Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparing debt and equity financing
Debt and equity differences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Comparing debt and equity financing
Corporate Finance (ICM251): Assessed Essay
(a) What are the agency costs of debt and outside equity as described in Jensen and Meckling (1976) and are they important in corporate finance?
According to Jensen and Meckling (1976), the specification of individual rights defines how costs and rewards will be allocated in any organisation. The contracts between the owners (the principals) and managers (the agent) of the firm will also define who is responsible for each specific costs and rewards.
In the assumption that both parties, the principal and the agent, are utility maximizers’, here is a possibilities that they have divergent interests and conflicts of interest will arise as the principal wish for the agent to run the company in a way
…show more content…
Corporate finance is all about management sources of fund which are separated into two, debt and outside equity. When the firm is solely funded by equity, high cost of capital, or by debt, financial distress or bankruptcy cost, the firm will not reach the optimal capital structure. The combination of debt and equity, trade-off capital structure, should be used and the matter of agency costs must be reduced to maximise value of the firm. The trade-off between tax benefit and bankruptcy cost has already been discussed as if the firm’s debt usage becomes high enough, the marginal increase in the tax shield will be less than the marginal increase in the bankruptcy cost. Agency costs consist of monitoring costs to observe the firm 's executives by shareholders, management 's bonding costs to assure owners that their best interests maximisation value of the firm, and residual losses that result even when sufficient monitoring and bonding exists. Adding additional debt reduces agency costs to equity holders because the manager can buy out outside equity using debt financing as the leverage effectively shifts some agency costs to …show more content…
The first one is on the percentage of non-executive directors (NXRATIO). There are many studies that support the use of non-executive directors as they are more likely to act on behalf of shareholders. As a consequence, the greater the percentage of non-executive directors on the board, the lower Agency costs, as the first hypothesis. Secondly, duality (DUALITY) is unenviable as it gives one person a potential ability to disrupt the decision-making process of the firm, hence the separation of CEO and chairman should reduce agency costs. Thirdly, the setting up of board subcommittees. There are several board subcommittees, but only nomination committee, which contains non-executive director(s), will be focused on. As mentioned previously, a non-executive director should acts on behave of shareholders, the presence of a nomination committee (NOMCOM) and the presence of an executive director on the nomination committee (NOMXD) should reduce agency costs. The length of the CEO tenure (CEOTENURE) is considered as the longer term he/she is in the office the more power will be, agency costs are escalated as a result. The last hypothesis is the higher the number of additional directorships held by the CEO (BUSYCEO), the lower agency costs because of the higher reputation and the positive impact on firm performance. McKnight and Weir (2009) do not construct hypotheses only on board characteristics,
This memorandum shall provide an in depth analysis of Target Corporation’s performance for the most current for the year 2014. To obtain a better understanding of Target Corporation’s performance the following categories shall be addressed: Preliminary analytical procedures, Accounting policy efficiency and reliability, Evaluation of Disclosure Controls, Evaluating Company’s technology system and its Risks, Substantive Procedures, Payout ratio in the Target Corporation financials, Fraud Considerations and Extended Procedures.
Brickley, J 1996, Incentive Conflicts and Contractual Restraints: Evidence from Franchising, Journal of Law & Economics, p. 173.
Costco Wholesale Corporation was an uncommon type of retailers called wholesale clubs. These clubs differentiated themselves from other retailer by requiring annual membership purchase. Especially in case of Costco, their target market is wealthier clientele of small business owners and middle class shoppers. They are now known as a low cost or discount retailer where they sell products in bulk with limited brands and their own brand. The company is competing with stores like Wal-Mart, SAM’s, BJ’s, and Sears. The case begins with an individual shareholder, Margarita Torres, who first purchased shares in 1997 and who is trying to evaluate the operational performance of the business in order to make a decision rather or not purchase more shares
“Agency relationships are formed by the mutual consent of a principal and an agent.” (Cheeseman, p.487) Our book goes on to cite the Restatement (Second) of Agency,
a. The cost of debt is the money company has to pay for using the funds. In our case, annual cost of debt is kd: kd/2 = r = 5.0%. kd/2 = (47.5 + [1000-891] / 30) / ((2*891 + 1000) / 3) = 5.5% We have to multiply t...
In order to achieve its goal, the managers of Marriott have developed a financial strategy with 4 main decisions.
Introductory, agency theory discusses the relationship in which one party, the principal, delegates work to another, the agent (Eisenhardt, 1989). The core idea behind agency theory is to through contracting align the interest of shareholders (principal) with that of the managers (agents) in order to maximize shareholders value. Thus, the decision-making is being separated from the party who bears the risk; therefore, problems can arise. Firstly, the principal cannot verify whether the agent has behaved appropriately (the agent and principal have partly di...
In the principal agent problem, a party (the agent) is appointed to act on the behalf of another party (principal), however when the incentives of both parties are not perfectly aligned, in other words, when the agent’s interests differ from the principal’s a problem becomes present. The agent would become more likely to act in his or her own interests, rather than the interests of the principal.
Modigliani & Miller applied their theories with two modules, one which doesn’t include the taxes and this is their first finding, and another one with taxes to make it more realistic. The First Proposition without taxes: In this part Modigliani & Miller stated that the firm’s value is not affected by the structure of the capital between Equity and Debt, They proved this by having an example of two firms that have got the same conditions in everything, same cash flow, same operational risks and same opportunity costs. One of the firm’s capital structure is all equity and the other firm’s capital structure is a mixture between equity and debt, since the form of financing (debt or equity) can neither change the firm’s net operating income nor its operating risk, the values of levered and unlevered firms will be the same. They have concluded that the value of the levered firm = the value of the unlevered firm, only if they have the same conditions, same risk levels, cash and opportunity cost.
Sollars, G. C. 2001. An appraisal of shareholder proportional liability. Journal of Business Ethics, 32(4), 329-345.
Brealey, Richard A., and Myers, Stewart C. Principles of Corporate Finance. Sixth ed. McGraw Hill, New York, © 2000.
Jensen, M.C and Meckling, W.H (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics, October, 1976, V. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360. Available on: http://www.sfu.ca/~wainwrig/Econ400/jensen-meckling.pdf. [Accessed on 20th April 2014].
Each party plays his parts – Role of key players like owners, Board of directors and staffs
Agency Theory is the supposition that explains the relationship between principals and agents in business. The theory dates back to the early 1960s and 1970s when economist began exploring risk sharing among individuals (Eisenhardt p 58). The theory is commonly discussed in the context of the Principal/Agent Model. A key concept behind the Principal/Agent Model is that people need to delegate some of their work to others. Agency theory suggests that there is a conflict between the two parties, the principal and the agent, due to a misalignment of goals as well as different aversions to levels of risk. Agency Theory breaks down the problems that occur due to differences between goals and or desires between the principal and the agent. These
[7] Cavendish Lawcards Series (2002) Company Law (3rd edn), p.15 [8] [1976] 3 All ER 462, CA. [9] Griffin, S. (1996) Company Law Fundamental Principles (2nd edn), p.19 [10] [1990] Ch 433. [11] Lecture notes [12] Lecture notes [13] [1939] 4 All ER 116.