An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 12

An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 42 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset. Diderik Lund University of Oslo, Norway December 27, 2004 Presentation IAEE conference, Taipei, June 2005 http://folk.uio.no/dilund/capcost/.

Download Presentation

An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset

An analytical model of required returns to equity under taxation with imperfect loss offset

Diderik Lund

University of Oslo, Norway

December 27, 2004

Presentation IAEE conference, Taipei, June 2005

http://folk.uio.no/dilund/capcost/


Required expected rates of return according to capital asset pricing model capm

Required expected rates of return according to Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

  • How does taxation of companies affect β?

  • Traditional focus: Effect on β of leverage

  • Then tax has effect via interest deduction

  • Here: Risk of tax cash flow (and after-tax cash flow) differs from risk of pre-tax cash flow

  • No focus on leverage; simplify: all equity


Relevance for energy sector

Relevance for energy sector?

  • Energy companies operate internationally

  • Many different tax systems

  • Several countries attempt to capture natural resource rent through high tax rates

  • Result from this study: After-tax required expected rates of return depend negatively on tax rates, even without leverage

  • Message: Companies should adjust their practices


Valuation by element better sufficient

Valuation by element better? sufficient?

  • Valuation by element (Adjusted present value, APV) recommended by Myers (1974)

  • No need to consider risk of net after-tax cash flow

  • Method in this paper fully consistent with APV

  • However: Most companies still apply one single required expected rate of return (WACC)

  • Interesting to find how this should vary with tax rate, depreciation rate, price volatility, etc.


Model and main intuition

Model and main intuition

  • Single firm, one project, one production period

  • Consider first a pure cash flow tax with payout when the tax base becomes negative:

  • After-tax cash flow is percentage of pre-tax cash flow, and thus has same β

  • Compared with this: Typical profits (or rent) tax has depreciation deductions instead of expensing

  • These postponed deductions are less risky than pre-tax cash flow; risk-wise opposite of leverage


Relation to lund 2002 international tax and public finance

Relation to Lund (2002), International Tax and Public Finance

  • Lund (2002) has similar model, but considers mainly a situation with risk free tax deductions

  • If a large, diversified company considers a new project: Project’s pre-tax cash flow, PQ, is risky

  • Future period’s tax is typically t PQ – t c I

  • c depreciation rate, I investment (neglect op. cost)

  • Value of deprec. deduction, t c I, almost risk free

  • Here: What if tax deduction somewhat risky?


Analytical model of decreasing returns to scale and imperfect loss offset

Analytical model of decreasing returns to scale and imperfect loss offset

  • Marginal project added to more profitable projects

  • Modeled as analytical production function, Iα

  • Scale elasticity, α, is in (0,1]; α = 1 means CRS

  • Riskiness of tax cash flow depends on probability of whole company being in tax position

  • If CRS: All projects equally risky; marginal project easily falls out of tax position

  • Lower α implies more rent, less risky tax position


After tax as function of scale elasticity first crs risk free versus risky deductions

After-tax β as function of scale elasticity, αFirst CRS; Risk free versus risky deductions

Deductions are risky

Deductions are risk free, company always in tax position


After tax as function of scale elasticity increasing curve marginal deductions risky

After-tax β as function of scale elasticity, αIncreasing curve: Marginal β, deductions risky


After tax as function of scale elasticity solid curve average in risky case

After-tax β as function of scale elasticity, αSolid curve: Average β in risky case


After tax as function of scale elasticity tax 70 note vertical axis previously 30

After-tax β as function of scale elasticity, αTax 70% (note vertical axis), previously 30%


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Under decreasing returns, many tax system will create difference between marginal and average β

  • Under DRS and risky tax position:

  • After-tax β is decreasing in tax rate

  • After-tax β is increasing in output price volatility

  • Marginal after-tax β is increasing in scale elasticity, while average is non-monotone, convex

  • Potential contribution to empirical CAPM

  • Important for analysis of tax reforms


  • Login