Chapter 26
Mergers, LBOs, Divestitures, and Holding Companies
ANSWERS TO END-OF-CHAPTER QUESTIONS



26-1 a. Synergy occurs when the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When applied to mergers, a synergistic merger occurs when the postmerger earnings exceed the sum of the separate companies' premerger earnings. A merger is the joining of two firms to form a single firm.

b. A horizontal merger is a merger between two companies in the same line of business. In a vertical merger, a company acquires another firm that is "upstream" or "downstream"; for example, an automobile manufacturer acquires a steel producer. A congeneric merger involves firms that are interrelated, but not identical, lines of business. One example is Prudential's acquisition of Bache & Company. In a conglomerate merger, unrelated enterprises combine, such as Mobil Oil and Montgomery Ward.

c. A friendly merger occurs when the target company's management agrees to the merger and recommends that shareholders approve the deal. In a hostile merger, the management of the target company resists the offer. A defensive merger occurs when one company acquires another to help ward off a hostile merger attempt. A tender offer is the offer of one firm to buy the stock of another by going directly to the stockholders, frequently over the opposition of the target company’s management. A target company is a firm that another company seeks to acquire. Breakup value is a firm’s value if its assets are sold off in pieces. An acquiring company is a company that seeks to acquire another firm.

d. An operating merger occurs when the operations of two companies are integrated with the expectation of obtaining synergistic gains. These may occur due to economies of scale, management efficiency, or a host of other reasons. In a pure financial merger, the companies will not be operated as a single unit, and no operating economies are expected.

e. The discounted cash flow (DCF) method to valuing a business involves the application of capital budgeting procedures to an entire firm rather than to a single project. The market multiple method applies a market-determined multiple to net income, earnings per share, sales, book value, or number of subscribers, and is a less precise method than DCF.

f. A pooling of interests is, in theory, a merger among equals, and hence the consolidated balance sheet is constructed by simply adding together the balance sheets of the merged companies. Another way a merger is handled for accounting purposes is as a purchase. In this method, the acquiring firm is assumed to have “bought” the acquired company in much the same way it would buy any capital asset.

g. A white knight is a friendly competing bidder which a target management likes better than the company making a hostile offer, and the target solicits a merger with the white knight as a preferable alternative.
A poison pill is a deliberate action that a company takes which makes it a less attractive takeover target. A golden parachute is a payment made to executives that are forced out when a merger takes place. A proxy fight is an attempt to gain control of a firm by soliciting stockholders to vote for a new management team.

h. A joint venture involves the joining together of parts of companies to accomplish specific, limited objectives. Joint ventures are controlled by the combined management of the two (or more) parent companies. A corporate or strategic alliance is a cooperative deal that stops short of a merger.

i. A divestiture is the opposite of an acquisition. That is, a company sells a portion of its assets, often a whole division, to another firm or individual. In a spin-off, a holding company distributes the stock of one of the operating companies to its shareholders. Thus, control passes from the holding company to the shareholders directly. A leveraged buyout is a transaction in which a firm's publicly owned stock is acquired in a mostly debt-financed tender offer, and a privately owned, highly leveraged firm results. Often, the firm's own management initiates the LBO.

j. A holding company is a corporation formed for the sole purpose of owning stocks in other companies. A holding company differs from a stock mutual fund in that holding companies own sufficient stock in their operating companies to exercise effective working control. An operating company is a company controlled by a holding company. A parent company is another name for a holding company. A parent company will often have control over many subsidiaries.

k. Arbitrage is the simultaneous buying and selling of the same commodity or security in two different markets at different prices, and pocketing a risk-free return. In the context of mergers, risk arbitrage refers to the practice of purchasing stock in companies that may become takeover targets.

26-2 Horizontal and vertical mergers are most likely to result in governmental intervention, but mergers of this type are also most likely to result in operating synergy. Conglomerate and congeneric mergers are attacked by the government less often, but they also are less likely to provide any synergistic benefits.

26-3 A tender offer might be used. Although many tender offers are made by surprise and over the opposition of the target firm's management, tender offers can and often are made on a "friendly" basis. In this case, management (the board of directors) of the target company endorses the tender offer and recommends that shareholders tender their shares.

26-4 An operating merger involves integrating the company's operations in hopes of obtaining synergistic benefits, while a pure financial merger generally does not involve integrating the merged company's operations.

26-5 Disney's management could (and did) argue that its stock was worth more than $4.22 per share, and that if Steinberg had taken control, the remaining stockholders would be out in the cold and exploited by Steinberg. Perhaps so, but most nonmanagement stockholders (1) would prefer $4.22 to $2.875, (2) were upset at having management give away $60 million of their value to Steinberg, (3) believed that by no means could Steinberg treat them worse than did the current management, and (4) were more than a little suspicious that management's primary motive was to keep their jobs and perks.
Personally, we regarded the Disney affair as a flagrant abuse of outside stockholders by a management desperate to keep control. However, we must note that Disney's stock is selling for $112.875 in June 1998, so perhaps management was right. Also, though, Disney's old management is largely gone, and a new and perhaps better group now has control. Perhaps Steinberg was right about the value of the assets, and perhaps his actions forced a desirable management change. Still, and if so, Disney's stockholders paid a steep price ($60 million) to get the management change.
Legislation might be desirable, but there is a danger that legislation will help incompetent managers fight off legitimate and desirable efforts to put corporate assets into more effective hands. Markets work reasonably well, but the Disney situation does make it clear that a manager really can threaten to commit corporate suicide and use this tactic to fend off proposed takeovers. Still, a balanced package of legislation would, in our judgment, do more good than harm in preserving the efficiency of our capital markets.

