Transcript Slide 1

Foreign investment
decisions
Foreign direct investment (FDI)
•
Why firms invest abroad
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Comparative costs – least cost location
Scale economies – spread fixed costs especially R&D
Avoid transport costs
Restore/maintain growth in mature products
Lack of domestic capacity
Overcome trade barriers
Use of retained profits difficult to repatriate
Local inducements
• tax breaks, cheap loans, etc
– To avoid FX risks.
Methods of market entry
FDI not the only means of serving foreign markets. Grant
distinguishes between:
• Transactions-based methods
– Exporting via agents, direct exporting, franchising,
licensing
• Investment-based methods
– Joint ventures, acquisitions, direct investment
• Choice depends on
– Cost
– Source of advantage – ownership- or location-based
– Ease of appropriation of technology.
The Switch Model
Exporting vs. FDI
Source: Buckley and Casson (1981).
Foreign Direct Investment
Four difficulties not present in domestic project appraisal
1. Overseas cash flow’s are exposed to the risk of adverse FX
movements
2. The ‘host’ government have a variety of ways to take actions which
adversely discriminates against an overseas project once the project
is undertaken (imposing penal rate of taxation; restricting the remittance
of project net cash flows
3. Problems related to estimating systematic risk and required rate of
return of the project in an international rather than domestic context
4. Finding a correct project appraisal procedure. Especially: the
viewpoint problem
The basic approach
UK Parent
USA
NPV
1. The project’s US dollar cash flows are discounted at the dollar
discount rate to generate a $NPV. This can then be converted
at the $/£ spot rate to a given sterling NPV
2. The project’s dollar cash flows are converted to sterling cash flows.
These sterling cash flows are then discounted at the sterling
discount rate to generate a sterling NPV
The viewpoint problem
Should the project’s net cash flows be viewed from the standpoint of the
project itself, or from the standpoint of the parent? In other words: is it the
year-to-year net cash flows of the project, or is it the project’s cash flows
available to be remitted back to the parent that is to be evaluated?
Example
Rush plc is undertaking a project in an overseas country whose currency is US$. The project’s
net cash flow are:
Year
0
1
2
3
$M
-10
+8
+4
+3.5
The current $/£ spot rate is 2.5000. Given the systematic risk involved, r = 20%. The company
follows a policy paying out all of each year’s net cash flow as dividend.
The host country’s laws permit foreign projects to remit back to their parents a maximum
annual cash flow equal to 10% of the project’s cost. Blocked funds have to be placed on
special deposit at an interest rate of 5%. All blocked funds are released at the end of the
project’s life.
From the viewpoint of the project…
Year
$M
PVF 20%
Sum
0
-10
*
1
=
-10
1
+8
*
0.8333
=
+6.67
2
+4
*
0.6944
=
+2.78
3
+3.5
*
0.5787
=
+2.02
+$1.47
$1.47 / 2.5000 = £0.588M (NPV)
From the viewpoint of the parent…
Year
1
2
3
+project cash flow
+8
+4
+3.5
Blocked funds
7
10.35
Interest
+0.35
+0.52
Total cash flow
+8
+11.35
+14.37
Repatriated c/f
-1
-1
-14.37
Blocked funds
+7
+10.35
Year
0
1
2
3
20%disc
1
0.8333
0.6944
0.5787
$M
-10
+1
+1
+14.37
-$0.16 / 2.5000 = -£64 000
Sum
-10
+0.83
+0.69
+8.32
$ -0.16
There is little point in
undertaking this if the
investors cannot
enjoy its benefits
Managing Currency Risk
Foreign exchange markets (FX)
a) the ’spot’ FX market
b) the ’forward’ FX market (fixed f. contracts; time option f. contracts)
Existance iif there is sufficient demand
Where a forward market exist, just how far forward you can deal
depends upon the level of demand (the dept…)
’Standard periods of time are one month and three months. Other
forward rate has to be specifically quoted by the banks
buy
sell
Discounts….
$/£ spot
1.5840-1.5860
$/£ 1 month forward
1.6290-1.6335
$/£ 3 months forward
1.6525-1.6560
$/£ spot
1.5840-1.5860
$/£ 1 month forward
4.50c-4.75c
discount (= ”add”)
$/£ 3 months forward
6.85c-7.00c
discount
Notice that the spread widens…Why?
What does a discount imply w r t the relative exchange rate?
