Week 3
Week 3
Example: Suppose Pfizer just paid a dividend of $1.5 per share. The dividends are expected to grow
at 8% for the next six years and then will grow at an annual rate of 4% thereafter when demand
subsides. Suppose that the annual return on a market portfolio is 15% and the annual return on a risk-
free bond is 10%. Pfizer’s stock has a beta coefficient of 1.2 .What is the price of the stock today?
1) Growth Opportunities
Growth opportunities are opportunities to invest in positive NPV projects.
Another useful way to think about the price of a stock is as
The first component, EPS/r, is the price of the stock if equity cash flows (or earnings) remain
constant forever. EPS = Div
The second component is the expected NPV from future growth opportunities.
5. The DGM and the NPVGO Model
We have two ways to value a stock:
o The dividend discount (or growth) model.
o The price of a share of stock can be calculated as the sum of its price as a cash cow plus the per-
share value of its growth opportunities.
Example: Consider a firm that has EPS of $5 at the end of the first year, a dividend-payout ratio of 30-
percent, a discount rate of 16-percent, and a return on retained earnings of 20-percent. Calculate the
value of the growth opportunities, NPVGO.
• The dividend at year one will be D1=$5 × .30 = $1.50 per share.
• The retention ratio is .70 ( = 1 -.30) implying a growth rate in dividends of 14% = .70 × 20%
Growth rate = (retention rate)(ROE)
From the dividend growth model, the price of a share is:
Figure 12.4 – If you invested $1 in 1957, how much would you have in 2014?
The equity premium puzzle is a term coined in 1985 by economists Rajnish Mehra & Edward
Prescott.
In the US, equities have outperformed bonds by around 7% p.a. for most of the 20th century.
A phenomenon that describes the anomalously higher historical real returns of stocks over
government bonds.
The equity premium puzzle is based on the observation that in order to reconcile the much higher
returns of stocks compared to government bonds in the U.S, individual must have implausibly high
risk aversion according to standard economics models.
The difference is too large to reflect a "proper" level of compensation that would occur as a result of
investor risk aversion; therefore, the premium should actually be much lower than the historic
average noted.
Possible Explanations:
o The puzzle is an illusion:
the empirical data are wrong
o High risk aversion
o Autocorrelation in returns (serial correlation)
o Time varying expected returns
o Heterogeneous investors (opposite of Markowitz Portfolio Theory – all investors have same
expectations and make same choices for given circumstance)