26-6 Academicians have long argued that conglomerate mergers which produce no synergy are not economically efficient because (1) overhead costs are incurred in managing the combined enterprise, thus lowering earnings; and (2) relevant risk is not reduced, because the combined firm's beta is a weighted average of the betas of the merged firms. In other words, investors could, individually, get whatever benefits of diversification there are by buying the stocks of the two firms, without incurring unnecessary overhead. The recent rash of corporate divestitures attests to the merits of this position. The only logical rationale for nonsynergistic conglomerate mergers is that debt capacity may be increased by lowering the risk of bankruptcy. This would increase the value of the merged company because of the debt tax effect: TD, and D, could now be larger than the sum of the D's of the separate companies. In general, it is safe to conclude that one should be wary of nonsynergistic mergers.

SOLUTIONS TO END-OF-CHAPTER PROBLEMS



26-1 D1 = $2.00; g = 5%; b = 0.9; kRF = 5%; RPM = 6%; P0 = ?

ks = kRF + RPM(b)
= 5% + 6%(0.9)
= 10.4%.

P0 =
=
= $37.04.


26-2 D1 = $2.00; g = 7%; b = 1.1; kRF = 5%; RPM = 6%; P0 = ?

kS = kRF + RPM(b)
= 5% + 6%(0.9)
= 10.4%.

P0 =
=
= $58.82.


26-3 On the basis of the answers in Problems 26-1 and 26-2, the bid for each share should range between $37.04 and $58.82.


26-4 a. The appropriate discount rate reflects the riskiness of the cash flows to equity investors. Thus, it is Vaccaro's cost of equity, adjusted for leverage effects. Since Apilado's b = 1, its RPM = kM - kRF = 14% - 8% = 6%, then:

ks = kRF + (kM - kRF)b = 8% + (14% - 8%)1.5 = 17%.


b. The value of Vaccaro is $14.65 million:

0 1 2 3 4 5
| | | | | |
1.30 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.12
1.11 19.27*
1.10
1.09
11.35 21.27
V = $14.65 million

CF5 = CF4(1.06) = $2.00(1.06) = $2.12.

Value at t4 of CF5 and all subsequent cash flows is:

*V4 = = = $19.27.

Alternatively, input 0, 1.30, 1.50, 1.75, and 21.27(2.00 + 19.27) into the cash flow register, I = 17, NPV = ? NPV = $14.65.



26-5 0 1 2 3 10
| | | | · · · |
-400,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000

CF1 - CF10 = $64,000.

CF0 = -$400,000.

k = 10%.

Using a financial calculator, the PV of the future cash flows is:

N=10 I=10 PMT = -64000 FV = 0; PV = $393,252.295.

NPV = $393,252.295 - $400,000 = -$6,747.71.

Alternatively, input -400,000 and 64,000 (10?) into the cash flow register, I = 10, NPV = ? NPV = -$6,747.71. Since the NPV of the investment is negative, Stanley should not make the purchase.


26-6 a. Since the net cash flows are equity returns, the appropriate discount rate is that cost of equity which reflects the riskiness of the cash flow stream. This cost is GCC's cost of equity:

ks = kRF + (RPM)b = 8% + (4%)1.50 = 14%.

b. The terminal value is $1,143.4:

TV = = $1,143.4.

Annual cash flows are calculated as follows:

2002 2003 2004 2005
Sales $450.0 $518.0 $555.0 $600.0
COGS (65%) (292.5) (336.7) (360.7) (390.0)
Gross profit $157.5 $181.3 $194.3 $210.0
Selling/Admin (45.0) (53.0) (60.0) (68.0)
EBIT $112.5 $128.3 $134.3 $142.0
Interest (18.0) (21.0) (24.0) (27.0)
EBT $ 94.5 $107.3 $110.3 $115.0
Taxes (35%) (33.1) (37.6) (38.6) (40.3)
Net income $ 61.4 $ 69.7 $ 71.7 $ 74.8

The value of GCC to TransWorld's shareholders is the present value of the cash flows which accrue to the shareholders:

V = = $877.2.

Alternatively, input 0, 61.4, 69.7, 71.7, and 1,218.2 into the cash flow register, I = 14, NPV = ? NPV = $877.2.

SOLUTION TO SPREADSHEET PROBLEMS

26-7 The detailed solution for the problem is available both on the instructor’s resource CD-ROM (in the file Solution for Ch 26-7 Build a Model.xls) and on the instructor’s side of the Harcourt College Publishers’ web site, http://www.harcourtcollege.com/finance/theory.



26-8 a. Under the assumptions given in Part a, the value of the acquisition would increase to $1,414 (all dollar amounts in thousands).

