Talk:Modigliani–Miller theorem

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Error in printing

I believe that line 4 of Proposition 1 (Vu=Vl) should say purchase the shares of firm L and borrow the same amount of money B that firm L does instead of purchase the shares of firm U and borrow the same amount of money B that firm L does. If I am wrong, can somebody care it explain it? - Dragonballdbz (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Background

Modigliani and Miller directly contradict the background that was given in their Fall 1988 Journal of Economic Perspectives pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.60.49 (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I've added the dates to the titles of the theorems to make searching for the relevant information easier and more clear.

I suggest changing B to D and S to E (same for when used as subscripts), which is in my opinion more often notation

Derivation should be added

Yes, we can see the formula in the article. However, readers don't know the reason why and how formula is derived. Please add some information on the derivations. Jackzhp 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula may be incorrect

I've seen the formulation provided here to calculate required return on equity for MM Prop II, but have determined that it incorrectly represents the derivation. The correct derivation would be:

rCE = rW + D/E[rW - rD(1-t)]

Recall that the second proposition states that the cost of equity is a linear function of the debt-to-equity ratio. The current formulation in this paper provides the perverse (and incorrect) result of DECREASING required return on equity, if WACC is kept the same and the calculations are completed with t=0 and t>0. Insiderman1 16:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think Capital structure irrelevance principle should be merged into this page as it is referring to exactly the same thing. Suicup 10:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They are referring to the same thing. And precisely which principle is being referred to is more clearly recognized when it is called the Modigliani-Miller theorem than when it is given a more descriptive but less distinctive name. --Rinconsoleao 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Graph

For this graph

the k's aren't described so it's hard for the reader to know how it relates to the section it's in. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the graph is wrong because the cost of debt should be constant. Cost of equity increases as d/e ratio increases, hence making wacc constant. Mark 07:38 7 August 2014 UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.17.29 (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Leveraged firm pays more to its investors for the same capital amount

consider the following leveraged (L) and un-leveraged (U/L)firm:

Both have the same value of capital

L: Debt=1000, Equity=4000

U/L:=Debt=0, Equity=5000

Both have EBIT=EBIT

Tax T

U/L firm
Interest payed I=0
Net income = EBIT(1-T)
This is payed out as dividends.
So total payout to stock holders N.I.= EBIT(1-T)

In the L firm , I is interest payed out
Net Income=(EBIT-I)(1-T)
Dividends payed out= (EBIT-I)(1-T)
Total payed out to all lenders = I+(EBIT-I)(1-T)= EBIT(1-T)+IT

So the firm L pays EBIT(1-T)+I.T in total

In other words obviously if the firm is paying out more "I.T", its value is higher.
From the firm's pocket, it has paid out I.T extra.

The fact being that the firm has to "pay more" should also be considered.
so we have a firm L which pays "more" the same capital(5000) and same earnings EBIT compared to a U/L firm.

Since we equate FCF = Payout of the firm, does it make sense to say that the wacc is lower or is it a more pointed fact that the firm is paying more for the same capital?
What the theory misses is "the firm pays more, for the same capital"
Did I miss something?
23:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)

The second graph

For the second proposition there should be also some graph. Otherwise the article is incomplete and inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.239.35 (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]