instance, the rate on inflation-linked bonds that were introduced in
1997 , is the real riskfree rate. Unfortunately, this option is generally unavailable in those high-inflation
economies where the need to use real riskfree rates is the greatest. In those markets the real risk free
rate has to be estimated indirectly. We would propose that the real risk free rate be set equal the the
expected long term real growth rate of that economy. While this rate may be about 3% for the U.S.
economy, it is likely to be higher for other economies such as Brazil and China.
Risk Premium
Value =
This is essentially the present value of dividends growing at a constant rate forever (see the time value
appendix to chapter 5). Three of the four inputs in this model can be obtained externally - the current
level of the market (value), the expected dividends next period and the expected growth rate in
earnings and dividends in the long term. The only "unknown" is then the required return on equity;
when we solve for it, we get an implied expected return on stocks. Subtracting out the riskfree rate will
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch4deriv.html 1/5
22/2/2017 Chapter 4 derivations
Beta
1. Setting Regression Parameters for Beta Estimates: How far back? Daily, weekly or monthly data?
There are two estimaton decisions the analyst must make in setting up the regression described above.
The first concerns the length of the estimation period. Most estimates of betas, including those by
Value Line and Standard and Poors, use five years of data, while Bloomberg uses two years of data.
The trade-off is simple: A longer estimation period provides more data, but the firm itself might have
changed in its risk characteristics over the time period. For instance, using data from 1985 to 1994 to
estimate betas for Microsoft might increase the amount of data available, but it will lead to a beta
estimate that is much higher than the true beta, since Microsoft was a smaller and riskier firm in 1985
than it was in 1994.
The second estimation issue relates to the return interval. Returns on stocks are available on an annual,
monthly, weekly, daily and even on a intra-day basis. Using daily or intra-day returns will increase the
number of observations in the regression, but it exposes the estimation process to a significant bias in
beta estimates related to non-trading. For instance, the betas estimated for small firms, which are more
likely to suffer from non-trading, are biased downwards when daily returns are used. Using weekly or
monthly returns can reduce the non-trading bias significantly. To illustrate, the beta for America
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch4deriv.html 2/5
22/2/2017 Chapter 4 derivations
Online, a small information services firm, was 1.20 using daily returns from 1990 and 1994, while it
was 1.80 using monthly returns. The latter is a much more reliable estimate of the firm’s beta.
2. Why do beta estimates vary across services?
It is not uncommon to find very different beta estimates reported for a firm by different services at the
same point in time. There are several reasons for these differences –
1. The services might not be looking at the same historical time period. Value Line and S&P, for
instance, use 5-year estimates, while Bloomberg, in its default calculation, uses a 2-year estimate.
2. The services also often using different return interevals to estimate betas. Bloomberg and Value Line
use weekly returns to get their beta estimates while S&P uses monthly returns; there are services that
even use daily returns.
3. The adjustments made to regression betas vary widely across the services. Bloomberg employs the
simple adjustment towards one for all the betas that it estimates, whereas a service like Barra adjusts
betas using a variety of fundamental information about the firm, such as its dividend yield.
While these beta differences are troubling, note that the beta estimates delivered by each of these
services comes with a standard error, and it is very likely that all of the betas reported for a firm fall
within the range of the standard errors from the regressions.
3. What is the right market index to use in estimating betas?
In most cases, analysts are faced with a mind boggling array of choices among indices when it comes
to estimating betas. Some analysts use only the local index, but others are willing to experiment. One
common practice is to use the index that is most appropriate for the investor who is looking at the
stock. Thus, if the analysis is being done for a U.S. investor, the S&P 500 index is used. This is
generally not appropriate. By this rationale, an investor who owns only two stocks should use an index
composed of only those stocks to estimate betas.
