The Winner’s Circle

Alec J. Pacella, CCIM

Last month, we continued our “back to school” theme and started a discussion regarding capital accumulation. And equally important, we took a walk down memory lane, discussing slot car racing sets that were a part of my childhood in the 1960s and ’70s.

If you read last month’s column, you may recall that although Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is a well-established measure of an investment, it has some deficiencies. This is particularly true related to what I called the investor’s total pile of cash. IRR only cares about money in the deal and gives no consideration to money that comes out of the deal – even though an investor can reinvest these cash flows. Interwoven in that discussion was the story of AFX, a leader in the slot car racing scene of the ‘60s and ‘70s, and upstart Tyco, which proved to be a worthy alternative. This month, we are going to continue this discussion as AFX vs. Tyco isn’t the only battleline being drawn. This is the last period before our lunch break so let’s go! Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) was initially developed in the 1960s and primarily used by businesses to make a more accurate comparison between investment alternatives. It addressed one of IRR’s main limitations of ignoring cash flows produced from a primary investment by introducing a couple concepts. If you recall, last month I used the analogy of putting money produced by an investment in a mason jar and burying it in the back yard. This would equate to a reinvest- ment rate of zero, as the money in that jar would be earning nothing. But we can do something more productive with those cash flows – like redeploy them at a realistic reinvestment rate, usually a rate comparable to the firm’s cost of capital. Also, any additional outlays that would be needed to cover anticipated shortfalls (i.e., negative cash flows) over the holding period are assumed to be funded upfront at the firm’s cost of debt. Figure 1 illustrates the MIRR process, using an 8% cost of capital and 4% financing cost. As you can see, the $10,000 negative cash flow anticipated to occur in year three is acknowledged at the beginning of the investment by dis- counting the shortfall back to time period 0 at 4% and adding this to the initial investment. Meanwhile, all of the positive cash flows are reinvested at 8% to end of the fifth year. As a result, the $108,890 initially invested is anticipated to produce $201,501, which equates to a MIRR of 13.10%.

Figure 1

Capital accumulation is newer, developed in the 1980s. While the basic premise is the same as MIRR, the concept is more specific to a real estate investor and introduces a few twists. A primary difference is the treatment of negative cash flows. MIRR eliminates future anticipated deficits by setting aside the additional capital necessary upfront, at time period 0. Capital accumulation discounts negative cash flows back one year at a time, offsetting it against any positive cash flows produced in the preceding year(s) until the deficit is eliminated. This is done at a “safe rate,” which represents the rate of a secondary investment that can confidently be achieved. After eliminating any negative cash flows, the remaining positive cash flows produced by the primary investment are assumed to be reinvested at rate representative of an investment alter- native readily available to the investor. But rather than compounding the positive cash flows produced each year to a corresponding future value at the end of the time horizon, capital accumulation only compounds each annual cash flow forward to the following year. This is added to any cash flow expected to be released in that following year and then the entire sum is again compounded forward one year. A second, related nuance is that capital accumulation can have multiple, or tiered, reinvestment rates. A higher reinvestment rate may be available as specific dollar thresholds are met. This acknowledges a premium in return as a result of the aggregate amount being reinvested. This kicker is a concept similar to “jumbo CDs” of years past. By compounding cash flows one year at a time, the opportunity to exceed any established thresholds can be realized. This acknowledges a premium in return as a result of the aggregate amount being reinvested. This kicker is a concept similar to “jumbo CDs” of years past. By compounding cash flows one year at a time, the opportunity to exceed any established thresholds can be realized.

Figure 2 illustrates an investment with the same series of cash flows but utilizing the capital accumulation approach, with a tiered reinvestment assumption of 8% for positive cash flows up to $50,000 and 9% thereafter as well as 4% safe rate for negative cash flows. Note the differences in handling of both positive and negative cash flows as compared to Figure 1. Capital accumulation uses periodic positive cash flow in year two to offset the discounted shortfall from year three. It then compounds the remaining positive cash flows one year at a time, which allows it to take advantage of the higher 9% return as a result of exceeding the $50,000 threshold in year four.

These subtle nuances have a significant cumulative impact on the results; the $100,000 initially invested is anticipated to produce $190,077 by the end of year five, resulting in a capital growth rate (CGR) of 13.71%.

AFX slot car racing has several similarities to MIRR. Both are more established and set a standard in their respective worlds. Both have a wide following. And both take a more conservative approach. Tyco and capital accumulation also have several similarities. Both are upstarts and offer some twists to their more established counterparts. Both have a niche following. And both take a more unconventional approach. By understanding these nuances and choosing the path that best fits your needs, you will be in a better position to end up in the winner’s circle.

What I C @ PVC                

STILL HOT Investment sales, particularly industrial warehouse product, continues to achieve record pricing. Last month, a 125,000-square- foot facility in Middleburg Heights sold for $13.7 million or $109 per square foot. This is the 12th industrial investment sale to break the $100 per square foot mark this year. –AP

From December 2022, Properties Magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s