Can someone clearly explain both Modigliani-Miller propositions — with and without taxes — and when each applies?
I'm getting confused between the MM propositions in perfect markets vs. with taxes for CFA Level II. Proposition I says capital structure doesn't matter but Proposition II says cost of equity rises with leverage. And then taxes change everything? Need a clear breakdown.
Modigliani-Miller (MM) is the foundation of capital structure theory. Start with the idealized version, then add real-world frictions.
MM Without Taxes (Perfect Markets):
Proposition I: The value of a firm is independent of its capital structure.
V_Levered = V_Unlevered
Intuition: In perfect markets (no taxes, no bankruptcy costs, no information asymmetry), how you slice the pizza doesn't change its total size. Whether you finance with 100% equity or 50/50 debt-equity, firm value is the same.
Proposition II: The cost of equity increases linearly with leverage.
r_e = r_0 + (r_0 - r_d) x (D/E)
Where r_0 is the cost of capital for an all-equity firm. As you add debt, equity becomes riskier (residual claimants bear more risk), so shareholders demand a higher return. But the WACC stays constant because cheaper debt is exactly offset by more expensive equity.
MM With Taxes:
Proposition I: Firm value increases with leverage due to the tax shield.
V_Levered = V_Unlevered + (Tax Rate x Debt)
Proposition II: Cost of equity still rises with leverage, but WACC declines.
r_e = r_0 + (r_0 - r_d) x (D/E) x (1 - Tax Rate)
The (1 - Tax Rate) dampener means equity's cost rises more slowly than in the no-tax case, so WACC falls as you add debt.
Numerical Example:
Pinecrest Corp has r_0 = 10%, r_d = 5%, Tax Rate = 30%, D/E = 0.8.
Without taxes: r_e = 10% + (10% - 5%) x 0.8 = 10% + 4% = 14%
WACC = (1/1.8) x 14% + (0.8/1.8) x 5% = 7.78% + 2.22% = 10% (unchanged!)
With taxes: r_e = 10% + (10% - 5%) x 0.8 x (1 - 0.30) = 10% + 2.8% = 12.8%
WACC = (1/1.8) x 12.8% + (0.8/1.8) x 5% x (1-0.30) = 7.11% + 1.56% = 8.67% (lower!)
The Practical Takeaway:
MM with taxes implies firms should use 100% debt — obviously unrealistic. This is why the trade-off theory (adding distress costs) and pecking order theory (information asymmetry) were developed. Think of MM as the baseline that explains WHY leverage matters, with real-world modifications explaining HOW MUCH leverage is optimal.
Test your understanding with our CFA Level II Corporate Issuers practice questions.
Master Level II with our CFA Course
107 lessons · 200+ hours· Expert instruction
Related Questions
What exactly is the Capital Market Expectations (CME) framework and why does it matter for asset allocation?
How do business cycle phases affect asset class return expectations?
Can someone explain the Grinold–Kroner model step by step with numbers?
How do you forecast fixed-income returns using the building-blocks approach?
PPP vs Interest Rate Parity for forecasting exchange rates — when do I use which?
Join the Discussion
Ask questions and get expert answers.