INPUT DATA: 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net sales $550 $618 $655 $700
COGS 60.00% 330 371 393 420
Sell./adm. exp. 45 53 60 68
Interest 18 21 24 27

Net income 102 113 116 120
Terminal value of cash flow 0 0 0 1,838
Net cash flow to TransWorld $102 $113 $116 $1,958

Beta after merger 1.5 Debt ratio after merger 50%
Risk-free rate 8% Tax rate after merger 35%
Market risk premium 4% Terminal growth rate 7.00%

KEY OUTPUT:

Cost of equity 14.0% Value of acquisition $1,414
Terminal value $1,838

b. Under these assumptions, the value of the acquisition would fall to $993, but the acquisition should still be undertaken (all dollar amounts in thousands).

INPUT DATA: 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net sales $550 $618 $655 $700
COGS 60.00% 330 371 393 420
Sell./adm. exp. 45 53 60 68
Interest 18 21 24 27

Net income 102 113 116 120
Terminal value of cash flow 0 0 0 1,287
Net cash flow to TransWorld $102 $113 $116 $1,407

Beta after merger 1.6 Debt ratio after merger 50%
Risk-free rate 9% Tax rate after merger 35%
Market risk premium 5% Terminal growth rate 7.00%


KEY OUTPUT:

Cost of equity 17.0% Value of acquisition $993
Continuing value $1,287

c. If the terminal growth rate increases to 12 percent, the value of the acquisition would increase to $1,743, while it would fall to $778 if the terminal growth rate were only 3 percent. Under any of the situations hypothesized, however, the acquisition would be profitable and should be pursued (all dollar amounts in thousands).

TERMINAL GROWTH RATE = 12 percent:

INPUT DATA: 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net sales $550 $618 $655 $700
COGS 60.00% 330 371 393 420
Sell./adm. exp. 45 53 60 68
Interest 18 21 24 27

Net income 102 113 116 120
Terminal value of cash flow 0 0 0 2,694
Net cash flow to TransWorld $102 $113 $116 $2,814

Beta after merger 1.6 Debt ratio after merger 50%
Risk-free rate 9% Tax rate after merger 35%
Market risk premium 5% Terminal growth rate 12.00%

KEY OUTPUT:

Cost of equity 17.0% Value of acquisition $1,743
Terminal value $2,694

TERMINAL GROWTH RATE = 3 percent:

INPUT DATA: 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net sales $550 $618 $655 $700
COGS 60.00% 330 371 393 420
Sell./adm. exp. 45 53 60 68
Interest 18 21 24 27

Net income 102 113 116 120
Terminal value of cash flow 0 0 0 885
Net cash flow to TransWorld $102 $113 $116 $1,005

Beta after merger 1.6 Debt ratio after merger 50%
Risk-free rate 9% Tax rate after merger 35%
Market risk premium 5% Terminal growth rate 3.00%

KEY OUTPUT:

Cost of equity 17.0% Value of acquisition $778
Continuing value $885
CYBERPROBLEM

26-9 The detailed solution for the cyberproblem is available on the instructor’s side of the Harcourt College Publishers’ web site, http://www.harcourtcollege.com/finance/theory.


MINI CASE



SMITTY'S HOME REPAIR COMPANY, A REGIONAL HARDWARE CHAIN WHICH SPECIALIZES IN "DO-IT-YOURSELF" MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT RENTALS, IS CASH RICH BECAUSE OF SEVERAL CONSECUTIVE GOOD YEARS. ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE EXCESS FUNDS IS AN ACQUISITION. LINDA WADE, SMITTY'S TREASURER AND YOUR BOSS, HAS BEEN ASKED TO PLACE A VALUE ON A POTENTIAL TARGET, HILL'S HARDWARE, A SMALL CHAIN WHICH OPERATES IN AN ADJACENT STATE, AND SHE HAS ENLISTED YOUR HELP.
THE TABLE BELOW INDICATES WADE'S ESTIMATES OF HILL'S EARNINGS POTENTIAL IF IT CAME UNDER SMITTY'S MANAGEMENT (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS). THE INTEREST EXPENSE LISTED HERE INCLUDES THE INTEREST (1) ON HILL'S EXISTING DEBT AND (2) ON NEW DEBT EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED OVER TIME TO HELP FINANCE EXPANSION WITHIN THE NEW "H DIVISION," THE CODE NAME GIVEN TO THE TARGET FIRM. THE RETENTIONS REPRESENT EARNINGS THAT WILL BE REINVESTED WITHIN THE H DIVISION TO HELP FINANCE ITS GROWTH.
SECURITY ANALYSTS ESTIMATE HILL'S BETA TO BE 1.3. THE ACQUISITION WOULD NOT CHANGE HILL’S CAPITAL STRUCTURE OR TAX RATE. WADE REALIZES THAT HILL'S HARDWARE ALSO GENERATES DEPRECIATION CASH FLOWS, BUT SHE BELIEVES THAT THESE FUNDS WOULD HAVE TO BE REINVESTED WITHIN THE DIVISION TO REPLACE WORN-OUT EQUIPMENT.
WADE ESTIMATES THE RISK-FREE RATE TO BE 9 PERCENT AND THE MARKET RISK PREMIUM TO BE 4 PERCENT. SHE ALSO ESTIMATES THAT NET CASH FLOWS AFTER 2005 WILL GROW AT A CONSTANT RATE OF 6 PERCENT. FOLLOWING ARE PROJECTIONS FOR SALES AND OTHER ITEMS.