The first currency is ____________ against the second of the pair
of currencies
…. and premiums
$/£ spot
1.8240-1.8260
$/£ 1 month forward
0.85c-0.75c
and so: spot
1.8240-1.8260
-premium
0.85 – 0.75
1 month forward
1.8155 – 1.8185
premium (=”subtract”)
The first currency is now ____________ against the second of the
pair of currencies
Rates of depreciation and appreciation
Suppose that the $/£ buying rates are given as:
Spot
$ 1.5210
12 months forward
8.65c discount
Spot $/£
$ 1.5210
+ discount
+0.0865
12 months forward
$ 1.6075
Express the amont of discount as a percentage of the spot rate:
= 0.0569 or 5.69 percent
As a result, the forward rate can be calculated as:
spot: $ 1.5210*(1+0.0569) = $1.6075
Determinants of FX rates
three main questions to address:
1. What causes foreign exchange rates to move?
2. What determines forward exchange rates?
3. What determines future spot rates?
What causes foreign exchange rates to move?
= Supply and demand forces
Two (three) principal sources of market forces:
(a) speculators and speculation, so-called ’hot money’
(b) international trade and ’real’ investments
(c) international finance
What determines forward exchange rates?
- The answer lies with the interest rate parity theorem (IRPT)
Example
In our example, spot $/£ is 1.5840-1.5860 and 12-month forward $/£ is 1.5370-1.5400. Suppose that
the rate of interest on UK Treasury Bills is 8% and on US Treasury Bills 5%. You wish to place
£ 10000 on deposit, risk free, for one year. Should you invest in UK T-bills and get 8%, or in US T-bills
and get only 5%. IRPT says it doesn’t matter – either way will yield exactly the same return.
Example cont…
Invest (deposit) now £10000, receive back £10800 in 12 month’s time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Or sell £10000 spot for US dollars, receive £10000*1.5840 = $15840.
Place these on a US deposit for a year to produce $15840*(1+0.05) = $16632.
To avoid risk, sell the $’s for pounds at the 12-month forward rate of 1.5400 to yield $16632/1.5400 = £10800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------See this: Forward exchange rate are set as to effectively bring about parity between interest rates in
different currencies.
The precise rate of change:
$ interestrate- Sterlinginterestrate
 % changein the$
1  Sterlinginterestrate
T herefore,in our example
0.05- 0.08
 20.0278or a 2.78%appreciation in the$
1.08
Spot $/£: 1.5840*(1-0.0278) = 1.5400: 12-month forward $/£
An important point that is often misunderstood:
Spot $/£: 1.5840*(1-0.0278) = 1.5400: 12-month forward $/£
This 12-month rate is technically an ‘unbiased estimator’ of what will be
the $/£ spot rate in 12 month’s time.
In reality this is seldom true. Why?
The actual spot rate will also be affected by supply and demand
market forces at that time
What determines future spot rates?
-The answer lies with the purchasing power parity theorem (PPPT)
Exchange rates move to effectively bring about purchasing power
parity between the currencies of different countries.
- PPPT is not as robust as IRPT. Because IRPT determines forward
rates almost precisely.
- PPPT rest on ‘the law of one price’.
- In contrast, PPPT will be a major influence behind FX rates, but not
the only one.
The law of one price:
Suppose that a particular lap-top PC costs £3000 in the UK and the $/£ spot rate is 1.7000.
The US price would then have to be £3000*1.7000 = $5100.
What could happen if you could buy the PC in the US for $4250?
Buy for $4250/1.7000= £2500
Sell for =£
Profit =£
Does the law of one price apply to all goods?
There are two requirements for the LOP to operate effectively:
a)
The transportation cost of the good concerned must be small relative to the good’s value
________________________
b)
The goods must be physically capable of being traded internationally
________________________
What does b) exclude?
The LOP example continued:
Assume that the annual rates of inflation over the next 12 months in the UK and in the US
are 4% and 6% respectively.
The lap-top cost £3000*(1+0.04) = £3120 in the UK in 12-months time
The lap-top cost $5100*(1+0.06) = $5406 in the UK in 12-months time
Therefore, in order to maintain the LOP, this implies that the $/£ spot rate in 12 month’s time
will be 1.7327 (= 5406/3120), so that £3120*1.7327 = $5406.
Thus exchange rates move to maintain the LOP.
The answer to our question:
The currency of the country with the higher rate of inflation will depreciate against the currency
of the country with the lower rate of inflation by approximately the inflation differential.
