## What is Marriott’s Lodging division’s equity beta? Round final answer to two decimals

What is Marriott’s Lodging division’s equity beta? Round final answer to two decimals
1: Compute the simple average asset beta of the Marriott’s Lodging division’s comparable firms listed in Exhibit 3 (i.e. Hilton, Holiday, La Quinta, Ramada)? Round final answer to 2 decimals.

2: What is Marriott’s Lodging division’s equity beta? Round final answer to two decimals

3: Compute the cost of equity capital for the lodging division using the 30-year treasury (Table A) and the arithmetic average spread between the S&P and long-term government bonds (1926-1987; Exhibit 5) Enter as a percent rounded to two decimals (i.e. X.XX% without the percent sign).

4: Compute the lodging division’s cost of debt capital using the 30 year-treasury and the credit spread given in Table A. (enter as a percent and round to two decimals (i.e. X.XX%), do not include the % sign).

5: Compute the lodging division’s WACC using a tax rate of 34%. Enter your answer as a percent round to two decimals, do not include the % sign.

6: Compute the simple average asset beta of the Marriott’s restaurant division’s comparable firms listed in Exhibit 3 (i.e. Church’s Fried Chicken, Collins Foods International, Frisch’s Restaurants, Luby’s Restaurants, McDonald’s Wendy’s International)? Round final answer to 2 decimals.

7: What is Marriott’s Restaurant division’s equity beta? Round final answer to two decimals.

8: Compute the cost of equity capital for the restaurant division using the 10-year treasury (Table A) and the arithmetic average spread between the S&P and long-term government bonds (1926-1987; Exhibit 5) Enter as a percent rounded to two decimals (i.e. X.XX% without the percent sign).

9: Compute the restaurant division’s cost of debt capital using the 10 year-treasury and the credit spread given in Table A. (enter as a percent and round to two decimals (i.e. X.XX%), do not include the % sign).

10: Compute the restaurant division’s WACC using a tax rate of 34%. Enter your answer as a percent round to two decimals, do not include the % sign.
11: Use the identifiable assets for each division in Exhibit 2 to form weights and solve for the asset beta of contract services. Round final answer to 2 decimals.

12: What is Marriott’s contract services division’s equity beta? Round final answer to two decimals

13: Compute the cost of equity capital for the contract services division using the 1-year treasury (Table A) and the arithmetic average spread between the S&P and short-term government bonds (1926-1987; Exhibit 5) Enter as a percent rounded to two decimals (i.e. X.XX% without the percent sign).

14: Compute the contract services division’s cost of debt capital using the 1 year-treasury and the credit spread given in Table A. (enter as a percent and round to two decimals (i.e. X.XX%), do not include the % sign).

15: Compute the contract services division’s WACC using a tax rate of 34%. Enter your answer as a percent round to two decimals, do not include the % sign.

