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

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…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…