The right index to use in analysis should be determined by who the marginal investor in Aracruz is - a
good indicator is to look at the largest holders of stock in the company and the markets where the
trading volume is heaviest. If the marginal investor is, in fact, a Brazilian investor, it is reasonable to
use a well-constructed Brazilian index. If the marginal investor is a global investor, a more relevant
measure of risk may emerge by using the global index. Over time, you would expect global investors
to displace local investors as the marginal investors, because they will perceive far less of the risk as
market risk and thus pay a higher price for the same security. Thus, one of the ironies of our notion of
risk is that Aracruz will be less risky to an overseas investor who has a global portfolio than to a
Brazilian investor with all of his or her wealth in Brazilian assets.
4. Historical Betas versus Expected Betas: Reversion and Financial Fundamentals
In much of corporate finance and valuation, our interest is in the beta looking forward and not the beta
looking back. A regression beta, even if well estimated, reflects the firm as it existed over the period of
the regression in terms of business and financial risk. If the firm has changed on either dimension, it
can be argued that the beta looking forward will be different from the historical beta. There are three
ways in which we can make this adjustment.
One simplistic way of adjusting historical betas is to assume that betas will move towards one in the
long term and adjust beta estimates towards one.
A more accurate way of estimating forward looking betas is to estimate them from the bottom up,
based upon the current business mix of the firm and estimating a weighted average of the sector betas.
This can then be levered up using the current or expected financial leverage of the firm.
A third approach is to relate betas to observable financial characteristics (such as the size of the firm,
its dividend yield and debt ratio) through statistical analysis (such as a regression). The firm's specific
financial characteristics will then yield a predicted beta for the firm.
5. Betas and Leverage: Derivation and Extensions
To estimate the relationship between leverage and betas, let us begin with the assumption that debt
bears no market risk (which is consistent with studies that have found that default risk is non-
systematic). Debt creates a tax benefit which is reflected on the asset side of the balance sheet (In
market value terms):
Assets Liabilities
Assets A B(unlev) Debt D0
Tax Benefit of Debt tD 0 Equity E B(levered)
Betas are weighted averages,
B(unlev) (E + D - tD)/(D+E) = B(levered)(E/(D+E))
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch4deriv.html 3/5
22/2/2017 Chapter 4 derivations
Cost of Debt
1. What is debt?
Some new securities, at first sight, are difficult to categorize as either debt or equity. To check where on
the spectrum between straight debt and straight equity these securities fall, answer the following
questions:
1. Are the payments on the securities contractual or residual?
- If contractual, it is closer to debt
- If residual, it is closer to equity
2. Are the payments tax deductible?
- If yes, it is closer to debt
- If no, if is closer to equity
3. Do the cash flows on the security have a high priority or a low priority if the firm is in financial
trouble?
- If it has high priority, it is closer to debt.
- If it has low priority, it is closer to equity.
4. Does the security have a fixed life?
- If yes, it is closer to debt
- If no, it is closer to equity
5. Does the owner of the security get a share of the control of management of the firm?
- If no, it is closer to debt.
- If yes, if is closer to equity
2. Which is a better estimate of the cost of debt - the rating-based interest rate or the yield to maturity on
an issued bond?
The yield to maturity on an issued bond has the advantage of being a market-determined rate. It will be
skewed by any special features that the bond may have and the degree to which the bond is secured,
relative to other debt. For instance, if the bonds issued by a firm have first priority on the assets, the
yield to maturity on these bonds will be lower than the company's true cost of debt, which should
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch4deriv.html 4/5
22/2/2017 Chapter 4 derivations
represent the cost of the entire debt pool. That is why using the ratings and estimating a cost of debt
based on the rating may provide a better estimate of debt.
3. Estimating Synthetic Ratings
To estimate synthetic ratings we use the financial characteristics of the firm under question. As an
example, if a firm has an interest coverage ratio of 5.2, and other firms with similar interest coverage
ratios have an A rating, this firm's synthetic rating is A.
Weights
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/AppldCF/derivn/ch4deriv.html 5/5