Harvard Business School 9-298-101
Rev. March 18, 1998
Professor Richard Ruback prepared this case as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or
ineffective handling of an administrative situation.
Copyright © 1998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to
reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to
http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise—without the permission of Harvard Business School.
1
Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
In April 1988, Dan Cohrs, vice president of project finance at the Marriott Corporation, was
preparing his annual recommendations for the hurdle rates at each of the firm’s three divisions.
Investment projects at Marriott were selected by discounting the appropriate cash flows by the
appropriate hurdle rate for each division.
In 1987, Marriott’s sales grew by 24% and its return on equity stood at 22%. Sales and
earnings per share had doubled over the previous four years, and the operating strategy was aimed
at continuing this trend. Marriott’s 1987 annual report stated:
We intend to remain a premier growth company. This means aggressively
developing appropriate opportunities within our chosen lines of business—lodging,
contract services, and related businesses. In each of these areas our goal is to be the
preferred employer, the preferred provider, and the most profitable company.
Mr. Cohrs recognized that the divisional hurdle rates at Marriott would have a significant
effect on the firm’s financial and operating strategies. As a rule of thumb, increasing the hurdle rate
by 1% (for example, from 12% to 12.12%), decreases the present value of project inflows by 1%.
Because costs remained roughly fixed, these changes in the value of inflows translated into changes
in the net present value of projects . Figure A shows the substantial effect of hurdle rates on the
anticipated net present value of projects. If hurdle rates were to increase, Marriott’s growth would be
reduced as once profitable projects no longer met the hurdle rates. Alternatively, if hurdle rates
decreased, Marriott’s growth would accelerate.
Marriott also considered using the hurdle rates to determine incentive compensation. Annual
incentive compensation constituted a significant portion of total compensation, ranging from 30% to
50% of base pay. Criteria for bonus awards depended on specific job responsibilities but often
included the earnings level, the ability of managers to meet budgets, and overall corporate
performance. There was some interest, however, in basing the incentive compensation, in part, on a
comparison of the divisional return on net assets and the market-based divisional hurdle rate. The
compensation plan would then reflect hurdle rates, making managers more sensitive to Marriott’s
financial strategy and capital market conditions.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
2
Figure A Typical Hotel Profit and Hurdle Rates
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
7 8 9 10 11 12
Hurdle rate (%)
Profit rate (%)
Source: Casewriter’s estimates.
Note: Profit rate for a hotel is its net present value divided by its cost.
Company Background
Marriott Corporation began in 1927 with J. Willard Marriott’s root beer stand. Over the next
60 years, the business grew into one of the leading lodging and food service companies in the United
States. Marriott’s 1987 profits were \$223 million on sales of \$6.5 billion. See Exhibit 1 for a summary
of Marriott’s financial history.
Marriott had three major lines of business: lodging, contract services, and restaurants.
Exhibit 2 summarizes its line-of-business data. Lodging operations included 361 hotels, with more
than 100,000 rooms in total. Hotels ranged from the full-service, high-quality Marriott hotels and
suites to the moderately priced Fairfield Inn. Lodging generated 41% of 1987 sales and 51% of profits.
Contract services provided food and services management to health care and educational
institutions and corporations. It also provided airline catering and airline services through its
Marriott In-Flite Services and Host International operations. Contract services generated 46% of 1987