The precise rate of change in exchange is:
  depreciation
US inflationrate- UK inflationrate
 % changein the$ 

1  UK inflationrate
-  appreciation 
Current spot: 1.7000*(1+0.01923) = 1.7327: estimated future spot
Interlocking theories
in international economics
(1+M)=(1+P)(1+I)
?
OFT = Diff between interest rates on similar bonds represents the market’s estimate of the future changes in the
exchange rates over the period of the bond. (1.05/1.12)*1.61 (spot$/£) = 1.5 forward $/£ (A GBP Bond is 12% p.a.)
What do we know ??
• IRP almost always holds
• PPP generally applies long-term but we see
substantial short-term deviations
• Fisher and IFE effects distorted by government
interference
– apply long-term but with short-term deviations
• Expectations theory
– F/w is unbiased predictor of future spot in long-term
– F/w rates seem to undervalue short-term future spot
when spot rate is increasing, and vice versa.
How does it help?
• If the theories work, should firms hedge FX
exposure?
– Inflation differences drive FX rate differences – why?
– Inflation differences drive interest rate differences (Fisher),
which drive spot/forward differences (IRP), which predict
changes in spot rates (UBFR)
• Why firms should not sell F/w their export receipts
– forward rate = expected future spot rate
– so, price according to FX F/w rate ruling at delivery
date - look at the market rates
– may win or lose in practice but should expect to break-even
over time – the essential skills are to identify the assets
and cash flows that are at risk and to devise suitable means
of hedging the risks...
Foreign exchange hedging
Risk = uncertainty of outcome, hence FX risk refers to uncertainty
of outcome that arises because exchange rates move unpredictably
Three types of FX risk:
1. transactions risk
2. translation risk
3. economic risk
import and export trade
‘real’ investments in a foreign country
borrowing denominated in f. currency
The focus here will be on the problem of FX transaction risk, and
particularly the risk faced by importers and exporters
An interesting point as far as financing is concerned…
- Should we ignore the financing cash flows in calculating a project’s NPV?
Example:
Buy a machine for £1000. Operating net c/f = £450 /year over 3 years. No scarp value.
Systematic risks involved gives r = 15%.
The machine is fully financed by a 3-year loan at 10%
NPV = -1000 + 450*AF(3y,15%) = 27.44
NPV(loan) = – 100*(0.9091) – 100*(0.8264) – 1000*(0.7513) = -1000
Therefore, in entering the project’s outlay of £1000 in the NPV analysis we are implicitly entering
the present value of the financing cash flows involved in the project.
Miller-Modigliani separation theorem. But this does not mean that financing
cash flows are excluded. They are just implicit…
The viewpoint problem in joint ventures or where funds are raised overseas
Go back to the Rush plc example. (Project NPV = £0.588M; Parent NPV = -£64 000.)
The $10M investment is now financed by a joint venture with investors in the host country (50%),
and via the export of £2M (=$5M).
Year
1
2
3
+project cash flow
+8
+4
+3.5
-foreign dividends
-4
-2
-1.75
Blocked funds
+3
+4.15
Interest
+0.15
+0.21
Total cash flow
+4
+5.15
+6.11
Repatriated c/f
-1
-1
-6.11
Blocked funds
+3
+4.15
NPV (at r= 20%)
= -5*1 + 1*0.8333 + 1*0.6944 + 6.11*0.5787 = $0.06M = £24 000
Project discount rate
What would happen in the Rush plc example if the company had
originally intended to finance the project by exporting £4M, of which
£2M would be in form of retained earnings and the other £2M would be
raised via a three-year term loan?
The £ discount rate would have been the project’s WACC
However, what if Rush plc instead decided to raise the three-year term
loan in the US in dollars?
As far as the project appraisal from the parent’s viewpoint is concerned
it is the cash flows available for repatriation back to the parent that is
of relevance.
The discount rate should then reflect the project’s business risk plus
the financial risk that arises from the leverage – the cost of equity capital
Example – Rush plc
Project’s asset beta = 1.6
US government bond return =12% (the risk-free interest rate)
Return on NYSE index =17%
CAPM then gives r = 12% + (17%-12%)*1.6 = 20%
Suppose now that the $10M project is financed by exporting £ (50%),
and then through a three-year $5M term loan (interest 12%)
 assets   equity
E
A
rE=12%+(17%-12%)*3.2
then
= 28%
A
E
2
1
 equity   assets  1.6   3.2
The project appraisal analysis is now:
Year
1
2
3
Project cash flow
+8
+4
+3.5
- Interest payments
-0.6
-0.6
-0.6
- loan
-5
+ blocked funds
+6.4
+9.12
+ interest
+0.32
+0.46
Total cash flow
+7.4
+10.12
+7.48
Repatriated c/f
-1
-1
-7.48
Blocked funds
+6.4
+9.12
-
NPV (r=28%) = -5*1 + 1*0.7812 + 1*0.6103 + 7.48*0.4768 = - $ 0.04M /2.5000 = -£16 000
We have left tax considerations…;)
Translation risk
The risk a company is exposed to through movements in FX rates when
it hold medium- to long-term assets and liabilities in an overseas
currency.
