An Introduction To Capital Structure

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS Recent years have been difficult for the mining industry, as reported in the most recently published Minerals Yearbook (Volume III), the estimated value of world crude mineral production has been generally declining since an historical peak in 1979 (16).* The costs of mineral extraction have, however, been rising rapidly. Individual project costs are, in general, exceeding the growth rate of mining companies, while operating and technical risks continue to increase (16). Risks resulting from currency flotation and political actions in the host country are also on the increase. Labor difficulties (such as those experienced by Phelps Dodge) and the Reagan Administration's recent rejection of a proposal by the International Trade Commission for higher tariffs and/or quotas on copper imports have also contributed to the mining industry's difficulties. The net result of these factors has been financial difficulties for mining companies with respect to paying for their current financial obligations as well as trouble finding new financing. It may be that one of the main factors in determining the future of the mining industry will be centered upon capital structure, i.e. how its assets are financed. Historical Perspective on Capital Structure In The Mining Industry As discussed by Isreal Borenstein in (4) and Thomas Navin in (7), mining firms typically have used a financial model based upon high financial leverage, i.e. large amounts of debt relative to equity. This has been especially true for American firms developing orebodies discovered overseas. Problems sometimes occurred for those who were forced to commit themselves to completion guarantees in order to obtain bank loans. Mines under these circumstances must be brought into operation regardless of market conditions. Politicians in overseas countries also may use the high profits required by these high risk ventures to argue for nationalization of mines. Coupled with the frequent use of high leverage, mining companies traditionally have paid out a higher percentage of earnings in the form of dividends than manufacturing firms. This is significant, in that such funds paid out in dividends are not available for other uses. Hence, a greater reliance upon debt and/or additional stock issues than would ordinarily be the case for manufacturing firms. Thomas Navin has stated in (7), that the theory behind the high dividend payout was that, "most mining investors thought of themselves as investing in a wasting asset, one that would gradually deplete over time until it ultimately became valueless." Investors, therefore, required a receipt, in the form of dividends, of a percentage of current earnings and a return on original capital. This view of reality, apparently, has not changed in some quarters, even though modern mine management ordinarily replaces depleted mines with new ones. It may be that this practice of high dividend payout coupled with relatively high financial leverage should be reexamined. Current capital structure theory could prove interesting and useful for those concerned with current conditions. Capital structure patterns and related practices in this industry are not, in many cases, congruent with those thought by some to be theoretically optimal. Prelude to Capital Structure Discussion With a few notable exceptions (such as the Guggenheims and Anaconda's chief operating,. officer in 1971) mining companies' chief executives and boards of directors have not been persons with financial backgrounds. This, one could conjecture, might have accounted for the relatively nonsophisticated nature of capital structures of mining companies. In order to appreciate the possibilities with respect to alternative influence on a firm's performance, one must be acquainted with the basics of financial theory. This paper is an attempt to familiarize the reader with (1) capital structure in general, (2) the usual components of this structure, (3) the general theory behind the use of financial leverage, and