Franco Modigliani and Merton Miller (M & M) are two very famous financial economists that both won the Nobel Prize in Economics for their work in the finance area, particularly in capital structure theories (see the Description of this in the box on page 504 of your text). In their famous 1958 article (see footnote on page 490), they argued that with perfect capital markets, the total value of a firm should not depend on its capital structure. In other words, the total value of a firm would be the same with all equity, or financing with 100% debt. This is the basic MM Proposition I stated on p.493. But, as you should see, the "perfect capital markets" assumes 3 key assumptions, including no taxes or transactions costs dealing with equity or debt. Additionally, a key assumption is that individuals and firms can trade the same set of securities at competitive market prices equal to the present value of their future cash flows. These assumptions are necessary for the M&M theory on capital structure. For the Proposition M&M II beginning on page 498, still in a perfect capital market which includes no taxes, M&M state that the cost of capital of EQUITY increases with the firm's market value debt-equity ratio. But, when you examine this Proposition more closely, for a new investment the cost of capital will equal the weighted average of the firm's equity and debt costs. What does this mean in practical terms? It means that M&M "loosens" a part of the Proposition I, and admit that the cost of equity does increase as the debt-equity ratio increases. But, if you examine this closely, it means that the OVERALL cost of capital, captured in the WACC stays constant. And, the pre-tax WACC is the same as the after-tax WACC, since there is no tax! If the WACC stays constant while the equity cost increases, the figure also shows that the debt costs are also going up; similarly, if the equity costs are going down, then the debt costs are going down also as the debt-to-value decreases. This is shown on page 500 in Figure 14.1. And, of course, the weights of debt and equity (0/100, 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, 100/0) count. But, in the real-world, the M&M Propositions do not hold....corporations and individuals do have taxes, and do have transactions costs for debt and equity...buying bonds and stocks, for example. So, as we have learned, the Beta coefficient for equity does increase as the amount of debt level increases (due to increasing risks of default of interest payments or repayment of the bonds at maturity)...and the costs of debt increase, but as we weight those, the WACC actually varies, based on the real-world that includes taxes....we normally see the WACC being a U-shaped curved that varies as a function of the debt to equity ratio.

Questions:

1. Discuss the MM Proposition I and MM Proposition II (definition, assumptions, results and implications)? Remember, at the MBA level, more is better. But, to the point, and no "hot air."

2. Assume you are doing a financial analysis for Kroger Inc. Here is one of the income statements that you analyze (all figures in $ Millions):

Which year does Kroger Incorporation have the highest tax shield and why? Be very specific.

Year	2006	2005	2004
Total Sales	60,553	56,434	53,791
Cost of goods sold	45,565	42,140	39,637
Selling, general & admin expenses	11,688	12,191	11,575
Depreciation	1265	1256	1209
Operating Income	2035	847	1370
Other Income	0	0	0
EBIT	2035	847	1370
Interest expense	510	557	604
Earnings before tax	1525	290	766
Taxes (35%)	534	102	268
Net Income	991	189	498