2002 2003 2004 2005
NET SALES $60.0 $90.0 $112.5 $127.5
COST OF GOODS SOLD 36.0 54.0 67.5 76.5
SELLING/ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0
INTEREST EXPENSE 3.0 4.5 4.5 6.0
NECESSARY RETAINED EARNINGS 0.0 7.5 6.0 4.5

SMITTY’S MANAGEMENT IS NEW TO THE MERGER GAME, SO WADE HAS BEEN ASKED TO ANSWER SOME BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT MERGERS AS WELL AS TO PERFORM THE MERGER ANALYSIS. TO STRUCTURE THE TASK, WADE HAS DEVELOPED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS, WHICH YOU MUST ANSWER AND THEN DEFEND TO SMITTY’S BOARD.

A. SEVERAL REASONS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO JUSTIFY MERGERS. AMONG THE MORE PROMINENT ARE (1) TAX CONSIDERATIONS, (2) RISK REDUCTION, (3) CONTROL, (4) PURCHASE OF ASSETS AT BELOW-REPLACEMENT COST, (5) SYNERGY, AND (6) GLOBALIZATION. IN GENERAL, WHICH OF THE REASONS ARE ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE? WHICH ARE NOT? WHICH FIT THE SITUATION AT HAND? EXPLAIN.

ANSWER: THE ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE RATIONALES FOR MERGERS ARE SYNERGY AND TAX CONSEQUENCES. SYNERGY OCCURS WHEN THE VALUE OF THE COMBINED FIRM EXCEEDS THE SUM OF THE VALUES OF THE FIRMS TAKEN SEPARATELY. (IF SYNERGY EXISTS, THEN THE WHOLE IS GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS, AND HENCE SYNERGY IS ALSO CALLED THE "2 + 2 = 5" EFFECT.)
A SYNERGISTIC MERGER CREATES VALUE WHICH MUST BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE STOCKHOLDERS OF THE MERGING COMPANIES. SYNERGY CAN ARISE FROM FOUR SOURCES: (1) OPERATING ECONOMIES OF SCALE IN MANAGEMENT, PRODUCTION, MARKETING, OR DISTRIBUTION; (2) FINANCIAL ECONOMIES, WHICH COULD INCLUDE HIGHER DEBT CAPACITY, LOWER TRANSACTIONS COSTS, OR BETTER COVERAGE BY SECURITIES' ANALYSTS WHICH CAN LEAD TO HIGHER DEMAND AND, HENCE, HIGHER PRICES; (3) DIFFERENTIAL MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY, WHICH IMPLIES THAT NEW MANAGEMENT CAN INCREASE THE VALUE OF A FIRM'S ASSETS; AND (4) INCREASED MARKET POWER DUE TO REDUCED COMPETITION. OPERATING AND FINANCIAL ECONOMIES ARE SOCIALLY DESIRABLE, AS ARE MERGERS THAT INCREASE MANAGERIAL EFFICIENCY, BUT MERGERS THAT REDUCE COMPETITION ARE BOTH UNDESIRABLE AND ILLEGAL.
ANOTHER VALID RATIONALE BEHIND MERGERS IS TAX CONSIDERATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A FIRM WHICH IS HIGHLY PROFITABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY IN THE HIGHEST CORPORATE TAX BRACKET COULD ACQUIRE A COMPANY WITH LARGE ACCUMULATED TAX LOSSES, AND IMMEDIATELY USE THOSE LOSSES TO SHELTER ITS CURRENT AND FUTURE INCOME. WITHOUT THE MERGER, THE CARRY-FORWARDS MIGHT EVENTUALLY BE USED, BUT THEIR VALUE WOULD BE HIGHER IF USED NOW RATHER THAN IN THE FUTURE.
THE MOTIVES THAT ARE GENERALLY LESS SUPPORTABLE ON ECONOMIC GROUNDS ARE RISK REDUCTION, PURCHASE OF ASSETS AT BELOW REPLACEMENT COST, CONTROL, AND GLOBALIZATION. MANAGERS OFTEN STATE THAT DIVERSIFICATION HELPS TO STABILIZE A FIRM'S EARNINGS STREAM AND THUS REDUCES TOTAL RISK, AND HENCE BENEFITS SHAREHOLDERS. STABILIZATION OF EARNINGS IS CERTAINLY BENEFICIAL TO A FIRM'S EMPLOYEES, SUPPLIERS, CUSTOMERS, AND MANAGERS. HOWEVER, IF A STOCK INVESTOR IS CONCERNED ABOUT EARNINGS VARIABILITY, HE OR SHE CAN DIVERSIFY MORE EASILY THAN CAN THE FIRM. WHY SHOULD FIRM A AND FIRM B MERGE TO STABILIZE EARNINGS WHEN STOCKHOLDERS CAN MERELY PURCHASE BOTH STOCKS AND ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING? FURTHER, WE KNOW THAT WELL-DIVERSIFIED SHAREHOLDERS ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH A STOCK'S MARKET RISK THAN ITS STAND-ALONE RISK, AND HIGHER EARNINGS INSTABILITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY TRANSLATE INTO HIGHER MARKET RISK.
SOMETIMES A FIRM WILL BE TOUTED AS A POSSIBLE ACQUISITION CANDIDATE BECAUSE THE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF ITS ASSETS IS CONSIDERABLY HIGHER THAN ITS MARKET VALUE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE EARLY 1980s, OIL COMPANIES COULD ACQUIRE RESERVES MORE CHEAPLY BY BUYING OUT OTHER OIL COMPANIES THAN BY EXPLORATORY DRILLING. HOWEVER, THE VALUE OF AN ASSET STEMS FROM ITS EXPECTED CASH FLOWS, NOT FROM ITS COST. THUS, PAYING $1 MILLION FOR A SLIDE RULE PLANT WHICH WOULD COST $2 MILLION TO BUILD FROM SCRATCH IS NOT A GOOD DEAL IF NO ONE USES SLIDE RULES.
IN RECENT YEARS, MANY HOSTILE TAKEOVERS HAVE OCCURRED. TO KEEP THEIR COMPANIES INDEPENDENT, AND ALSO TO PROTECT THEIR JOBS, MANAGERS SOMETIMES ENGINEER DEFENSIVE MERGERS WHICH MAKE THEIR FIRMS MORE DIFFICULT TO "DIGEST." ALSO, SUCH DEFENSIVE MERGERS ARE USUALLY DEBT-FINANCED, WHICH MAKES IT HARDER FOR A POTENTIAL ACQUIRER TO USE DEBT FINANCING TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION. IN GENERAL, DEFENSIVE MERGERS APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED MORE FOR THE BENEFIT OF MANAGERS THAN FOR THAT OF THE STOCKHOLDERS.
AN INCREASED DESIRE TO BECOME GLOBALIZED HAS RESULTED IN MANY MERGERS. TO MERGE JUST TO BECOME INTERNATIONAL IS NOT AN ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED REASON FOR A MERGER; HOWEVER, INCREASED GLOBALIZATION HAS LED TO INCREASED ECONOMIES OF SCALE. THUS, SYNERGISM OFTEN RESULTS--WHICH IS AN ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR MERGERS.
SYNERGY APPEARS TO BE THE REASON FOR THIS MERGER.


B. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A HOSTILE MERGER AND A FRIENDLY MERGER.

ANSWER: IN A FRIENDLY MERGER, THE MANAGEMENT OF ONE FIRM (THE ACQUIRER) AGREES TO BUY ANOTHER FIRM (THE TARGET). IN MOST CASES, THE ACTION IS INITIATED BY THE ACQUIRING FIRM, BUT IN SOME SITUATIONS THE TARGET MAY INITIATE THE MERGER. THE MANAGEMENTS OF BOTH FIRMS GET TOGETHER AND WORK OUT TERMS WHICH THEY BELIEVE TO BE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH SETS OF SHAREHOLDERS. THEN THEY ISSUE STATEMENTS TO THEIR STOCKHOLDERS RECOMMENDING THAT THEY AGREE TO THE MERGER. OF COURSE, THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE TARGET FIRM NORMALLY MUST VOTE ON THE MERGER, BUT MANAGEMENT'S SUPPORT GENERALLY ASSURES THAT THE VOTES WILL BE FAVORABLE.
IF A TARGET FIRM'S MANAGEMENT RESISTS THE MERGER, THEN THE ACQUIRING FIRM'S ADVANCES ARE SAID TO BE HOSTILE RATHER THAN FRIENDLY. IN THIS CASE, THE ACQUIRER, IF IT CHOOSES TO, MUST MAKE A DIRECT APPEAL TO THE TARGET FIRM'S SHAREHOLDERS. THIS TAKES THE FORM OF A TENDER OFFER, WHEREBY THE TARGET FIRM'S SHAREHOLDERS ARE ASKED TO "TENDER" THEIR SHARES TO THE ACQUIRING FIRM IN EXCHANGE FOR CASH, STOCK, BONDS, OR SOME COMBINATION OF THE THREE. IF 51 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE TARGET FIRM'S SHAREHOLDERS TENDER THEIR SHARES, THEN THE MERGER WILL BE COMPLETED OVER MANAGEMENT'S OBJECTION.


C. USE THE DATA DEVELOPED IN THE TABLE TO CONSTRUCT THE H DIVISION'S CASH FLOW STATEMENTS FOR 2002 THROUGH 2005. WHY IS INTEREST EXPENSE DEDUCTED IN MERGER CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, WHEREAS IT IS NOT NORMALLY DEDUCTED IN A CAPITAL BUDGETING CASH FLOW ANALYSIS? WHY ARE EARNINGS RETENTIONS DEDUCTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT?

