Launch offer — 25% off with code LAUNCH-25 See plans →
Microlesson · 5-min read

Modigliani-Miller (MM) Approach — Without Tax (1958)

## Modigliani-Miller (MM) Approach

### Why MM Matters

The NOI approach is definitional/conceptual and lacks behavioural significance — it asserts irrelevance but offers no operational justification. MM provides the behavioural justification for a constant overall cost of capital (and therefore a constant total value of the firm).

There are two versions:

  • MM 1958 — Without Tax
  • MM 1963 — With Tax

---

## MM Approach WITHOUT Tax (1958)

  • Given by Modigliani and Miller in 1958.
  • Similar to the NOI approach — capital structure decisions are IRRELEVANT.
  • VF and K₀ always remain constant, unaffected by any increase/decrease in debt weight (W_d).

### The Three Propositions

Proposition 1 — Value Irrelevance

$$VF = \frac{EBIT \;(NOI)}{K_0}$$

  • Total value of the firm and K₀ remain constant.
  • Therefore: Value of Levered firm = Value of Unlevered firm ($V_L = V_U$).

Proposition 2 — Cost of Equity Rises with Leverage

  • K_e increases in a linear fashion as debt is added, exactly offsetting the cheaper debt, so K₀ stays constant. (Mirrors the NOI offset mechanism.)

Proposition 3 — Investment Decision Rule

  • The cut-off rate for investment is completely independent of how the investment is financed.

### The Behavioural Justification — Arbitrage

MM's contribution over NOI is the arbitrage process: if two identical firms (one levered, one unlevered) had different values, investors would use personal (homemade) leverage to arbitrage — buying the undervalued firm and selling the overvalued one — until the two values become equal. This is what forces $V_L = V_U$.

### Graphical View

Like NOI: K₀ is a flat horizontal line, K_e slopes upward with leverage, K_d is constant.

Worked example

### Example 1

Proposition 1 — equal values. Two identical firms, EBIT = ₹2,00,000, K₀ = 12.5%. \n- Unlevered firm: VF = 2,00,000/0.125 = ₹16,00,000. \n- Levered firm (₹6,00,000 debt): VF MUST also = ₹16,00,000 under MM without tax → V_L = V_U. \nIf the market temporarily priced the levered firm at ₹17,00,000, arbitrage would drive it back to ₹16,00,000.

### Example 2

Homemade leverage / arbitrage. Suppose levered firm L is overvalued. An investor holding 10% of L's equity sells those shares, personally borrows an amount equal to 10% of L's debt (replicating the leverage), buys 10% of unlevered firm U's shares, and ends up with the same income stream at lower cost — pocketing the difference. Such trades by many investors erase the price gap, restoring V_L = V_U.

⚠️ Common exam mistakes

  • Stating that MM without tax says debt adds value — without tax, V_L = V_U and capital structure is IRRELEVANT.
  • Treating MM (without tax) as identical to NOI with nothing new — MM adds the ARBITRAGE/behavioural justification that NOI lacked; that is the key exam point.
  • Forgetting Proposition 2: K_e must rise with leverage to keep K₀ constant — students sometimes hold K_e fixed.
  • Mixing up the years — Without-tax is 1958, With-tax is 1963.
Reference:
Now that you've read this — what's next?
Move from understanding → mastery in 3 clicks. Each option below picks up from this lesson's topic.
Start 15-min diagnostic