Determinants Of Firm Terminal Value: The Perspective Of North American And European Financial Analysts

Company valuation models attempt to estimate the value of a company in two stages: (1) comprising of a period of explicit analysis and (2) based on unlimited production period of cash flows obtained through a mathematical approach of perpetuity, which is the terminal value. In general, these models, whether they belong to the Dividend Discount Model (DDM), the Discount Cash Flow (DCF), or RIM (Residual Income Models) group, discount one attribute (dividends, free cash flow, or results) to a given discount rate. This discount rate, obtained in most cases by the CAPM (Capital asset pricing model) or APT (Arbitrage pricing theory) allows including in the analysis the cost of invested capital based on the risk taking of the attributes. However, one cannot ignore that the second stage of valuation that is usually 53-80% of the company value (Berkman et al., 1998) and is loaded with uncertainties. In this context, particular attention is needed to estimate the value of this portion of the company, under penalty of the assessment producing a high level of error. Mindful of this concern, this study sought to collect the perception of European and North American financial analysts on the key features of the company that they believe contribute most to its value. For this feat, we used a survey with closed answers. From the analysis of 123 valid responses using factor analysis, the authors conclude that there is great importance attached (1) to the life expectancy of the company, (2) to liquidity and operating performance, (3) to innovation and ability to allocate resources to R&D, and (4) to management capacity and capital structure, in determining the value of a company or business in long term. These results contribute to our belief that we can formulate a model for valuating companies and businesses where the results to be obtained in the evaluations are as close as possible to those found in the stock market

Perpetual debt valuation: the net present value myopia

Would you prefer to receive a fixed rent for a period of 50 years, 75 years or perpetually? Well, if you have chosen the perpetual option, you are absolutely right. However, when considering a mathematical and financial approach, they may all end up roughly the same whenever the Net Present Value (NPV) is approximately identical. It makes common sense to choose the perpetual option even if the NPV exhibits myopia when computing the discount value of a fixed yearly rent. After a certain period, the discount value becomes approximately the same even when adding more yearly fixed rents. Corporations and governments issue perpetual bonds while recognizing these may not represent a very good financing strategy and thus implying that most of these issues are either callable or convertible on the issuer’s request. In approaching the existing perpetual debt related NPV myopia, this paper holds two main goals: firstly, we intend to study the behaviours of perpetual debt yields against other perpetual instruments and, secondly, we consider the financial methods for assessing the value of money before proposing a formula adjustment that might serve to overcome default NPV when evaluating fixed rents in perpetuity.