Considerations In Leveraged Studies For Mineral Ventures

INTRODUCTION It is recognized that, for a variety of reasons, some companies in the mineral industry today are by no means cash-rich and, in fact, are reporting a growing proportion of long-term debt in their capital structures. A review of recent balance sheets of small, medium-size, and some larger companies, indicates that a fair number still have substantial positions in cash equivalents such as U.S. government issues and other short-term money market instruments. In part, this paper concerns itself with companies which have sufficient cash and equivalents and/or cash generation to internally finance mining projects or expansions but which, for some reason, choose to borrow funds. Misconceptions which appear to frequently underlie so-called "leveraging" decisions are explored in this paper. Also considered arc' those circumstances under which any company, including one that is cash rich, should consider borrowing for a project in an amount beyond what would otherwise be necessary based upon its internal financing ability. I do not attempt to cover the raising of equity capital in public markets in this paper. OVERALL RETURN ON INVESTABLE CASH If you approach an individual with an investment which can be financed from savings, or by borrowing at a rate higher than one is earning on savings, that individual will quickly tell you that to pay interest at a rate higher than is being earned on savings would reduce overall income. Assuming that additional investment opportunities are not currently being considered, the individual concludes that a draw-down on savings, leaving a cushion for contingencies suited to individual circumstances, is the correct financial decision. For reasons discussed later, the simple mathematical logic leading to this conclusion tends to become obscured at the corporate level. When Leveraged Studies Are Inappropriate or Premature Surprisingly, I have heard of a number of companies that could afford to finance an investment solely with internal funds, which have made DCFROR (i.e. discounted-cash-flow rate-of-return) studies not only on a 100% equity basis but also on a leveraged basis. Certainly, a leveraged study would be appropriate if additional projects were competing for more capital than was available internally. Often, however, other projects are not far enough along to warrant a leveraged study and there is some danger that a project may be undertaken because it has an estimated acceptable rate of return, on a leveraged basis, that is not ultimately earned because some of the other projects are postponed or abandoned and borrowing is less than expected. For the above reasons, until it has been determined that (1) borrowing is a reasonable certainty for a particular project and (2) the timing and amount to be borrowed has been determined within a reasonable range of accuracy, I believe it is inappropriate and misleading to calculate DCFROR for a project other than on a 100% equity basis. Even when there are several projects currently competing for funds and borrowing will be required to finance one or more of them, using the common yardstick of calculating DCFROR on a 100% equity basis is a safer method to initially evaluate and compare the attractiveness of the projects. Many companies, whether they would have to borrow or not, will reject projects that on a 100% equity basis do not meet their minimum rate of return standards. Some companies which have to borrow will undertake a project provided the project's DCFROR on a leveraged basis meets its minimum return standards. The danger of this approach is that even moderate shrinkages of estimated cash flows could plunge return below