Why Using The Cost Of New Debt As A Hurdle Rate May Not Maxi

Why Using the Cost of New Debt as a Hurdle Rate May Not Maximize Shareholder Wealth

The decision to utilize the cost of new debt as a hurdle rate for evaluating investment projects is a widely debated topic in corporate finance. While it might seem intuitive that projects with returns exceeding the cost of borrowed funds will enhance shareholder wealth, this approach is often problematic. Primarily, the use of the cost of new debt as a baseline does not fully account for the overall risk profile of the project and the company's capital structure, which can lead to suboptimal investment decisions. When a company neglects to consider the weighted average cost of capital (WACC) or the appropriate required rate of return for specific projects, it risks accepting projects that may not truly add to shareholder value, especially if they are more risky than the debt used to finance them.

The Role of the Cost of Capital in Capital Budgeting Decisions

The cost of capital serves as a critical benchmark in the capital budgeting process. It represents the minimum acceptable rate of return that a project must generate to create or preserve shareholder value. The WACC, in particular, synthesizes the costs of various sources of capital—equity, debt, and preferred stock—weighted according to their proportions in the firm’s capital structure. This rate reflects the opportunity cost of investing resources elsewhere with similar risk. By comparing the projected internal rate of return (IRR) or net present value (NPV) of a project against the WACC, managers can determine whether the project is expected to generate value beyond the minimum acceptable threshold, thus aiding in optimal capital allocation.

The Impact of Capital Budget Size on the Weighted Average Cost of Capital

Changes in a company's capital budget can influence its WACC through various channels. An increase in the capital budget often requires raising additional funds, which might be achieved through debt or equity financing. If the company takes on more debt at interest rates lower than the prevailing market WACC, the overall cost of capital could decrease. Conversely, if the debt raises the company’s financial risk and leads to higher equity costs, the WACC might increase. Additionally, expanding the capital budget could alter the firm’s risk profile, possibly resulting in adjustments to the target debt-to-equity ratio and, consequently, the WACC. Therefore, the size and composition of the capital budget influence the company's overall cost of capital, affecting investment evaluation criteria.

Limitations of Applying the Existing Firm’s Cost of Capital to New Investments

Utilizing the firm’s current WACC to evaluate all new investment opportunities can be inappropriate under certain circumstances. For projects that differ significantly in risk from the company’s existing operations—either more or less risky—the existing WACC may not accurately reflect the true hurdle rate. For instance, a high-risk expansion into a new market might warrant a higher discount rate, while a core project with lower risk may justify a lower rate than the firm’s average. Applying a uniform WACC ignores these nuances and can lead to accepting projects that are either too risky or not risky enough, ultimately misallocating capital and potentially harming shareholder value.

When and Why to Use the Firm’s WACC for Investment Evaluation

The firm’s WACC is appropriate as a hurdle rate when evaluating projects that are similar to the company’s existing operations in terms of risk profile and capital structure. In such cases, the WACC accurately captures the required return for the company’s typical investments. This approach simplifies decision-making and ensures consistency across projects of comparable risk. It is also suitable when evaluating incremental projects that do not substantially alter the company’s overall leverage or risk profile, ensuring that decisions are aligned with the overall cost of capital and shareholder wealth maximization.

Alternatives to Using the Existing WACC for Riskier or Different Projects

For projects with different risk characteristics, alternative approaches to selecting a hurdle rate are necessary. One common alternative is to estimate a project-specific discount rate that reflects the unique risk profile. This can be derived by adjusting the company’s WACC with a risk premium or by calculating a risk-adjusted discount rate (RADR). Techniques such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be adapted to incorporate a project-specific beta, ensuring the required return aligns with the project's particular risk level. Another approach involves using multi-criteria decision-making frameworks or scenario analysis to better assess risk-adjusted returns, thereby enabling more informed capital allocation decisions aligned with shareholder wealth maximization.

Conclusion

In sum, relying solely on the cost of new debt as a hurdle rate can mislead decision-makers into accepting projects that may not truly enhance shareholder wealth due to oversight of project-specific risk and the overall capital structure. The WACC plays a pivotal role in equitable and consistent project evaluation by reflecting the company’s overall cost of capital incorporating its risk profile. Changes in the size of the capital budget can influence the WACC, which should be accounted for during investment assessments. Recognizing when to adjust the discount rate according to project risk is essential; using the firm’s existing WACC makes sense for similar, low-risk projects, while for riskier or different projects, alternative risk-adjusted rates should be employed. These approaches collectively support prudent capital expenditure decisions that aim to maximize shareholder value.

References

• Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C., & Allen, F. (2020). Principles of Corporate Finance (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Erb, C. B., Harvey, C. R., & Viskanta, T. E. (1994).The Impact of Liquidity upon Cost of Capital. Financial Analysts Journal, 50(4), 55–70.
• Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2002). The Equity Premium. Journal of Finance, 57(2), 637–659.
• Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The Theory and Practice of Corporate Finance: Evidence from the Field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60(2-3), 187–243.
• 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.
• Myers, S. C. (1984). The Capital Structure Puzzle. Journal of Finance, 39(3), 575–592.
• Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jaffe, J. (2021). Corporate Finance (12th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Damodaran, A. (2010). Applied Corporate Finance: A User's Manual. John Wiley & Sons.
• Rubinstein, M. (1973). A Model of Bond Prices and Risks of Default. Journal of Finance, 28(2), 449–470.
• Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (2003). Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus across the Firm. McGraw-Hill Education.