Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 237 views

    Nestle Case

    Uploaded by

    fahdly
    Nestlé had two types of shares - bearer shares available to all investors, and registered shares available only to Swiss investors. Historically, registered shares were valued at about half the price of bearer shares, despite having the same rights, due to the ownership restrictions. In 1988, Nestlé lifted restrictions on registered shares, allowing foreign ownership. This internationalization of ownership lowered Nestlé's cost of capital by an estimated 3-4% annually due to a reduced risk premium for the newly unrestricted shares.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nestle Case

    Uploaded by

    fahdly
    237 views8 pages
    Nestlé had two types of shares - bearer shares available to all investors, and registered shares available only to Swiss investors. Historically, registered shares were valued at about half the price of bearer shares, despite having the same rights, due to the ownership restrictions. In 1988, Nestlé lifted restrictions on registered shares, allowing foreign ownership. This internationalization of ownership lowered Nestlé's cost of capital by an estimated 3-4% annually due to a reduced risk premium for the newly unrestricted shares.

    Original Description:

    Nestle Case

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Nestlé had two types of shares - bearer shares available to all investors, and registered shares available only to Swiss investors. Historically, registered shares were valued at about half the price of bearer shares, despite having the same rights, due to the ownership restrictions. In 1988, Nestlé lifted restrictions on registered shares, allowing foreign ownership. This internationalization of ownership lowered Nestlé's cost of capital by an estimated 3-4% annually due to a reduced risk premium for the newly unrestricted shares.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    237 views8 pages

    Nestle Case

    Uploaded by

    fahdly
    Nestlé had two types of shares - bearer shares available to all investors, and registered shares available only to Swiss investors. Historically, registered shares were valued at about half the price of bearer shares, despite having the same rights, due to the ownership restrictions. In 1988, Nestlé lifted restrictions on registered shares, allowing foreign ownership. This internationalization of ownership lowered Nestlé's cost of capital by an estimated 3-4% annually due to a reduced risk premium for the newly unrestricted shares.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 8

    COST OF CAPITAL

    Tips and tools for creating and presenting wide format slides

    Case Introduction
    Until 1988, Nestl had two types of shares that differed in ownership restrictions. 1. bearer shares was available to all investors in the world, Swiss and foreign (and investors could buy these shares anonymously)

    2. Registered shares Was available only to Swiss investors. Investors who bought these shares would have to register with the company to have full ownership rights, and the company could refuse registration without offering any justification.

    Case Introduction

    Both registered and bearer shares had the same voting rights and the same dividends. Therefore, these two types of shares differed only in who could own them and in the anonymity conferred on the holder.

    The Phenomena was, for the period 1985 through most of 1988 Swiss investors were typically only about half as valuable as the shares available to foreign investors.

    Case Introduction

    On November 17, 1988, Nestl lifted restrictions imposed on foreigners, allowing them to hold registered shares as well as bearer shares. A major transfer of wealth from foreign shareholders to Swiss shareholders. The total value of Nestl increased substantially when it internationalized its ownership structure. Nestls cost of capital therefore declined.

    What does this imply ?

    Using the well-known dividend-growth model for valuing stocks, we can perform a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation that shows the implications of this price difference for the cost of capital.

    d/(cI g) = 2 d/(cL g) (value of the bearer shares) = 2 (value of the registered shares) With some simple algebraic manipulation, the above equation reduces to the following: cL = 2cI g
    *L= Restricted, I = Barrier

    What does this imply ?


    If we assume that cI = 10% and g = 2%, then cLthe cost of capital for shares available to Swiss investors onlywould be 18%. Even using a growth rate of 4%, which is well above Nestls historical average, yields a cost of equity capital for restricted shares of 16%.

    Given that roughly half of Nestls equity capital was in the form of registered shares (with the other half in bearer and participation certificates), the companys total (or weighted average) cost of equity would be about 14% (or 13%, with the higher dividend growth rate). Thus, it follows that the restrictions on foreign ownership increased the annual cost of equity capital for Nestl by as much as 3% to 4%

    How to understand them

    Before the removal of the restrictions, these shares could be held only by domestic investors. When these restrictions were lifted, Swiss investors then had the right to sell their shares to foreign investors. As Swiss investors hold less of these shares, they demand a smaller risk premium to hold them.

    The removal of ownership restrictions meant that the supply of Nestl shares available to foreign investors suddenly far exceeded the demand for those shares at their then current price. And so the price of the bearer shares had to fall.

    THE LOCAL CAPM VS THE GLOBAL CAPM


    E(RH) = Rf + bH [E(RH) Rf] where E(RH) is the required rate of return on the companys stock when markets are completely segmented; Rf is the risk-free rate; bH is the beta of the companys stock price in relation to the local or homecountry market; and E(RH) is the expectedreturn of the home country market portfolio.

    E(RG) = Rf + bG [E(RG) Rf]


    where RG denotes the required expected return on a stock when markets are global; Rf is still the local country risk-free rate; bG is the global beta of the company in question; and RG denotes the return of the global market portfolio. In the equation above, one would use a proxy for the global market portfolio like the MorganStanley International (MSCI) index.

    You might also like