Hi,
can s/o clarify why adjusting for synergies leads to a lower valuation range? E.g. EV/LTM EBITDA would obv. be lover if one adds synergies to the denominator. Doesn't make sense, does it?
| +255 | Return Rates For Interns Are Falling? | 104 | 6h |
| +136 | UBS Americas IB: The Kids’ Table of Wall Street | 18 | 12h |
| +111 | I am a drunk MD AMA | 39 | 22h |
| +72 | Article: Why UBS's Asian M&A bankers are thriving and UBS's American M&A bankers are not | 9 | 2m |
| +64 | VP Lifestyle at Top BB Coverage Groups | 40 | 1d |
| +60 | UBS Offer Day | 23 | 12h |
| +57 | An Outsider’s View of RX Banking Out of College | 6 | 4d |
| +50 | SharePoint makes IB hours HELL | 15 | 4d |
| +40 | WF Return offers | 27 | 7h |
| +36 | I hate Wells Fargo | 6 | 8h |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
because you're adjusting the pro forma LTM EBITDA, but not adjusting your pro forma EV as if the companies had been operating as one entity for the last 12 months.
but it's all bullshit anyways. outside of firing HRs and janitorial staff, good luck actually predicting what synergies will be recognized and what synergies are made up in someone's head.
Yeah. I've worked with buyers who do the following when presented with synergies:
It's fair take. I saw a BCG report once that said less than 1/3rd of all M&A transactions actually add value.
This is the answer. Agree w/ Lapike most of the time rev synergies get little to no credit, and you'll usually get a haircut on cost synergies.
Smh I don't get it. Can someone maybe just briefly elaborate on why the multiple should be smaller if synergies are taken into consideration? Common sense would be that this is sth that lets me justify a higer purchase price.
Sure - you're creating make believe value in the denominator that would have never been earned... because synergies can only happen in the future.
This equation now looks like this:
(Today's Enterprise Value Based on Not Having Synergies Between the Two Companies) / (Combined EBITDA of Yesterday or Last 12 Months With Having Synergies)
Your numerator is unaffected and your denominator theoretically increased. In reality, if those synergies had been recognized throughout the year... the EV would be greater. In other words, if your combined LTM EBITDA was $20 and with synergies it was $22... your EV could be $100 without synergies and with synergies (built into the full year) it could be something like $112. Which gives you a valuation 5.0x vs 5.09x.
tl;dr: you're not making an apples to apples comparison when you compare (EV) to (LTM EBITDA and synergies).
You would need to do: (EV with 12 months of magical synergies built in) to (LTM EBITDA and synergies).
Note: I've never heard of a proposed M&A deal being valued using EV / LTM EBITDA & synergies. I'm just a lowly liberal arts college student, though so don't take my word for it.
Quo aspernatur nihil exercitationem maxime ab assumenda voluptatem. Quia qui recusandae voluptatem aut voluptatem rerum assumenda. Omnis et consequatur asperiores. Quasi enim et cumque accusamus et suscipit saepe. Voluptatem nostrum quia omnis ratione at distinctio reprehenderit rerum.
Rerum neque ipsum harum tenetur nihil totam corrupti provident. Unde et illo dolorem officia asperiores. Molestias aut vero necessitatibus quibusdam libero porro. Eos voluptatem quia dolor ad itaque eum ex. Vel dolores aut eos voluptas non magnam voluptatem.
Est inventore praesentium laudantium quo soluta. Maxime expedita molestiae molestiae. Architecto distinctio assumenda alias et ut et. Maxime officiis natus rem ut.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...