Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dan Stillit's avatar

Nice piece. A central tenet of the argument regarding the 5% scenario seems to be, as you say: “If interest rates remain at 5%, about half the money that is typically invested in new projects would need to be diverted to service existing debt.”

Investment and capital budgeting is typically based on project NPVs. NPVs are typically based on long term costs of capital, which aren’t so volatile and use more normalised risk free rates. Investment that can’t be funded internally gets funded via new debt, equity or hybrid. Hence what do you see as the mechanism by which the volume of investment halves?

Expand full comment
Dan Stillit's avatar

Many thanks for the comments and Fernandez paper. I used to read him religiously at UBS.

Reminding myself of your original comment: "If interest rates remain at 5%, about half the money that is typically invested in new projects would need to be diverted to service existing debt. If interest rates go to 10% investment growth would practically be reduced to zero"

So you're attributing the investment impact to NPV effects from discount rate changes rather than free cash flow, which I think makes more sense.

The impact very much depends on the numerator (expected cash flows) and how many projects are at the margin of NPV positive. If 50% of projects were juicy enough (IRRs comfortably above cost of equity) then they'd still be NPV positive and undertaken with a 200bp rise in COE.

I've sent you a LInkedin request. Wld be great to connect.

Expand full comment
2 more comments...

No posts