Hi boobee,
A share's value is equal to the discounted stream of free cash flow
per share, not to the discounted stream of each future earnings per
share. (Principles of Corporate Finance, fourth edition, Brealey and
Myers, McGraw-Hill, 1991, page 60)
Using a discounted cash flow approach, I came up with a price of
$62.86 for the rapid growth scenario and a price of $62.81 for the
constant growth scenario. Let me explain my assumptions. I assumed
that the shares would be sold in 1999, so that investors would receive
dividends from 2000 until 2010 in both scenarios (the company's
financial results begin to diverge starting with 2005). I also
assumed that the long-term dividend growth rate of the company in both
scenarios after 2009 would be 5%. I obtained this by dividing the
year 2010 dividend by the year 2009 dividend for the rapid growth
scenario and by examining the growth rate in the dividend over the
period 2005 through 2010 for the constant growth scenario.
Since no information was provided regarding industry price-to-earnings
ratios or price-to-book ratios, I adopted a discounted cash flow model
with the following structure for the calculation:
Present Value (business) = Present Value (free cash flow) + Present
Value (horizon value) where
Present Value (free cash flow) = Sigma (t=1 to 10) DIV(t)/(1+r)^t and
Present Value (horizon value) = 1/(1+r)^ 10[DIV(11)/(r-g)].
t is the time period (2000 = 1, 2010 = 11).
r is the rate of return (0.15).
g is the long-term dividend growth rate (0.05).
DIV(t) is the dividend in time period t. The dividends are the same
as free cash flow per share since they are the cash that is not
reinvested in the business.
The Present Value (horizon value) can be calculated using other
methods involving a price-to-earnings ratio or a price-to-book ratio.
In the absence of this information, a constant growth formula is the
only alternative. The purpose for calculating the present value
(horizon value) is to assign a valuation to the future cash flows
beyond 2010.
Note that the valuations are almost identical. While the rapid growth
scenario pays a higher dividend in the constant growth scenario, the
fact that it is significantly further out in the future and requires
four years of no dividends to achieve offsets its higher value.
Furthermore, the rapid growth scenario does not appear to lead to
higher long-term dividend growth rate than the constant growth
scenario. If it did, then the company would be valued more highly in
that scenario.
I hope you find the above helpful. Please feel free to keep the
finance questions coming.
Wonko |