Corporate Issuers, LOS weight share 1.1 percent of the 365 Level I learning outcomes.
M-M without taxes says leverage cannot change WACC, and the very next reading says leverage does change WACC once taxes exist, and the exam trusts a candidate to know which world a given question lives in.
Answer these three first. Getting them wrong now is normal, and it helps the lesson stick. Reveal the answers when you're done, then read on.
1. A firm has $400 million in market-value equity and $600 million in market-value debt. Its after-tax cost of debt is 4.8% and its cost of equity is 11.2%. Its WACC is closest to:
2. Under Modigliani-Miller Proposition I with no taxes, the value of a firm is determined primarily by:
3. Under Modigliani-Miller with corporate taxes but no financial distress costs, as a firm adds more debt, its WACC will most likely:
Five to ten minutes on this one unit: what the exam wants, the idea in plain words, then straight into the trap and the practice.
The exam wants you to calculate WACC from market-value weights and the correct after-tax cost of each capital source, describe what Modigliani-Miller's propositions say with and without taxes, contrast that with trade-off theory's U-shaped WACC, and identify which framework a question is actually testing from its stated assumptions.
WACC blends the cost of every capital source a firm uses, each weighted by its share of total market value: WACC = (E/V) x Re + (D/V) x Rd x (1 - T). A third term, (P/V) x Rp, is added when preferred stock exists. The tax adjustment, (1 - T), applies to debt alone. Interest is tax-deductible; neither preferred nor common dividends are. Applying that adjustment anywhere else is a structural error, not a rounding one. The cost of debt itself is always the current yield to maturity, never the bond's coupon rate. The coupon was fixed at issuance and reflects old conditions. Yield to maturity reflects what a lender demands today, given the bond's actual market price. Weights always use market values, never what was raised in the past; a firm's own stated target capital structure is an acceptable, often preferred, basis alongside current market values.
Modigliani and Miller's Proposition I, in a world with no taxes, no transaction costs, and no distress costs, says a firm's value is completely independent of how it splits financing between debt and equity. Proposition II explains the mechanism behind that result: as a firm substitutes debt for equity, the remaining equity becomes riskier, and its required return rises by precisely enough to leave WACC unchanged. Introduce corporate taxes and the conclusion flips entirely. Because interest is tax-deductible, adding debt now adds value, T x D, to the firm, and left unchecked this framework implies an extreme, unrealistic optimum: maximize debt, all the way to 100 percent. Reading whether a question specifies taxes or no taxes is the single decision that determines which of these two opposite conclusions applies.
Trade-off theory exists precisely because 100 percent debt is not what real firms do. It adds financial distress costs back into the model: firm value equals the unlevered value, plus the present value of the tax shield, minus the expected present value of financial distress costs. The optimal capital structure sits at the point where one more dollar of debt's marginal tax benefit exactly equals its marginal expected distress cost. This produces the shape the exam tests directly: WACC traces a U as leverage rises. It falls at first as cheap, tax-advantaged debt replaces more expensive equity, then rises again once financial distress risk starts to dominate, with the bottom of that U marking the optimal structure. A firm with stable cash flows and collateral-friendly, tangible assets can safely carry more debt before distress costs start to bite; a firm with volatile cash flows and few tangible assets reaches that turning point much sooner.
A firm's equity has a market value of $600 million and a cost of equity of 11 percent. Its debt has a market value of $400 million and a current yield to maturity of 6.5 percent. The tax rate is 25 percent. What is the firm's WACC? Total market value V = $600M + $400M = $1,000M. Equity weight = 600/1000 = 0.60. Debt weight = 400/1000 = 0.40. After-tax cost of debt = 6.5% x (1 - 0.25) = 4.875%. WACC = (0.60 x 11%) + (0.40 x 4.875%) = 6.6% + 1.95% = 8.55%.
Same firm: equity $600 million at 11 percent, debt $400 million at a 6.5 percent yield to maturity, tax rate 25 percent. Compute the weights and the after-tax cost of debt yourself, then finish WACC.
Equity $600M, Re = 11%. Debt $400M, YTM = 6.5%. Tax rate 25%. Find WACC.
A question naming both taxes and an optimal or moderate capital structure is testing trade-off theory, not pure Modigliani-Miller with taxes: under M-M with taxes and no distress cost added back in, the theoretical implication is maximum debt, never a moderate, balanced level.
Verbatim from the 2026 CFA Level I topic outline. Every practice question and key rule below is tagged to one of these where the stem and explanation make the match clear.
Written from this module's own lesson and the 2026 CFA Level I topic outline, in teaching order, each tagged to the learning outcome it belongs to where that is clear.
WACC = (E/V) x Re + (D/V) x Rd x (1 - T), where V is total market value of the firm's capital and Rd x (1 - T) is the after-tax cost of debt; a preferred-stock tranche adds a third term, (P/V) x Rp, with no tax adjustment, since neither preferred dividends nor common dividends are tax-deductible. Market-value weights are required over book-value weights because WACC is a forward-looking cost of raising capital today, not a record of past financing.
