Skip to main content

Corporate Finance

Image result for franco modigliani and merton miller

I remember taking a Corporate Finance course in law school.

I retained a few things therefrom, for example, a sense of the sharp legal distinction between the rights of debtors on the one hand and the rights of owners of equity on the other. There was some material too about friendly versus unfriendly takeovers, and the ways in which the latter might be resisted by the target company's board.

But what I remember most vividly about the course was a discussion of the Miller-Modigliani theorem. This is the hypothesis proposed by the two named economists, Merton H. Miller and Franco Modigliani, that a rational corporate management will be indifferent as to whether it raises money by issuing debt or by issuing new stock. The debt/equity distinction, as important as it was in law, was trivial in economics. Or so the economists said.

[Investopedia contains a fine article explaining the basics.]  I was very struck by this M/M theorem, and not just because I've enjoyed the candy with a similar name. I enjoyed what seemed the elegance of the two scholars' argument in its favor. At this time, in the early '80s, I wasn't alone.

The M/M theorem still lives in the background literature about financial economics, though these days it is as a background assumption, more often honored in the discussion of exceptions than in consideration of indifference as a rule.

That is the extent of my nostalgic musing for the day.

Oh, and that's Franco Modigliani portrayed above.

Comments

  1. this is really nice to read..informative post is very good to read..thanks a lot!
    Milton barbarosh

    ReplyDelete
  2. i read a lot of stuff and i found that the of writing clearifing that exactly want to say was very good so i am impressed and ilike to come again in future..

    Visit here

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…