by
G. H. Lawson.
Contents
Introduction
Part 1: Cash flow expectations and performance measurement
1.1 Formation of expectations about future cash flows
1.2 Periodic income measurement
1.3 Specific attributes of a cash flow-market value model
1.4 Distributable income and capital maintenance
1.5 Representational faithfulness
1.6 Compliance with recognition criteria
1.7 Other attributes of the cash flow-market value model
1.8 Summary and conclusions
Part 2: Assessing the efficiency of dividend and debt-financing policies
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Dividend policy
2.3 Shareholder wealth losses and wealth transfers to lenders
2.4 Estimating wealth transfers ascribable to mis-priced debt issues
2.5 Wealth losses and wealth transfers caused by declining entity returns
2.6 Summary and conclusions
Appendix A: Cash flow-accruals accounting relationships
Appendix B: Interpretation of the 1984–89 financial performance of Texas Instruments, Inc
References
Introduction
The first part of this paper justifies the use of an operationalized ex post analog of the normative discounted cash flow valuation model in meeting two preeminent objectives of accounting:
i. the disclosure of information to facilitate the formation of investor expectations about corporate cash flows; and,
ii. income measurement.
This ex post cash flow-market value (CF-MV) model is evaluated by reference to such familiar notions as distributable income and capital maintenance, representational faithfulness, recognition criteria, etc.
The second part of the paper discusses ways of assessing corporate dividend and debt-financing policies in a CF-MV accounting framework. It first considers the possible economic consequences of a MLintner-typeH dividend policy. Previous studies have suggested that the characteristic excess of historic cost profit over entity (i.e., corporate) cash flows may, result in dividends (net of new equity raised) which are financed with debt. Debt-financed divi-dends substitute debt for equity and may cause shareholder wealth losses and/or wealth transfers from shareholders to lenders. Unlike other corporate accounting models, the CF-MV model presented here can be used to analyze the efficiency of dividend and debt-financing policies.
Part 1: Cash flow expectations and performance measurement
The value and continuity of a business enterprise and the returns it can provide for its owners depend upon its cash flow-generating capacity. This implies that the past performance of a going concern and ex post ownership returns ought to be measureable on a cash flow basis. A distinction, which is crucial from an operational standpoint, between a pure cash flow accounting model and a cash flow-market value accounting model can, however, be made.
The foregoing propositions can be elaborated by reference to two paramount objectives of external financial reporting, one modern the other ancient, i.e.,
• the disclosure of such information as facilitates the formation of investor expectations about the main determinant of a firm's market value, namely, its future cash flow generating capacity; and,
• the measurement of ex post periodic income.
1.1 Formation of expectations about future cash flows
The stream of cash flows generated by a business enterprise (hereafter ‘entity’) is divided between lenders and stockholders in a ratio which reflects its dividend and debt-financing policies. This partitioning of (entity) cash flows also divides total (entity) market value into the market values of its debt and equity.
The distinction between entity and claimholder cash flows on the one hand, and between entity and claimholder market values on the other can be expressed as two simple identities. As argued hereafter, these distinctions should be explicitly allowed for in reporting performance as a guide to the formation of expectations and in measuring ex post income.
For any year j, an entity's cash flow identity, allowing for minority interests (if any), is defined as:
| entity | lender | shareholder | minority |
| cash ≡ | cash + | cash + | interests |
| flow(j) | flow(j) | flow(j) | cash flow(j) |
or, in more compact shorthand form,
ENCFj ≡ LCFj + SHCFj + MICFj;
or, in more detailed accounting form,
| (kj−hj) − (Aj + Rj − Yj) − tj − Hj ≡ (Fj − Nj − Mj) + (Dj − Bj) + [Dj (MI) − Bj (MI)] | (1) |
where, in year j,
| kj-hj | = | operating cash flow represented by cash collected from customers, kj, and operating payments, hj; |
| Aj+Rj-Yj | = | replacement investment, Aj, growth investment, Rj, and the proceeds from assets displaced, Yj; |
| tj | = | corporate income tax payments; |
| Hj | = | liquidity change, i.e., change in cash and cash equivalents; |
| Fj | = | interest payments; |
| Nj | = | medium and/or long-term debt raised (-ve) or repaid (+ve); |
| Mj | = | short-term debt raised (-ve) or repaid (+ve); |
| Dj | = | dividends paid to shareholders; |
| Bj | = | equity capital raised (-ve) or repaid (+ve); |
| Dj(MI) | = | dividends paid to minority interests; and, |
| Bj(MI) | = | equity capital raised (-ve) from, or repaid (+ve) to, minorities. |
The latter cash flow identity can be contrasted with the cash flow classification prescribed by the FASB (1987) and followed by the British ASC in Exposure Draft 54 (1990), namely (ignoring minority interests),
(kj-hj...