ANSWER: THE EASIEST APPROACH HERE IS TO CREATE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS FOR THE H DIVISION, ASSUMING THAT THE ACQUISITION IS MADE (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS).
2002 2003 2004 2005
NET SALES $60.0 $90.0 $112.5 $127.5
COST OF GOODS SOLD (60%) 36.0 54.0 67.5 76.5
SELLING/ADMIN. EXPENSES 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0
INTEREST EXPENSE 3.0 4.5 4.5 6.0
EARNINGS BEFORE TAXES $16.5 $25.5 $ 33.0 $36.0
TAXES (40%) 6.6 10.2 13.2 14.4
NET INCOME $ 9.9 $15.3 $ 19.8 $21.6
RETENTIONS 0.0 7.5 6.0 4.5
CASH FLOW $ 9.9 $ 7.8 $ 13.8 $17.1

NOTE THAT THESE STATEMENTS ARE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD CAPITAL BUDGETING CASH FLOW STATEMENTS EXCEPT THAT BOTH INTEREST EXPENSE AND RETENTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN MERGER ANALYSIS. IN STRAIGHT CAPITAL BUDGETING, ALL DEBT INVOLVED IS NEW DEBT WHICH IS ISSUED TO FUND THE ASSET ADDITIONS. HENCE, THE DEBT INVOLVED ALL COSTS THE SAME, kd, AND THIS COST IS ACCOUNTED FOR BY DISCOUNTING THE CASH FLOWS AT THE FIRM'S WACC. HOWEVER, IN A MERGER THE ACQUIRING FIRM USUALLY BOTH ASSUMES THE EXISTING DEBT OF THE TARGET AND ISSUES NEW DEBT TO HELP FINANCE THE TAKEOVER. THUS, THE DEBT INVOLVED HAS DIFFERENT COSTS, AND HENCE CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS A SINGLE COST IN THE WACC. THE EASIEST SOLUTION IS TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE INTEREST EXPENSE IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT.
IN REGARDS TO RETENTIONS, ALL OF THE CASH FLOWS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE FIRM, BUT SOME OF THE CASH FLOWS GENERATED BY AN ACQUISITION ARE GENERALLY RETAINED WITH THE NEW DIVISION TO HELP FINANCE ITS GROWTH. SINCE SUCH RETENTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PARENT COMPANY FOR USE ELSEWHERE, THEY MUST BE DEDUCTED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT.
WITH INTEREST EXPENSE AND RETENTIONS INCLUDED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, THE CASH FLOWS ARE RESIDUALS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ACQUIRING FIRM'S EQUITY HOLDERS. SMITTY'S MANAGEMENT COULD PAY THESE OUT AS DIVIDENDS OR REINVEST THEM IN OTHER DIVISIONS OF THE FIRM, AS THEY SEE FIT.


D. CONCEPTUALLY, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO APPLY TO THE CASH FLOWS DEVELOPED IN PART C? WHAT IS YOUR ACTUAL ESTIMATE OF THIS DISCOUNT RATE?

ANSWER: AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE CASH FLOWS ARE RESIDUALS, AND THEY BELONG TO THE ACQUIRING FIRM'S SHAREHOLDERS. SINCE INTEREST EXPENSE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED, THE CASH FLOWS ARE RISKIER THAN THE TYPICAL CAPITAL BUDGETING CASH FLOWS, AND THEY MUST BE DISCOUNTED USING THE COST OF EQUITY RATHER THAN THE WACC. FURTHER, THE DISCOUNT RATE MUST REFLECT THE RISKINESS OF THE FLOWS, AND THESE CASH FLOWS HAVE HILL'S BUSINESS RISK, NOT SMITTY'S BUSINESS RISK. HOWEVER, THE MARKET RISK OF THE H DIVISION IS NOT THE SAME AS THE MARKET RISK OF HILL'S OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY, BECAUSE THE MERGER AFFECTS HILL'S LEVERAGE AND TAX RATE. SMITTY'S INVESTMENT BANKERS HAVE ESTIMATED THE H DIVISION'S BETA WILL BE 1.3 AFTER THE MERGER AND THE ADDITIONAL LEVERAGE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED.
TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN ON EQUITY, NOTE THAT kRF = 9% AND RPM = 4%. THUS, THE H DIVISION'S REQUIRED RATE OF RETURN ON EQUITY, WHICH IS THE APPROPRIATE DISCOUNT RATE TO APPLY TO THE MERGER CASH FLOWS, IS 14.2%:

ks(H DIVISION) = kRF + (kM - kRF)bH DIVISION
= 9% + (4%)1.3 = 14.2%.


E. WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED HORIZON, OR CONTINUING, VALUE OF THE ACQUISITION; THAT IS, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE H DIVISION'S CASH FLOWS BEYOND 2005 WHAT IS HILL'S VALUE TO SMITTY'S SHAREHOLDERS? SUPPOSE ANOTHER FIRM WERE EVALUATING HILL'S AS AN ACQUISITION CANDIDATE. WOULD THEY OBTAIN THE SAME VALUE? EXPLAIN.

ANSWER: THE 2005 CASH FLOW IS $17.1 MILLION, AND IT IS EXPECTED TO GROW AT A 6 PERCENT CONSTANT GROWTH RATE IN 2006 AND BEYOND. WITH A CONSTANT GROWTH RATE, THE GORDON MODEL CAN BE USED TO VALUE THE CASH FLOWS BEYOND 2005:

TERMINAL VALUE =
=
= $221.0 MILLION.

