M2 Assign 2 Module 2 Assignment 2 Solution ✓ Solved

M2 Assign2module 2 Assignment 2solutiona8555 Brfx9xxx R

Analyze the provided financial scenario to determine the appropriate required return based on the given variables and the Security Market Line (SML) equation. Calculate the beta and required return incorporating the provided percentages and relationships. Evaluate whether the proposed investment's expected return justifies proceeding with the project given the calculated required return.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

In the realm of corporate finance, effective project evaluation necessitates an understanding of the relationship between risk and return. The Security Market Line (SML) serves as a vital tool in this context, illustrating the expected return of an asset based on its systematic risk, as measured by beta. The given assignment presents a scenario involving various financial variables and relationships, requiring calculation of beta and the required return to determine the feasibility of a proposed investment.

Initially, we examine the provided variables. The assignment references a value of 0.85 multiplied by 0.55, which yields a figure that appears crucial in calculating the beta or the required return. This product can be computed as:

0.85 × 0.55 = 0.4675

This number may serve as a component of the beta or the risk premium. Next, the assignment mentions RF as the risk-free rate, expressed as a percentage, for example, RF = x%. There is also an indication of the market return, where the premium is defined as the excess return over the risk-free rate, perhaps represented as RPrem = x%.

Further, the assignment introduces a relationship involving beta, with the formula beta = 0.xxx, likely derived from the calculations of market risk and the specific asset's risk. The subsequent expressions suggest the calculation of a required rate of return (kreq) as a sum of the risk-free rate and a risk premium adjusted by beta, expressed as:

kreq = RF + β × (Market Risk Premium)

which aligns with the standard SML equation:

kreq = RF + β × (Market Risk Premium)

In the provided scenario, the estimate for beta appears to be approximately 0.XXX, indicating a relatively low systematic risk, suitable for a more conservative project. To calculate the beta accurately, we consider the relationship factors mentioned, such as the market risk premium and individual risk components.

Using the simplified form of the SML, if we assume RF = x%, market risk premium = (0.9x × .xx), and beta = 0.xxx, then the required return can be calculated as:

kreq = x% + 0.xxx × (0.9x × .xx)

which provides an estimate of the minimum acceptable rate of return for the project, considering its systematic risk profile.

The assignment specifies calculating the total required return on the new plant as:

Required Return = x% + x%(1 + x) = x.x%

This indicates an adjustment for additional risk or growth prospects inherent in the new plant investment. Given that the expected return of the project is xx%, comparative analysis determines whether the investment surpasses the required threshold.

If the expected return exceeds the calculated required return (x.x%), then the project is financially justified and should proceed. Conversely, if the expected return falls short, it indicates excessive risk relative to expected gains, and caution is warranted.

In conclusion, employing the SML framework entails accurately determining beta based on market data and risk factors, then computing the required return. The assessment of project viability hinges on comparing the expected rate of return with this threshold. This systematic approach ensures that investment decisions are grounded in risk-adjusted return analysis, aligning with principles of prudent corporate finance management.

References

  • Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2017). Principles of Corporate Finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset (3rd ed.). Wiley Finance.
  • Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2004). The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 25–46.
  • Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jaffe, J. (2016). Corporate Finance (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Sharpe, W. F., Alexander, G. J., & Bailey, J. V. (1999). Investments (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.
  • Lintner, J. (1965). The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(1), 13–37.
  • Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance, and the Theory of Investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297.
  • Ross, S. A. (1976). The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing. Journal of Economic Theory, 13(3), 341–360.
  • Siegel, J. J. (2014). Stocks for the Long Run: The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns & Long-Term Investment Strategies. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Welch, I. (2010). Explaining Changes in Asset Returns. The Journal of Finance, 65(4), 1603–1645.

Related Assignments