sales and 33% of profits.
Marriott’s restaurants included Bob’s Big Boy, Roy Rogers, and Hot Shoppes. Restaurants
provided 13% of 1987 sales and 16% of profits.
Financial Strategy
The four key elements of Marriott’s financial strategy were the following:
· Manage rather than own hotel assets.
· Invest in projects that increase shareholder value.
· Optimize the use of debt in the capital structure.
· Repurchase undervalued shares.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital 298-101
3
Manage rather than own hotel assets In 1987, Marriott developed more than \$1 billion worth of
hotel properties, making it one of the 10 largest commercial real estate developers in the United
States. With a fully integrated development process, Marriott identified markets, created
development plans, designed projects, and evaluated potential profitability.
After development, the company sold the hotel assets to limited partners while retaining
operating control as the general partner under a long-term management contract. Management fees
typically equaled 3% of revenues plus 20% of the profits before depreciation and debt service. The 3%
of revenues usually covered the overhead cost of managing the hotel. Marriott’s 20% of profits before
depreciation and debt service often required it to stand aside until investors earned a prespecified
return. Marriott also guaranteed a portion of the partnership’s debt. During 1987 3 Marriott hotels
and 70 Courtyard hotels were syndicated for \$890 million. In total, the company operated about \$7
billion worth of syndicated hotels.
Invest in projects that increase shareholder value The company used discounted cash flow
techniques to evaluate potential investments. The hurdle rate assigned to a specific project was based
on market interest rates, project risk, and estimates of risk premiums. Cash flow forecasts
incorporated standard companywide assumptions that limited discretion in cash flow estimates and
instilled some consistency across projects. As one Marriott executive put it,
Our projects are like a lot of similar little boxes. This similarity disciplines the
pro forma analysis. There are corporate macro data on inflation, margins, project
lives, terminal values, percent of sales required to remodel, and so on. Projects are
audited throughout their lives to check and update these standard pro forma
template assumptions. Divisional managers still have discretion over unit-specific
assumptions, but they must conform to the corporate templates.
Optimize the use of debt in the capital structure Marriott determined the amount of debt in its
capital structure by focusing on its ability to service its debt. It used an interest coverage target
instead of a target debt-to-equity ratio. In 1987, Marriott had about \$2.5 billion of debt, 59% of its total
capital.
Repurchase undervalued shares Marriott regularly calculated a “warranted equity value” for its
common shares and was committed to repurchasing its stock whenever its market price fell
substantially below that value. The warranted equity value was calculated by discounting the equity
cash flows of the firm using the equity cost of capital for the company. It was checked by comparing
Marriott’s stock price with that of comparable companies using price-earnings ratios for each
business and by valuing each business under alternative ownership structures, such as a leveraged
buyout. Marriott had more confidence in its measure of warranted value than in the day-to-day
market price of its stock. A gap between warranted value and market price, therefore, usually
triggered repurchases instead of a revision in the warranted value by, for example, revising the
hurdle rate. Furthermore, the company believed that repurchases of shares below warranted equity
value were a better use of its cash flow and debt capacity than acquisitions or owning real estate. In
1987, Marriott repurchased 13.6 million shares of its common stock for \$429 million.
Cost of Capital
Marriott measured the opportunity cost of capital for investments of similar risk using the
weighted average cost of capital (WACC):

