Captial Structure: Is there an optimal level?

Optimal capital structures are an interesting (and complicated) area of research.  Personally, I’m quite a fan of the traditional view.  At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man; back in the day, people seemed to be more sensible.  What happened to the days of companies having a concern for their levels of debt?  Of course, debt is cheap but debt is also constant.  What the good times are here, having a cheap source of capital is great... but what about the bad times?

The traditional approach considered the idea that although debt was cheap, WACC would only decrease to a certain point, where the financial risk was considered to be too high, thus seeing WACC decrease as equity was used as a source of capital.  The optimal capital structure was seen as a delicate balancing act.  ‘Was’ being the key word...

It seems in current times, or at least before 2007, shareholders were content with the risk involved in taking on massive amounts of debt because of the returns they were seeing.  Satisfied that they were maximising shareholder wealth, companies were happy to take on more and more debt.  Then came the point when the ‘credit crunch’ sunk its teeth into a bloated and unsuspecting world.  Suddenly debt finance became impossible as banks collectively panicked over their enormous shortfalls from carelessly loaning out money to any person that could ‘walk and chew gum at the same time’.  Companies like PC World that based their short term cash flow forecasts under the assumption of acquiring cheap debt struggled for survival, and shareholder wealth was obliterated.  Oh for the good old days.

A reason for this blasé attitude appears to stem from the research of Modigliani & Millar (1958), who suggested there was no optimal capital structure, and company value is based on business risk.  The assumptions made in this study were rightfully torn apart by academics, who found the idea of assuming no tax to be laughable.  With nothing being ‘certain but death and taxes’, I’m inclined to agree with the academics.  After a rethink, which included tax, it was found that debt was a significantly cheaper source of capital which would lead to company value being improved if this emphasis on debt was used.

Of course, humans seem to crave an excuse to do something if they can justify it, thus the loading on of debt became almost commonplace.  After the deregulation, which stems from the 1980’s, banks took this opportunity to greater levels which has finally resulted in the chaos we see today.  Only after such a major failure has any action been taken to rectify this, with the introduction of Basel III as an attempt to rectify this problem. 

Personally, although you cannot deny the benefits of debt, the level we have allowed our businesses, governments and ourselves to become reliant on debt is ridiculous.  It is a damning assessment to look at our inability to be sensible and level headed.  As soon as the banks were deregulated, greed seemed to override common sense.  Is there an optimal capital structure?  Most definitely.  Are we anywhere near it?  Looking at the mess we’re in after our love affair with debt, probably not.  Oh for the good old days...

The Global Financial Crisis- A warning of things to come?

The start of my university life back in September 2007 coincided almost perfectly with the emergence of the dreaded credit crunch.  Walking down Northumberland Street to see countless people queuing outside of Northern Rock provided me with a great source of entertainment.  I saw it as a massive overreaction made by people that consider the scaremongering of the media to be gospel truth.  To an extent, I was correct; government policy protected the first £75,000 in a person’s bank account.  To actually learn the extent of the problems the economy faced on a global scale is quite terrifying, and utterly infuriating.

The level of confidence in the marketplace before the financial crisis was incredible.  The house market was booming, credit was cheap, and everything was rosy.  Collateralised debt obligations were a big source of this increased liquidity in the market, which promised a source of cash depending on the rating assigned by the credit rating agencies.  The rate of return in the AAA rated assets were so high, even banks were utilising these options.

Incredibly, these banks that were supplying long term mortgages were investing in assets that depended on the success of the mortgages they were issuing.  Confidence was so high in these assets, banks built up assets around these CDOs.  The problem arose when the house market began to decline, which saw the increase on defaults on mortgage payments.  All of a sudden, these ‘safe’ assets became far less secure. 

The cash shortages created a chain reaction that went on to cripple the banking sector, leading to panic amongst the public that their hard earned saving were at serious risk.  Suddenly cash became a rare commodity and successful businesses were finding it increasingly difficult to fund their operations as a result of this shortage.  The decision made by the UK government to offer a bailout option to the banks illustrates how severe the situation became, with the bailout dwarfing the annual cost of running the NHS.

The use of the word ‘confidence’ in this blog to describe the mood towards the marketplace is perhaps a poor choice.  Confidence implies a belief in the ability to succeed, yet the banks ability to succeed was so heavily hinged on the housing market and CDO’s, that the word ‘arrogance’ seems more appropriate.  The importance of planning, spreading risk and assuring cash is always available has been emphasised at every aspect of my business education.  How is it that bankers were so blind to this? 

The arrogance in assuming the bubble could never burst, that market value will continue to increase is beyond belief.  To not consider the possibility of a problem emerging in the future as a result of ‘putting all your eggs in one basket’ is madness.  To find a source of this particular financial crisis and focus on avoiding that particular mistake again is to miss to the point in my opinion however.

