Key Concepts of Dividend Discount Models

Why This Matters

Dividend Discount Models (DDMs) form the backbone of equity valuation in financial mathematics, and you'll encounter them repeatedly on exams when asked to determine intrinsic stock value. These models test your understanding of time value of money, growth rate assumptions, and present value calculations—all core concepts that connect to broader portfolio theory and investment analysis. The key insight examiners want you to demonstrate is that different companies require different models based on their growth trajectories.

Don't just memorize formulas—know when to apply each model and why certain growth assumptions matter. You're being tested on your ability to match real-world company characteristics (stable blue chips, high-growth startups, transitioning firms) to the appropriate valuation framework. Understanding the underlying logic of growth phases will help you tackle both multiple-choice questions and FRQ scenarios where you must justify your model selection.

---

Constant Growth Models

These models assume dividends grow at a single, unchanging rate forever. The mathematical simplification works because a perpetuity with constant growth converges to a clean formula—but only when the growth rate is less than the required return.

Gordon Growth Model

• Core formula: $P_0 = \frac{D_1}{r - g}$—where $P_0$ is current price, $D_1$ is next year's expected dividend, $r$ is required return, and $g$ is the constant growth rate
• Best applied to mature, stable companies—think utilities or consumer staples with predictable dividend policies and minimal earnings volatility
• Critical constraint: $g < r$—if growth equals or exceeds the required return, the model breaks down mathematically, producing infinite or negative values

Constant Perpetuity Model

• Simplest DDM formula: $P_0 = \frac{D}{r}$—assumes zero growth, treating dividends as a level perpetuity
• Ideal for preferred stock valuation—preferred shares typically pay fixed dividends with no growth component, making this model a natural fit
• Limitation: ignores growth entirely—inappropriate for common stock of growth-oriented firms where reinvestment drives value

---

Two-Phase Growth Models

These models recognize that companies often experience distinct growth periods—typically high growth followed by stable maturity. The valuation splits into calculating present values for each phase separately, then summing them.

Two-Stage Dividend Discount Model

• Divides valuation into high-growth and stable-growth phases—calculate PV of dividends during the initial period, then apply Gordon Growth for the terminal value
• Captures company lifecycle transitions—useful when a firm's current growth rate is unsustainable but will eventually normalize
• Requires estimating two growth rates—accuracy depends heavily on forecasting when and at what rate the transition occurs

H-Model (Half-Life Model)

• Assumes gradual linear decline in growth—rather than an abrupt shift, growth smoothly transitions from short-term rate ($g_S$) to long-term rate ($g_L$)
• Formula: $P_0 = \frac{D_0(1 + g_L)}{r - g_L} + \frac{D_0 \cdot H \cdot (g_S - g_L)}{r - g_L}$—where $H$ represents the half-life of the high-growth period in years
• More realistic than abrupt two-stage—captures the gradual competitive erosion that typically slows growth over time

---

Multi-Phase Growth Models

For companies with complex growth trajectories, these models add additional phases to capture nuanced transitions. Each phase requires separate dividend forecasting and present value calculations, increasing both accuracy and complexity.

Three-Stage Dividend Discount Model

• Adds an intermediate transitional phase—captures high growth, then gradual slowdown, then stable maturity in three distinct periods
• Most comprehensive standard model—provides flexibility for companies moving through multiple lifecycle stages
• Requires three separate growth rate estimates—forecasting accuracy becomes critical, as errors compound across phases

Multi-Stage Dividend Discount Model

• Accommodates any number of growth phases—extends beyond three stages for companies with highly irregular growth patterns
• Maximum flexibility, maximum complexity—each additional phase adds forecasting requirements and calculation steps
• Best for unique situations—use when standard models don't capture a company's specific growth trajectory

---

Variable Growth Models

These models handle situations where growth rates fluctuate unpredictably before eventually stabilizing. The approach involves forecasting individual dividends year-by-year during the variable period, then applying a terminal value calculation.

Non-Constant Growth Dividend Discount Model

• Projects specific dividends for each year—rather than applying a formula, you forecast $D_1, D_2, D_3...$ individually before applying constant growth
• Handles cyclical or unpredictable industries—accommodates companies where earnings and dividends vary with economic cycles
• Computationally intensive—requires detailed year-by-year analysis, making it more time-consuming but more accurate for volatile firms

Supernormal Growth Model

• Specifically designed for exceptionally high initial growth—targets startups or firms in explosive growth phases where early dividends grow at unsustainable rates
• Calculates PV of supernormal dividends separately—discount each high-growth dividend individually, then add terminal value at normal growth
• Duration estimate is critical—valuation is highly sensitive to how long you assume supernormal growth continues

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Model selection: A mature utility company has paid steadily increasing dividends for 20 years. Which DDM would you use, and why would a Three-Stage Model be inappropriate?

2. Compare and contrast: How does the H-Model's treatment of growth transition differ from the Two-Stage Model, and in what real-world scenario would this difference significantly affect valuation?

3. Formula application: If $g > r$ in the Gordon Growth Model, what happens mathematically, and what does this indicate about the model's applicability?

4. Matching models to companies: You're valuing a biotech startup expecting 25% dividend growth for 5 years before normalizing to 4%. Which two models could handle this, and what's the key difference in their approach?

5. FRQ-style prompt: Explain why the Constant Perpetuity Model is appropriate for preferred stock but not for common stock of a growth company. What fundamental assumption makes this distinction?