WACC t r D V r E V D E / / = – ( )( ) 1 + ( )
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
4
where D and E are the market values of the debt and equity, respectively,
rD is the pre-tax cost of
debt,
rE is the after-tax cost of equity, V is the value of the firm (V = D + E), and t is the corporate tax
rate. Marriott used this approach to determine the cost of capital for the corporation as a whole and
for each division.
To determine the opportunity cost of capital, Marriott required three inputs: debt capacity,
debt cost, and equity cost consistent with the amount of debt. The cost of capital varied across the
three divisions because all three of the cost-of-capital inputs could differ for each division. The
cost-of-capital for each division was updated annually.
Debt Capacity and the Cost of Debt
Marriott applied its coverage-based financing policy to each of its divisions. It also
determined for each division the fraction of debt that should be floating-rate debt based on the
sensitivity of the division’s cash flows to interest rate changes. The interest rate on floating-rate debt
changed as interest rates changed. If cash flows increased as the interest rate increased, using
floating-rate debt expanded debt capacity.
In April 1988, Marriott’s unsecured debt was A-rated. As a high-quality corporate risk,
Marriott could expect to pay a spread above the current government bond rates. It based the debt cost
for each division on an estimate of the division’s debt cost as an independent company. The spread
between the debt rate and the government bond rate varied by division because of differences in risk.
Table A provides the market value-target leverage ratios, the fraction of the debt at floating rate, the
fraction at fixed rate, and the credit spread for Marriott as a whole and for each division. The credit
spread was the debt rate premium above the government rate required to induce investors to lend
money to Marriott.
Because lodging assets, like hotels, had long useful lives, Marriott used the cost of long-term
debt for its lodging cost-of-capital calculations. It used shorterterm debt as the cost of debt for its
restaurant and contract services divisions because those assets had shorter useful lives.
Table A Market Value-Target Leverage Ratios and Credit Spreads for Marriott and Its Divisions
Debt
Percentage
in Capital
Fraction
of Debt
at Floating
Fraction
of Debt
at Fixed
Debt Rate
Government
Marriott 60% 40% 60% 1.30%
Lodging 74 50 50 1.10
Contract services 40 40 60 1.40
Restaurants 42 25 75 1.80
Table B lists the interest rates on fixed-rate U.S. government securities in April 1988.
Table B U.S. Government Interest Rates, April 1988
Maturity Rate
30-year 8.95%
10-year 8.72
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital 298-101
5
Maturity Rate
1-year 6.90
Cost of Equity
Marriott recognized that meeting its financial strategy of embarking only on projects that
increased shareholder value meant that it had to use its shareholders’ measure of equity costs.
Marriott used the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) to estimate the cost of equity. The CAPM,
originally developed by John Lintner and William Sharpe in the early 1960s, had gained wide
acceptance among financial professionals. According to the CAPM, the cost of equity or, equivalently,
the expected return for equity was determined as
Expected return = R = Risk-free rate + ß[Risk premium]
where the risk premium is the difference between the expected return on the market portfolio and the
risk-free rate.
The key insight in the CAPM was that risk should be measured relative to a fully diversified
portfolio of risky assets such as common stocks. The simple adage, don’t put all your eggs in one
basket, dictated that investors could minimize their risks by holding assets in fully diversified
portfolios. An asset’s risk was not measured as an individual risk. Instead, the asset’s contribution to
the risk of a fully diversified or market portfolio was what mattered. This risk, usually called
systematic risk, was measured by the beta coefficient (ß).
Betas could be calculated from historical data on common stock returns using simple linear
regression analysis. Marriott’s beta, calculated using daily stock returns during 1986 and 1987, was
.97.
Two problems limited the use of the historical estimates of beta in calculating the hurdle rates
for projects. First, corporations generally had multiple lines of business. A company’s beta, therefore,
was a weighted average of the betas of its different lines of business. Second, leverage affected beta.
Adding debt to a firm increased its equity beta even if the riskiness of the firm’s assets remained
unchanged, because the safest cash flows went to the debt holders. As debt increased, the cash flows
remaining for stockholders became more risky. The historical beta of a firm, therefore, had to be
interpreted and adjusted before it could be used as a project’s beta, unless the project had the same
risk and the same leverage as the firm overall.
Exhibit 3 contains the beta, leverage, and other related information for Marriott and
comparable companies in the lodging and restaurant businesses.
To select the appropriate risk premium to use in the hurdle rate calculations, Mr. Cohrs
examined a variety of data on the stock and bond markets. Exhibit 4 provides historical information
on the holding-period returns on government and corporate bonds and the S&P 500 Composite Index
of common stocks. Holding-period returns are the returns realized by the security holder, including
any cash payment (e.g., dividends for common stocks, coupons for bonds) received by the holder
plus any capital gain or loss on the security. As examples, the 5.23% holding-period return for the
S&P 500 Composite Index of common stocks in 1987 is the sum of the dividend yield of 3.20% and the
capital gain of 2.03%. The -2.69% holding-period return for the index of long-term U.S. government
bonds in 1987 is the sum of the coupon yield of 7.96% and a capital gain of -10.65%.1

