anonymous
  • anonymous
What if my growth rate, g, is greater than WACC when valuing a company? Assume that cash flow is positive. Or worse, assume it is negative...
Finance
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
I'm assuming you're using the dividend growth model. so g is the growth rate of dividends. cost of capital is an estimate of expected returns on your investors' money. so there are two possibilities. First, you're increasing the dividends at a pace faster than the growth of your company. Your company will go bankrupt. Second possibility: your company's growth is outpacing other companies in the same business (company growth > WACC). Unfortunately this can only be a short term phenomenon, reflected only in the first finitely many terms in the sum of discounted cash flows. In the long run, either your company's growth rate converges back to WACC, or the WACC needs to be adjusted.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Hey, thanks for the reply. However, this is where things get tricky - it's not the growth rate of dividends, it's the growth rate of NOPLAT and free cash flow. I'm not valuing the company per se, I'm valuing its strategy. Now, this company hasn't been paying dividends, although it has been making enormous profits. Instead, it has been using these profits to cover the losses from previous years, which had been made by the previous owner. It is now a privately owned company. I calculate g=ROIC*IR, where ROIC=NOPLAT/Invested Capital and IR=Change in Invested Capital/NOPLAT. So, I'm valuing the strategy, not the company itself. That is why the model is different. What do you say?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.