At each year-end their values have to be translated into the domestic
currency for inclusion in the parent company’s balance sheet.
A UK company undertakes a project in the US, costing $10M. It is financed via a £5M loan.
The $/£ exchange rate is 2.0000.
Opening balance
$ Asset: £5M
£ loan: £5M
How do we overcome this
translation risk?
Ending balance 12 month ahead
$ Asset: £3.33M
£ loan: £5M
less FX loss: (£1.67M)
$/£=3.0000
Problems in dealing with translation risk
Many governments insist that a minimum proportion of a project’s outlay
is financed directly by the parent company
The standard financing advice for overseas projects is:
a) the project’s property fixed assets: finance with a foreign currency loan
b) the project’s non-property fixed assets: finance through exporting own c.
c) working capital requirements: finance with a foreign currency loan
a) and c) are not capable of being physically traded internationally,
so these asset categories need to be protected against FX risk through
matching.
What explains the strategy for b)?
Economic risk – the risk of unexpected changes in FX rates
- is this risk systematic or unsystematic?
- or does/should it exist at all?
A US project costs $1M. It has a life of three years and results in an annual production of
1000 units. The net after-tax cash flow is $0.5M in current terms. This cash amount is expected
to increase in line with the average US inflation rate (8% per year).
The project will be entirely financed by £, and there is no restrictions on remittance.
A similar-risk UK project would be expected to produce an annual return of 16%.
The current $/£ spot exchange rate is 1.9000, and the UK inflation rate is expected to 5%
per year.
Estimate the $/£ FX rate of change through the PPPT:
(0.08-0.05)/1.05 = +0.0286
and so, using the IRPT: $discount rate = (0.0286*1.16) = 19.3%
The project can now be evaluated:
Year
0
1
2
3
$M
-1
+0.54
+0.583
+0.630
PVF(19.3%)
1
0.8382
0.7026
0.5889
PV
-1
+0.453
+0.410
+0.371
$+0.234 (NPV)
If the firm the undertakes the project, the $/£ FX rates that they are expecting over the
next three years can be found from the PPPT:
Spot:
Year 1:
Year 2:
Year 3:
1.9000 (given)
1.9000*(1.0286) = 1.9543
1.9543*(1.0286) = 2.0102
2.0102*(1.0286) = 2.0677
Thus, the firm should expect the following sterling cash flow from the project:
Year
0
1
2
3
$M
-1
+0.54
+0.583
+0.630
$/£
1.9000
1.9543
2.0102
2.0677
£M
-0.526
+0.276
+0.290
+0.305
This cash flow has an NPV of £123 000 at r=16%
However, suppose that US inflation turns out to be higher than expected,
say 12% rather than 8%. It means that the future exchange rates will also
differ:
Rate of change in $: (0.12-0.05)/1.05 = +0.067
Year 1: 1.9000*(1.067) = 2.0273
Year 2: 2.0273*(1.067) = 2.1631
Year 3: 2.1631*(1.067) = 2.3081
Will the UK parent suffer from this unexpected, adverse movement in
the $/£ exchange rates?
Year
0
1
2
3
$M
-1
+0.56
+0.627
+0.702
$/£
1.9000
2.0273
2.1631
2.3081
£M
-0.526
+0.276
+0.290
+0.304
Again, NPV = £123 000 (at r =16%)
Hence, the UK parent doesn’t suffer; the reason being that the increased
US inflation should result in increased dollar cash flows from the project
which now will inflate up at 12% rather that 8%.
Life does not work quite so perfectly!
The risk of unexpected FX movements does exist for firms
investing overseas!
Is this risk wholly systematic or unsystematic or partly both?
The answer is uncertain and depends partly upon if country capital
markets are segmented (independent) or integrated.
Solve the FX risk problem by selling forward the project’s expected
foreign currency net cash flow
These are only expected
What if a forward market does not
exist?
Country/ Political risk
Source: Euromoney, September 2004 (www.euromoney.com).