1 Cash payments are assumed to be invested in the respective securities monthly.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
6
Exhibit 5 provides statistics on the spread between the S&P 500 Composite returns and the
holding-period returns on Treasury bills, U.S. government bonds, and high-grade, long-term
corporate bonds.
Mr. Cohrs was concerned about the correct time interval to measure these averages,
especially given the high returns and volatility of the bond markets shown in Exhibits 4 and 5. He
was concerned also about which measure of expected returns should be used. Exhibits 4 and 5
present two different measures of average annual return, the arithmetic and the geometric. The
arithmetic average return is the sum of the annual returns over the time period divided by the
number of years in the time interval. The geometric average return is the compound average growth
rate over the time interval. For example, if the return for a security were – 10% in period I and 30% in
period 2, the two averages would be

Arithmetic average : -10% + 30%)/2 = 10.0% ( )

Geometric average : (.9)(1.3) . % – = 1 82
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 -7-
Exhibit 1 Financial History, 1978-1987 (millions of dollars except per share data)
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Summary of Operations
Sales \$1,174.1 \$1,426.0 \$1,633.9 \$1,905.7 \$2,458.9 \$2,950.5 \$3,524.9 \$4,241.7 \$5,266.5 \$6,522.2
Earnings before interest expense and
income taxes 107.1 133.5 150.3 173.3 205.5 247.9 297.7 371.3 420.5 489.4
Interest expense 23.7 27.8 46.8 52.0 71.8 62.8 61.6 75.6 60.3 90.5
Income before income taxes 83.5 105.6 103.5 121.3 133.7 185.1 236.1 295.7 360.2 398.9
Income taxes 35.4 43.8 40.6 45.2 50.2 76.7 100.8 128.3 168.5 175.9
Income from continuing operationsa 48.1 61.8 62.9 76.1 83.5 108.4 135.3 167.4 191.7 223.0
Net income 54.3 71.0 72.0 86.1 94.3 115.2 139.8 167.4 191.7 223.0
Funds from continuing operationsb 101.2 117.5 125.8 160.8 203.6 272.7 322.5 372.3 430.3 472.8
Capitalization and Returns
Total assets \$1,000.3 \$1,080.4 \$1,214.3 \$1,454.9 \$2,062.6 \$2,501.4 \$2,904.7 \$3,663.8 \$4,579.3 \$5,370.5
Total capitalc 826.9 891.9 977.7 1,167.5 1,634.5 2,007.5 2,330.7 2,861.4 3,561.8 4,247.8
Long-term debt 309.9 365.3 536.6 607.7 889.3 1,071.6 1,115.3 1,192.3 1,662.8 2,498.8
Shareholders’ equity 418.7 413.5 311.5 421.7 516.0 628.2 675.6 848.5 991.0 810.8
Long-term debt/total capital 37.5% 41.0% 54.9% 52.1% 54.4% 53.4% 47.9% 41.7% 46.7% 58.8%
Per Share and Other Data
Earnings per share
Continuing operationsa \$.25 \$.34 \$.45 \$.57 \$.61 \$.78 \$1.00 \$1.24 \$1.40 \$1.67
Net income .29 .39 .52 .64 .69 .83 1.04 1.24 1.40 1.67
Cash dividends .026 .034 .042 .051 .063 .076 .093 .113 .136 .17
Shareholders’ equity 2.28 2.58 2.49 3.22 3.89 4.67 5.25 6.48 7.59 6.82
Market price (year-end) 2.43 3.48 6.35 7.18 11.70 14.25 14.70 21.56 29.75 30.00
Shares outstanding (millions) 183.6 160.5 125.3 130.8 132.8 134.4 128.8 131.0 130.6 118.8
Return on average shareholders’ equity 13.9% 17.0% 23.8% 23.4% 20.0% 20.0% 22.1% 22.1% 20.6% 22.2%
Source: Company reports
aThe company’s theme park operations were discontinued in 1984.
bFunds provided from continuing operations consist of income from continuing operations plus depreciation, deferred income taxes, and other items not currently affecting working capital.
cTotal capital represents total assets less current liabilities.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
8
Exhibit 2 Financial Summary by Business Segment, 1982-1987 (millions of dollars)
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
Lodging
Sales \$1,091.7 \$1,320.5 \$1,640.8 \$1,898.4 \$2,233.1 \$2,673.3
Operating profit 132.6 139.7 161.2 185.8 215.7 263.9
Identifiable assets 909.7 1,264.6 1,786.3 2,108.9 2,236.7 2,777.4
Depreciation 22.7 27.4 31.3 32.4 37.1 43.9
Capital expenditures 371.5 377.2 366.4 808.3 966.6 1,241.9
Contract Services
Sales 819.8 950.6 1,111.3 1,586.3 2,236.1 2,969.0
Operating profit 51.0 71.1 86.8 118.6 154.9 170.6
Identifiable assets 373.3 391.6 403.9 624.4 1,070.2 1,237.7
Depreciation 22.9 26.1 28.9 40.2 61.1 75.3
Capital expenditures 127.7 43.8 55.6 125.9 448.7 112.7
Restaurants
Sales 547.4 679.4 707.0 757.0 797.3 879.9
Operating profit 48.5 63.8 79.7 78.2 79.1 82.4