Maybe there will be greater regulation in future regarding the assumed security of investment assets, but in 10 years time, house prices will still demand staggering mortgages, banks will still take out loans to fund these mortgages and the world will run on the assumption that credit will be available to them to get by.

It is frustrating to think that we, the taxpayer are the victims in this financial crisis and I sincerely doubt we will ever get so much as a ‘thank you’ from Northern Rock or RBS.  It is scary to think that we appear to have applied a band aid to a broken leg in making no drastic changes to the regulations surrounding business.  Maybe we will learn from our mistakes and prosper from a more restrained credit system.  I worry however that we will continue to make the same fundamental mistakes in future.  Maybe the next time we see a credit crunch, the ramifications could be far more serious than public spending cuts and increases in tax.

Foreign Direct Investment

FDI- Foreign Direct Investment.

A long term investment that ideally acts as a mutually beneficial venture between the involved parties. In my eyes, FDI is the perfect concept of how capitalism should work. You go into a country and provide them with jobs, improve the standard of living of potentially thousands of people and boost the country's economy; in return you are given a benefits that could only be dreamed of in your home country. Sounds perfect.

Yet looking at the real life examples, this 'win/win' concept rarely seems to happen. On either side, there are examples of people taking advantage of each other. When you look at companies like Nike, the sweatshops that have been discovered show a capitalisation on a workforce that are treated hugely unethically. There is a fine line between co-operation and taking advantage of each other. Far too often, we see this being the case. Nike being one a a long, long list of companies that have been exposed as to treating this foreign workforce as slaves.

On the other hand, there are examples that can be seen from the World Investment Report that shows an ever increasing investment in developing countries. When you the the benefits that China and India have experienced, and in turn, the positive impact that companies and consumers all over the world have experienced as a result of effective FDI, you can see that it is a brilliant concept.

The reasonable cost of the goods that we can purchase in this country are a direct result of these companies taking advantage of these clear and obvious benefits of things such as transport costs, avoiding export constraints in the case of the European Union, the 'win/win' can be massive.

The shame is when you see the countries that are in such dire need of trade, such as Africa that are being ignored. In a perfect world, I would love to see these countries utilised more in future. The capitalist dream needs to be expanded to benefit more areas to capitalise on more trade opportunities and improve the standard of living of people that are struggling to survive. FDI in these areas could be the key to this.

Multinational Tax Management- The Illegitimate Way to Boost Profits

Amazingly, I briefly covered the issue of corporation tax a few weeks ago.  Although this highlights the fact that I hadn’t read the TLP, I’m quite proud of my brilliant proactive background research.  All jokes aside though, this link does highlight a great worry for the average, honest, hard working British taxpayer.

In the case of Barclays, although they saved the taxpayer money by refusing the government bailout, that does not excuse the corporation tax, or lack of that they were reported to have paid earlier this month .  Does this mean that in the future if I choose not to apply for benefits when I am in trouble, I will only have to pay a 3% tax rate?  If only...

It’s easy to see why people are so angry about this issue.  As individuals, we are all victims of a financial structure that has failed, yet we are the ones that have been lumped with increased VAT rates, rising levels of unemployment, freezing of public sector pay; the list goes on and on...  Barclays of course will argue that they are abiding by the laws set in place, and they are right.  With businesses looking to maximise their profits, why would you not capitalise on the opportunity to look abroad, where tax rates can be far more attractive? 

Whilst on my work placement, I had a discussion with a colleague about my plans to move abroad and work somewhere with a lower income tax rate than in the UK; he raised the issue that it was unfair to want to do that.  After everything this country has given me in having an excellent healthcare system and free education etc, what right do I have to not repay that debt through paying taxes to the country that has given me the opportunity I have? 

It goes to show the huge gulf there is between what is ‘right’, and what is good business. 

For all the talk of legitimacy and corporate social responsibility, the more I look into it; the more I question its relevance.  If a business were to genuinely claim that they were legitimate, would they utilise the tax havens of this world through outsourcing operations?  There has to be a point where you draw the line between making money to improve shareholder wealth, and just being plain greedy.  This isn’t a business being innovative by developing new ways to improve efficiency; it is cheating countries out of money through loopholes.  With academics like Suchman suggesting that businesses needing to conform to the sets of rules and values held by a society to have a right to exist, there is very little evidence of some of these companies adhering to any of the rules and values I hold.

Yet the power that they hold puts governments in the situation where  they can not afford to lose these companies by closing up these loopholes.  It’s not right.  It’s not fair.  It’s also not going to change any time soon, and until the day it does, it’s people like us that are going to feel the effects whilst companies like Barclays get to report £4.6 billion profits that we will never see.

It’s a shame, but it’s something I suppose we have to live with.  In this case, maybe ignorance is bliss..