Chapter 11
13
d.
e. From the above graph, we conclude that Ezzell's management should undertake Projects 1, 2,
and 3, assuming that these projects are all about “average risk” in relation to the rest of the
firm.
f. The solution implicitly assumes (1) that all of the projects are equally risky and (2) that these
projects are as risky as the firm’s existing assets. If the accepted projects (1, 2, and 3) were of
above average risk, this would raise the company’s overall risk, hence its cost of capital.
Possibly, taking on these projects would result in a decline in the company’s value.
g. If the payout ratio were lowered to zero, this would shift the equity break point to the right,
from $1,818,182, to $4,545,455. This shift would have changed the decision—Project 4
would now be acceptable and the capital budget would have increased from $1,950,000 under
the original assumptions to $2,512,500. (Note that at $2,000,000 the 11 percent debt has been
exhausted; thus MCC3 = 12.1%; however, the average marginal cost of Project 4 is 11.99%.
Because 11.99% < 12.1%, the project is acceptable—although barely.) If the payout ratio
were raised to 100 percent, the equity break point would shift to zero; however, this shift
would not change the original decision. Note, however, that these reconstructions assume rs
and re are unaffected by the payout ratio. In reality, rs and re might be affected, so a change in
the payout ratio might actually raise their values, hence increase MCC.
10
12
14
16
%
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Capital Expenditure/Financing
($ thousands)
Project 1
16% Project 2
15%
Project 3
14%
Project 4
12%
Project 5
11% MCC1 = 11.0
MCC2 = 11.5
MCC3 = 12.1
MCC4 = 12.7
Optimal budget = $1,950