Identifiable assets 452.2 483.0 496.7 582.6 562.3 567.6
Depreciation 25.1 31.8 35.5 34.8 38.1 42.1
Capital expenditures 199.6 65.0 72.3 128.4 64.0 79.6
Source: Company reports
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital 298-101
9
Exhibit 3 Information on Comparable Hotel and Restaurant Companies
Company and Nature of Business
Arithmetic
Average
Returna
Geometric
Average
Returna Equity
Betab Market
Leveragec
1987
Revenues
(\$ billions)
Marriott Corporation 22.4% 21.4% .97 41% \$6.52
(Owns, operates, manages hotels,
restaurants, airline and institutional
food services)
Hilton Hotels Corporation 13.3 12.9 .88 14 .77
(Owns, manages, licenses hotels;
operates casinos)
Holiday Corporation 28.8 26.9 1.46 79 1.66
(Owns, manages, licenses hotels,
restaurants; operates casinos)
La Quinta Motor Inns -6.4 -8.6 .38 69 .17
(Owns, operates, licenses motor inns)
Ramada Inns 11.7 2.8 .95 65 .75
(Owns, operates hotels, restaurants)
Church’s Fried Chicken -3.2 -7.3 .75 4 .39
(Owns, franchises restaurants,
Collins Foods International 20.3 17.7 .60 10 .57
(Operates Kentucky Fried Chicken
franchise, moderately priced restaurants)
Frisch’s Restaurants 56.9 49.7 .13 6 .14
(Operates, franchises restaurants)
Luby’s Cafeterias 15.1 12.8 .64 1 .23
(Operates cafeterias)
McDonald’s 22.5 21.3 1.00 23 4.89
(Operates, franchises, services
restaurants)
Wendy’s International 4.6 -1.4 1.08 21 1.05
(Operates, franchises, services
restaurants)
Source: Casewriter’s estimates.
aCalculated over period 1983-1987.
bEstimated by ordinary least-squares regression using daily data over 1986-1987 period.
cBook value of debt divided by the sum of the book value of debt plus the market value of equity.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
298-101 Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital
10
Exhibit 4 Annual Holding-Period Returns for Selected Securities and Market Indexes, 1926-1987
Arithmetic
Average
Geometric
Average
Standard
Deviation
Short-Term Treasury Bill Returns
1926-1987 3.54% 3.48% .94%
1926-1950 1.01 1.00 .40
1951-1975 3.67 3.66 .56
1976-1980 7.80 7.77 .83
1981-1985 10.32 10.30 .75
1986 6.16 6.16 .19
1987 5.46 5.46 .22
Long-Term U.S. Government Bond Returns
1926-1987 4.58% 4.27% 7.58%
1926-1950 4.14 4.04 4.17
1951-1975 2.39 2.22 6.45
1976-1980 1.95 1.69 11.15
1981-1985 17.85 16.82 14.26
1986 24.44 24.44 17.30
1987 -2.69 -2.69 10.28
Long-Term, High-Grade Corporate Bond Returns
1926-1987 5.24% 4.93% 6.97%
1926-1950 4.82 4.76 3.45
1951-1975 3.05 2.86 6.04
1976-1980 2.70 2.39 10.87
1981-1985 18.96 17.83 14.17
1986 19.85 19.85 8.19
1987 -.27 -.27 9.64
Standard & Poor’s 500 Composite
Stock Index Returns
1926-1987 12.01% 9.90% 20.55%
1926-1950 10.90 7.68 27.18
1951-1975 11.87 10.26 13.57
1976-1980 14.81 13.95 14.60
1981-1985 15.49 14.71 13.92
1986 18.47 18.47 17.94
1987 5.23 5.23 30.50
Source: Casewriter’s estimates based on data from the University of Chicago’s Center for Research in Security Prices.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.
Marriott Corporation: The Cost of Capital 298-101
11
Exhibit 5 Spreads between S&P 500 Composite Returns and Bond Rates, 1926-1987
Arithmetic
Average
Geometric
Average
Standard
Deviation
Spread between S&P 500 Composite Returns and
Short-Term Treasury Bill Returns
1926-1987 8.47% 6.42% 20.60%
1926-1950 9.89 6.68 27.18
1951-1975 8.20 6.60 13.71
1976-1980 7.01 6.18 14.60
1981-1985 5.17 4.41 14.15
1986 21.31 12.31 17.92
1987 -.23 -.23 30.61
Spread between S&P 500 Composite Returns and
Long-Term U.S. Government Bond Returns
1926-1987 7.43% 5.63% 20.78%
1926-1950 6.76 3.64 26.94
1951-1975 9.48 8.04 14.35
1976-1980 12.86 12.26 15.58
1981-1985 -2.36 -2.11 13.70
1986 -5.97 -5.97 14.76
1987 7.92 7.92 35.35
Spread between S&P 500 Composite Returns and
Long-Term, High-Grade Corporate Bond Returns
1926-1987 6.77% 4.97% 20.31%
1926-1950 6.08 2.92 26.70
1951-1975 8.82 7.40 13.15
1976-1980 12.11 11.56 15.84
1981-1985 -3.47 -3.12 13.59
1986 -1.38 -1.38 14.72
1987 5.50 5.50 34.06
Source: Casewriter’s estimates based on data from the University of Chicago’s Center for Research in Security Prices.
For the exclusive use of F. Almutawa, 2017.
This document is authorized for use only by Fares Almutawa in BUS ADM 453-1 taught by Joseph Halford, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee from January 2017 to July 2017.