Hi guys,
I have an interview question for you:
Could you please advise me on high to value a company which has high debt? Please mention which multiples you are going to use into your valuation and why.
Thank you in advance
| +219 | UBS Accused of Favoring H-1B Workers While Cutting U.S.-Born Employees | 51 | 18h |
| +111 | ONLY THESE BANKS OR YOU STRUCK OUT | 33 | 2h |
| +109 | IB Energy Drink Tier List / Ranking | 72 | 1d |
| +91 | PJT M&A Group Selection 2026 | 14 | 22h |
| +54 | Firm Thinks I'm Lying About Offer | 18 | 15h |
| +51 | Feedback for internship first desk at IBD BB - personal fit, "don't be too confident" | 29 | 1d |
| +31 | Stay at Weak Dealflow Team or Lateral? | 10 | 30m |
| +30 | Does BofA still pay its associates rat pellets? | 15 | 1d |
| +28 | Indiana University Fraternity Pipelines | 14 | 1h |
| +27 | Rogo AI | 6 | 11h |
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.
Interesting question. EV/EBITDA is a capital structure 'neutral' multiple, as EBITDA is before interest, so that wouldn't be the best indicator for a heavily indebted company. That said, the company's added risk from their debt would logically be priced in to their value, so I don't believe this assumption really holds up. P/E would give you the cleanest look at after-interest earnings (and is more commonly used in highly leveraged industries), so that may be a more appropriate answer. However, P/E has its own short comings, and is more vulnerable to earnings manipulation (vs the clean assessment of EBITDA). The right answer is probably a mix of multiples, but those are some points to consider. Curious what others think?
High debt implies high credit risk. Naturally you'd place a discount to the value vs. comps with more normal or average cap structure. High debt would also tie up most of the company's cash flow for debt service, instead of investing in capex to drive growth. This would also warrant a discount vs. comps.
Depends on what industry it is and its growth profile. industry: usually placing debt requires tangible PP&E/hard asset collateral bases. growth: if the debt was being used for capex/growth then it makes sense. If it was just refinancing of existing debt over and over again, then bad idea. also need to consider that more debt implies less leverage to put on to boost levered equity returns. usually you'd be hesitant as a LBO investor to look into a SaaS/soft-tech company with >10% debt but you'd consider looking at some heavy manufacturing/industrials with higher debt.
Plenty of LBO in the SaaSsoft-tech space or asset-light businesses in general. From a lender perspective, you can lend on the basis of either cash flow (e.g. software company with good visibility and stability of cash flows) or assets.
Yes, obviously that's why Vista/Thoma Bravo/Silver Lake exists. What I said was none of these SaaS had existing debt to begin with. Of course post-LBO transaction they'd have a huge amount of pro-forma debt, sometimes up to 50%, and the justification was huge amounts of FCF.
Fugiat nulla adipisci quis numquam cumque cum excepturi. Reprehenderit corrupti sunt minima voluptatem voluptates ut. Consectetur quos id quis consequatur qui. Doloremque porro reprehenderit alias autem. Totam necessitatibus voluptas alias dolorem qui aut vel. Et laboriosam qui et iste et consectetur perspiciatis unde.
Sed placeat ea quia ipsa fugiat repudiandae. Libero laudantium exercitationem dolorem omnis asperiores aut est. Voluptas esse quia aspernatur quos. Quidem fuga dolorem harum sint voluptas velit. Et cupiditate magnam molestiae dignissimos 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...