A bond's coupon rate was fixed at issuance and reflects historical conditions; the yield to maturity reflects what a lender demands today given the bond's current market price, which is the economically relevant, marginal cost of new debt. Only when a bond trades exactly at par do coupon rate and YTM coincide; otherwise using the coupon rate understates or overstates the true current cost of debt.
Without taxes, re_L = re_U + (re_U - rd) x (D/E): as a firm substitutes debt for equity, the remaining equity becomes riskier and its required return rises by precisely enough to leave WACC unchanged, which is the mechanism behind Proposition I's value-invariance result. With taxes, the formula gains a (1 - T) factor that dampens, but does not eliminate, this rising cost of equity.
Without taxes, WACC is flat regardless of capital structure. With taxes, and absent any offsetting distress cost, the interest tax shield (adding T x D to firm value) makes WACC fall as debt rises, implying an extreme, unrealistic conclusion, maximum debt is optimal, that motivates adding financial distress costs back into the model. Reading which assumption set a question specifies, taxes or no taxes, decides which of these two opposite directional answers is correct.
The base M-M framework assumes no transaction costs, no taxes (relaxed in the tax version), no costs of financial distress, and that both firms and individual investors can borrow at the same rate, the last of which enables homemade leverage: an investor can replicate any capital structure personally, which is the arbitrage mechanism that forces value equality across differently levered but otherwise identical firms.
Trade-off theory holds that value equals the unlevered firm value plus the present value of the tax shield minus the expected present value of financial distress costs; the optimal capital structure sits where the marginal tax benefit of one more dollar of debt exactly equals the marginal expected distress cost of that dollar. Firms with stable cash flows and tangible, collateral-friendly assets can sustain a higher optimal debt ratio than firms with volatile cash flows or mostly intangible assets, because their expected distress costs are lower at any given leverage level.
When a firm has a stated or evident target mix of debt and equity, that target is an acceptable, often preferred, basis for WACC weights alongside current market values, since it represents the firm's intended long-run financing structure rather than a snapshot that may be temporarily distorted by market conditions. Book-value weights remain the least preferred basis of the three.
Authored only where a key rule has an arbitrary number, list, or formula shape worth a memory device; a module with none of those has no tricks here, on purpose.
A debt-to-equity ratio of 0.5 means debt is one-third of total capital, not one-half. Reading D/E as if it were the debt weight in WACC is the most common arithmetic slip on Proposition II questions.
The exam routinely supplies both the coupon rate and the current bond price. The coupon rate is the trap; the cost of debt for WACC is always the yield to maturity, then adjusted by (1 - T).
Interest is tax-deductible; dividends, preferred or common, are not. Applying (1-T) to a preferred or common equity cost is a structural error, not a rounding one.
Three distinct frameworks give three distinct answers to what happens to WACC as leverage rises. The exam signals which one applies by explicitly naming its assumptions.
Authored, ordered steps for answering this module's question types; a calculation module's calculator-dependent step ends with a bracketed BA II Plus keystroke sequence.
Condensed from the key rules and tricks above, nothing new. What you'd want on one index card the night before.
Pick an answer, say how sure you are, then reveal. Every wrong choice gets its own explanation. 10 question(s) available for this unit.
According to Modigliani and Miller's Proposition I with no taxes, the value of a firm is most likely described as being determined by:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
A firm has an unlevered cost of equity of 10% and a cost of debt of 6%. The firm's debt-to-equity ratio is 0.5. According to M-M Proposition II (no taxes), the firm's levered cost of equity is CLOSEST to:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
Under Modigliani-Miller with corporate taxes, a firm should most likely theoretically:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
According to the trade-off theory of capital structure, the optimal capital structure is most likely where:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
A company's CFO argues that issuing equity would signal to the market that the stock is overvalued. This reasoning is MOST consistent with which capital structure theory?
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
Which of the following is most likely NOT an assumption of the original Modigliani-Miller framework (no taxes)?
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
Firm A is unlevered with a value of $50 million. The corporate tax rate is 30%. If the firm issues $20 million of debt and uses proceeds to repurchase equity, the value of the levered firm under M-M with taxes is closest to:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
Under M-M Proposition II without taxes, as a firm most likely increases its financial leverage, its weighted average cost of capital (WACC) will:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
A firm operates with an all-equity capital structure worth $50 million (Modigliani-Miller Proposition I, no taxes, assumed to hold). The firm then issues $20 million of debt and uses the proceeds to repurchase equity, with no change in operating cash flows. Combining MM Proposition I (no taxes) with MM Proposition II (no taxes), the firm's WACC after the recapitalization is most likely to:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
A firm operates in a world with corporate taxes (MM with taxes) and is currently unlevered with a firm value of $80 million and a 25% corporate tax rate. It is considering issuing $30 million in permanent debt and using the proceeds to repurchase equity. Combining MM Proposition I with taxes with the interest tax shield concept, the levered firm's value is most likely closest to:
How sure are you?
Unit: capital-structure
Answer the questions above, then press the button.