ADDING THE HORIZON VALUE, THE NET CASH FLOW STREAM LOOKS LIKE THIS (IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS):

2002 2003 2004 2005
ANNUAL CASH FLOW $9.9 $7.8 $13.8 $ 17.1
TERMINAL VALUE 221.0
NET CASH FLOW $9.9 $7.8 $13.8 $238.1

NOW, THE VALUE OF HILL'S TO SMITTY'S IS THE PRESENT VALUE OF THIS STREAM, DISCOUNTED AT 14.2 PERCENT, OR $163.9 MILLION.
IF ANOTHER FIRM WERE VALUING HILL'S, THEY WOULD PROBABLY OBTAIN AN ESTIMATE DIFFERENT FROM $163.9 MILLION. MOST IMPORTANT, THE SYNERGIES INVOLVED WOULD LIKELY BE DIFFERENT, AND HENCE THE CASH FLOW ESTIMATES WOULD DIFFER. ALSO, ANOTHER POTENTIAL ACQUIRER MIGHT USE DIFFERENT FINANCING, OR HAVE A DIFFERENT TAX RATE, AND HENCE ESTIMATE A DIFFERENT DISCOUNT RATE.


F. ASSUME THAT HILL'S HAS 10 MILLION SHARES OUTSTANDING. THESE SHARES ARE TRADED RELATIVELY INFREQUENTLY, BUT THE LAST TRADE, MADE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, WAS AT A PRICE OF $9 PER SHARE. SHOULD SMITTY'S MAKE AN OFFER FOR HILL'S? IF SO, HOW MUCH SHOULD IT OFFER PER SHARE?

ANSWER: WITH A CURRENT PRICE OF $9 PER SHARE AND 10 MILLION SHARES OUTSTANDING, HILL'S CURRENT MARKET VALUE IS $9(10) = $90 MILLION. SINCE HILL'S EXPECTED VALUE TO SMITTY'S IS $163.9 MILLION, IT APPEARS THAT THE MERGER WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH SETS OF STOCKHOLDERS. THE DIFFERENCE, $163.9 - $90.0 = $73.9 MILLION, IS THE ADDED VALUE TO BE APPORTIONED BETWEEN THE STOCKHOLDERS OF BOTH FIRMS.
THE OFFERING RANGE IS FROM $9 PER SHARE TO $163.9/10 = $16.39 PER SHARE. AT $9, ALL OF THE BENEFIT OF THE MERGER GOES TO SMITTY'S SHAREHOLDERS, WHILE AT $16.39, ALL OF THE VALUE CREATED GOES TO HILL'S SHAREHOLDERS. IF SMITTY'S OFFERS MORE THAN $16.39 PER SHARE, THEN WEALTH WOULD BE TRANSFERRED FROM SMITTY'S STOCKHOLDERS TO HILL'S STOCKHOLDERS.
AS TO THE ACTUAL OFFERING PRICE, SMITTY'S SHOULD MAKE THE OFFER AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, YET ACCEPTABLE TO HILL'S SHAREHOLDERS. A LOW INITIAL OFFER, SAY $9.50 PER SHARE, WOULD PROBABLY BE REJECTED AND THE EFFORT WASTED. FURTHER, THE OFFER MAY INFLUENCE OTHER POTENTIAL SUITORS TO CONSIDER HILL'S, AND THEY COULD END UP OUTBIDDING SMITTY'S. CON-VERSELY, A HIGH PRICE, SAY $16, PASSES ALMOST ALL OF THE GAIN TO HILL'S STOCKHOLDERS, AND SMITTY'S MANAGERS SHOULD RETAIN AS MUCH OF THE SYNERGISTIC VALUE AS POSSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SHAREHOLDERS.
NOTE THAT THIS DISCUSSION ASSUMES THAT HILL'S $9 PRICE IS A "FAIR," EQUILIBRIUM VALUE IN THE ABSENCE OF A MERGER. SINCE THE STOCK TRADES INFREQUENTLY, THE $9 PRICE MAY NOT REPRESENT A FAIR MINIMUM PRICE. HILL'S MANAGEMENT SHOULD MAKE AN EVALUATION (OR HIRE SOMEONE TO MAKE THE EVALUATION) OF A FAIR PRICE AND USE THIS INFORMATION IN ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH SMITTY'S.


G. ASSUME THAT PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES IN HILL’S LINE OF BUSINESS HAVE STOCK PRICES IN THE RANGE OF 12 TO 14 TIMES EARNINGS PER SHARE (EPS). USE THE MARKET MULTIPLE APPROACH TO VALUE THE TARGET COMPANY.

ANSWER: TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF HILL’S LINE OF BUSINESS USING THE MARKET MULTIPLE APPROACH, WE WOULD TAKE THE AVERAGE EPS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND MULTIPLY IT BY SOME INDUSTRY MULTIPLE. IN THIS CASE WE TAKE THE STOCK PRICE MULTIPLE OF 12 TO 14 TIMES EPS.

(($9.9 + $15.3)/2)12 = $151.2 MILLION.

(($9.9 + $15.3)/2)14 = $176.4 MILLION.


H. THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERABLE RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN TO DETERMINE WHETHER MERGERS REALLY CREATE VALUE AND, IF SO, HOW THIS VALUE IS SHARED BETWEEN THE PARTIES INVOLVED. WHAT ARE THE RESULTS OF THIS RESEARCH?

ANSWER: MOST RESEARCHERS AGREE THAT TAKEOVERS INCREASE THE WEALTH OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF TARGET FIRMS, FOR OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT AGREE TO THE OFFER. HOWEVER, THERE IS A DEBATE AS TO WHETHER MERGERS BENEFIT THE ACQUIRING FIRM’S SHAREHOLDERS. THE RESULTS OF THESE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN, ON AVERAGE, THE STOCK PRICES OF TARGET FIRMS INCREASE BY ABOUT 30 PERCENT IN HOSTILE TENDER OFFERS, WHILE IN FRIENDLY MERGERS THE AVERAGE INCREASE IS ABOUT 20 PERCENT. HOWEVER, FOR BOTH HOSTILE AND FRIENDLY DEALS, THE STOCK PRICES OF ACQUIRING FIRMS, ON AVERAGE, REMAIN CONSTANT. THUS, ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT (1) ACQUISITIONS DO CREATE VALUE, BUT (2) THAT SHAREHOLDERS OF TARGET FIRMS REAP VIRTUALLY ALL THE BENEFITS.


I. WHAT ARE THE TWO METHODS OF ACCOUNTING FOR MERGERS?

ANSWER: THE TWO MAIN METHODS OF ACCOUNTING FOR MERGERS ARE A POOLING OF INTERESTS, IN WHICH A CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET IS CREATED BY SIMPLY ADDING THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE MERGING COMPANIES, AND PURCHASE ACCOUNTING, IN WHICH CASE THE ACQUIRED COMPANY IS TREATED AS ANY OTHER CAPITAL ASSET PURCHASE.


J. WHAT MERGER-RELATED ACTIVITIES ARE UNDERTAKEN BY INVESTMENT BANKERS?

ANSWER: THE INVESTMENT BANKING COMMUNITY IS INVOLVED WITH MERGERS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. SEVERAL OF THESE ACTIVITIES ARE: (1) HELPING TO ARRANGE MERGERS, (2) AIDING TARGET COMPANIES IN DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING DEFENSIVE TACTICS, (3) HELPING TO VALUE TARGET COMPANIES, (4) HELPING TO FINANCE MERGERS, AND (5) RISK ARBITRAGE--SPECULATING IN THE STOCKS OF COMPANIES THAT ARE LIKELY TAKEOVER TARGETS.


K. WHAT IS A LEVERAGED BUYOUT (LBO)? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF GOING PRIVATE?

ANSWER: A LEVERAGED BUYOUT IS A SITUATION IN WHICH A SMALL GROUP OF INVESTORS (WHICH USUALLY INCLUDE THE FIRM=S MANAGERS) BORROWS HEAVILY TO BUY ALL THE SHARES OF A COMPANY. ADVANTAGES TO GOING PRIVATE INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE COST SAVINGS, INCREASED MANAGERIAL INCENTIVES, INCREASED MANAGERIAL FLEXIBILITY, INCREASED SHAREHOLDER PARTICIPATION, AND INCREASED FINANCIAL LEVERAGE. THE MAIN DISADVANTAGE OF GOING PRIVATE IS NOT HAVING ACCESS TO THE LARGE AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL AVAILABLE IN THE EQUITY MARKET, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO FUND A FIRM=S PROJECTS.


L. WHAT ARE THE MAJOR TYPES OF DIVESTITURES? WHAT MOTIVATES FIRMS TO DIVEST ASSETS?

ANSWER: THE THREE PRIMARY TYPES OF DIVESTITURES ARE (1) THE SALE OF AN OPERATING UNIT TO ANOTHER FIRM, (2) SETTING UP THE BUSINESS TO BE DIVESTED AS A SEPARATE CORPORATION AND THEN “SPINNING IT OFF” TO THE DIVESTING FIRM’S STOCKHOLDERS, AND (3) OUTRIGHT LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS. THE REASONS FOR DIVESTITURES VARY WIDELY. SOMETIMES COMPANIES NEED CASH EITHER TO FINANCE EXPANSION IN THEIR PRIMARY BUSINESS LINES OR TO REDUCE A LARGE DEBT BURDEN. SOMETIMES FIRMS DIVEST TO UNLOAD LOSING ASSETS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE DRAG THE COMPANY DOWN, OR DIVESTING MAY BE THE RESULT OF AN ANTITRUST SETTLEMENT, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES A BREAKUP.


M. WHAT ARE HOLDING COMPANIES? WHAT ARE THEIR ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES?

ANSWER: HOLDING COMPANIES ARE CORPORATIONS FORMED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF OWNING THE STOCKS OF OTHER COMPANIES. THE ADVANTAGES INCLUDE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL A COMPANY WITHOUT OWNING ALL ITS STOCKS AND THE ABILITY TO ISOLATE RISKS. DISADVANTAGES INCLUDE THE POSSIBLE TAXATION OF EARNINGS AT BOTH THE SUBSIDIARY AND PARENT LEVELS. HOLDING COMPANIES CAN ALSO BE EASILY DISSOLVED BY REGULATORS.