All-stock M&A deal: what's combined market map?

In all-stock acquisitions for two public co's, what happens to the market cap of the combined new co?

I'm not talking about what happens when the deal is announced - acquirer's stock goes down, target stock goes up (generally). I'm asking specifically about post-deal close and the acquirer's stock is issued to target's shareholders.

 
Best Response

Mechanically, the above makes sense to me. In practice, I cannot say I have ever seen it shown this way. Based on my experience, a pro forma combined market cap in a 100% stock transaction is usually being shown to demonstrate some kind of value creation to shareholders, i.e. C is greater than A + B. Two ways this value creation can occur is through synergies (captured by pro-forma EPS) and multiple re-rating from the market. The latter involves looking at your pro forma EPS at some point in the future (can be immediate or years ahead) and applying a P/E multiple (hopefully, one that is higher than what the company currently trades at) to get an implied share price. Multiply this implied share price (you may want to discount back to present using the company's cost of equity) by your pro forma shares to get an implied market cap value. The delta between the present value of this implied market cap and your current acquiror market cap is your value creation/destruction.

Apologies if you weren't asking for this. Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents on how I have actually seen something similar done in practice rather than just a textbook formula.

 

DiggsRTC - Yes, that's correct on tax affected. However, the Market Cap T actually should not be for the offer price. Offer price is the % of PV of synergies you are willing to forego to get the opportunity to do the deal. If you over pay (ie $ premium is greater than PV of tax affected synergies), deal should be value destructive to current shareholders. If you use the offer price, you are double counting a portion of the synergies. Technically you could restate as:

PF Market Cap A = Market Cap A + Market Cap T (pre-offer price) + PV of (tax affected) synergies AND PV of (tax affected) synergies = Offer Premium to T + Value Created for Current A S/H OR PF Market Cap A = Market Cap A + Market Cap T (offer price) + Value Created for Current A S/H

@GreekRX" - I've heard people use this method and I think it's slightly misleading. First, assume M&A with no synergies. Company A has PE of 10x, and Company T has PE of 8x. Without synergies PF company should trade somewhere between 10 and 8x. A multiple re-rate should only occur if value is created through synergies.

Example (assume no debt for simplicity): Market Cap A = $200 Net Income A = $20 (P/E 10x) Market Cap T = $100 Net Income T = $12.5 (P/E 8x)

(Key assumption: without creating value through synergies, the PF Market Cap should be the same). PF Market Cap A = $300 PF Net Income = $32.5

PF P/E = (300/32.5) = 9.2x - note, between 10x and 8x, closer to 10x because A is larger

I've heard people try to justify something like the PF company should trade at it's previous P/E multiple (the 10x). This implies that any EPS accretion translates into a proportional % share value accretion. However, I think some people will tell you that even though buying low multiple businesses is Accretive, accretion is sort of meaningless. There's often a reason low multiple businesses trade at low multiples.

The only reason to buy something is not because it's low multiple or potentially Accretive. The only reason to buy something is because you think you can extract more value / run it better than it's current owners. A shitty business doesn't just re-rate because it's acquired by a better, higher multiple business.

I feel like these assumptions are highly debatable. These are all just frameworks for how to think about shareholder value. To be completely honest, I don't think anyone thinks any of these methods are super compelling.

IMHO. Would appreciate any criticism or feedback.

 

Accusantium et labore rem non maiores rerum magni. Quia autem et rerum ut ratione quo nam. Alias dolorum aliquam amet quia libero. Dolor sequi tempora maiores commodi qui nisi aliquam.

Voluptates voluptatem labore est officiis sint quia quaerat. Culpa tempora ut et eveniet sapiente voluptatem culpa. Dolorem dicta recusandae quia doloribus ea ab.

Sit aspernatur est temporibus magni consectetur atque provident eum. Provident suscipit quasi voluptas tenetur laudantium sequi ratione.

Career Advancement Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. New 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

April 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (14) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (205) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (145) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
8
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
9
numi's picture
numi
98.8
10
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”