Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:41:44.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Firm Financial Structure and Investment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Lawrence D. Schall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between capital market equilibrium and firm financial policy has received extensive attention in recent years. Until recently, accepted theory was generally consistent in its view that the diversification effect of new investment on firm earnings is a necessary consideration in project selection. In arguing this position, no distinction was made between the perfect market situation exemplified by the models of Modigliani and Miller (M-M) [9, 10, 11] and those of Sharpe [19], Lintner [6, 7] and Mossin [12] (LSM model) and the traditional case in which firm value is not independent of debt policy, e.g., as might be the case if individual investors cannot lever on terms comparable to those available to firms. In a recent article, Mossin [13] examines the implications of the former case of perfect markets. Using a single period model with riskless rate borrowing and lending by individuals and firms, homogeneous expectations, mean-variance portfolio selection, and no taxes, Mossin shows that the effect on the investing firm's value of a new project is independent of the stochastic properties of the other income earned by the firm. This conclusion and the M-M [10] Proposition I follow from the statistical property of Mossin's model that any income stream has the same value regardless of how that stream is divided into the equity or debt streams of one or more firms; or, equivalently, firm value and financial structure are independent. Schall [18] presents a general proof that firm value and financial structure are independent and that firm investment diversification effects are irrelevant in perfect capital markets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , June 1971 , pp. 925 - 942
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

[1]Alberts, W. “The Profitability of Growth by Merger.” The Corporate Merger, ed. by Alberts, W. and Segall, J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
[2]Alberts, W. “The Profitability of Conglomerate Investment Mergers: Sources and Prospects.” University of Washington Business Review, Winter 1970, pp. 13–27.Google Scholar
[3]Diamond, P. “The Role of a Stock Market in a General Equilibrium Model with Technological Uncertainty.” American Economic Review, September 1967, pp. 759–776.Google Scholar
[4]Hamada, R. S. “Portfolio Analysis, Market Equilibrium and Corporation Finance.” Journal of Finance, March 1969, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Levy, H., and Sarnat, M.. “Diversification, Portfolio Analysis and the Uneasy Case for Conglomerate Mergers.” Journal of Finance, September 1970, pp. 795–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Lintner, J. “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets.” Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1965, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
[7]Lintner, J. “Security Prices, Risk, and Maximal Gains from Diversification.” Journal of Finance, December 1965, pp. 587–615.Google Scholar
[8]Michaelson, J. B., and Goshay, R. C.. “Portfolio Selection in Financial Intermediaries: A New Approach.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, June 1967, pp. 166–199.Google Scholar
[9]Miller, M., and Modigliani, F.. “Dividend Policy, Growth, and the Valuation of Shares.” Journal of Business, October 1961, pp. 411–433.Google Scholar
[10]Modigliani, F., and Miller, M.. “The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of Investment.” American Economic Review, June 1958, pp. 261–297.Google Scholar
[11]Modigliani, F., and Miller, M.. “Corporate Income Taxes and the Cost of Capital: A Correction.” American Economic Review, June 1963, pp. 433–443.Google Scholar
[12]Mossin, J. “Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market.” Econometrica, October 1966, pp. 768–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Mossin, J. “Security Pricing and Investment Criteria in Competitive Markets.” American Economic Review, December 1969, pp. 749–756.Google Scholar
[14]Myers, S. “Procedures for Capital Budgeting Under Uncertainty.” Industrial Management Review, Spring 1968, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
[15]Peterson, D. E.A Quantitative Framework for Financial Management. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, 1969.Google Scholar
[16]Robichek, A., and Myers, S.. Optirrul Financing Decisions. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1965.Google Scholar
[17]Robichek, A., and Myers, S.. “Valuation Under Uncertainty: Comment,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. December 1968, pp. 479–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Schall, L.D. “Asset Valuation, Firm Investment and Firm Diversification.” Journal of Business (forthcoming).Google Scholar
[19]Sharpe, W. “Capital Asset Prices: A theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk.” Journal of Finance, September 1964, pp. 425–442.Google Scholar
[20]Smith, V. “Tax Depreciation Policy and Investment Theory.” International Economic Review, January 1963, pp. 80–91.Google Scholar
[21]Stiglitz, J. “A Re-Examination of the Modigliani-Miller Theorem.” American Economic Review, December 1969, pp. 784–793.Google Scholar
[22]Tuttle, D. L., and Litzenberger, R. H.. “Leverage, Diversification and Capital Market Effects on a Risk-Adjusted Capital Budgeting Framework.” Journal of Finance, June 1968, pp. 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Van Home, J. C.Financial Management and Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.Google Scholar
[24]West, R. “Homemade Diversification vs. Corporate Diversification.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, December 1967, pp. 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar