Page 2 of the Discussion Page at PAMSDCF.com
06/19/2015
The answer to the question "who cares" is " everyone should care".
Firstly, if a flow fails Descartes' rule of signs test it will be because
contained in the flows are negative outflows after the first initial investment
outflow. That is what causes the sign changes of the rolling forward totals.
The first question that should come to mind is "Where will these negative subsequent flows come
from? " The second question is what cost, if any, should
be introduced to the analysis and how will it be introduced.
Let's try to answer the first question and watch what happens. Where is the
money going to come from? There are
two main sources of the money, one would be from within the transaction, and
the other would be from outside the initial transaction, such as a loan or
additional investment. Let's look at the source from
within the transaction flows first. In many instances the cash flows we are
examining will have sufficient prior inflows to adequately meet the subsequent
required outflows. In those cases we could set aside some of the inflowing
money in sufficient amounts to meet the subsequent required outflows. The
transaction will be fully self-supporting and all outflows, after the initial
investment, will be expensed to the transaction by being part of the net flows.
The set-aside money needed to pay out the negative periods is conceptually
provided for by putting the money in an account called a sinking fund. A
physical fund may not be set up. The savings may be viewed as being held by the
parent company. In that case it is valued at the parent's marginal cost of
borrowing (or some other agreed rate). The earnings on the fund, real or
conceptual, would be the interest rate paid by the institution holding the
money. If it is in a bank, then it is at some bank savings rate, if used by the
parent, then it should be the parent's marginal cost of funds. The fund money
can be viewed as an offset to existing debt until returned to the transaction
by the parent company. The governing
limits of the sinking fund are usually to put aside just enough money to meet
the negative flows. Taking more money than minimally needed and
placing it in a savings account will usually be detrimental to the
profitability of the transaction since the transaction is presumed to be earning
more than can be earned at the sinking fund institution, all other things being
equal. If this is done precisely, it will have the effect of smoothing out the
cash flow's swings from positive to negative and eliminate the multiple sign change issue introducing
zero cash flows in some of the periods that were formerly negative. More
importantly, the transaction model is
now pictured and set up as a logical flow of cash that defines all of the
sources of the flows, income and expenses associated with the model. Since all
of the funds are from within the transaction after the initial investment, the
profitability (or lack thereof), as measured by the rate of return within the
flows, is all-inclusive recognizing all costs and income associated with transaction.
By addressing the issue of "where does the money come from" we have
solved three issues: where is it from, what is the cost, and is the rate so determined reliable and unique.
For the case where the money comes from within we have solved it all.
Voila! In case anyone hasn't noticed, we also explained what an "Extended
Yield Analysis Method " is and why it is needed. Simply put, it is needed to present a logical, all inclusive,
verifiable and complete flow model and develop a unique and implicit rate from
an otherwise incomplete, illogical arbitrary multiple rate potential flow
scenario.
(to be continued)