Investment Banking Technical Q - M&A
(Reposted as prior one did not gain enough traction) **Questions:
1.) A company with a PE of 10 buys a company with a PE of 12 with 50% debt and 50% equity. Assume a 40% tax rate. What would be the cost of debt to make this neither Accretive nor dilutive?
2.) Company A has a share price of $25 and 1,000,000 shares outstanding buys Company B with 40% equity paying $15/share with 500,000 shares outstanding. Company A has a net income of $4,000,000 and company B has a net income of $1,000,000, cost of debt is 6% (40% tax rate), there is $250,000 (after tax) in hard synergies. Is this Accretive or dilutive? By how much?
**Answers
1.) *0.1 x 0.5 + (0.5)(1-0.4)x = 0.083, so cost of debt has to be 11%
2.) Company A EPS before the acquisition: $4M/1M shares = 4 EPS.
Company A EPS after acquisition:
($4,000,000 + $250,000 - $405 000*)/1,500,000** = 3.1 EPS
Therefore, the deal is dilutive.
*Debt issued = ($15 x 500,000 shares/0.4) x 0.6 = $11,250,000 interest = $11,250,000 x 0.06 x (1-0.4) = $405,000
**1,000,000 shares + 500,000 issued*
Isn't making the equation equal to 0.083 something that will make the deal accretive? Wouldn't you also have to add the earnings of company B to the 4M and 250k?
To answer your questions:
1) Setting the equation to 8.3% does not make it accretive.
2) Yes, you would have to add the $1m from B to calculate PF Net Income. The formula that you copied above is not right. It's missing the $1m from B.
I guess I'm misunderstanding why the equation is being made equal to company B's yield of seller. Could you perhaps explain the intuition behind that? Thanks for your help.
The reason is that if you know that A earns 8.3% by acquiring B, then you must set what it costs you (left side of equation) to what you earn (right side of equation) for the deal to be neutral.
1 / 12, which is the sellers yield
For 1, I think you're good - it is neither accretive nor dilutive. What you are doing here is setting the Earnings "cost" equal to the earnings "gain". So, P/E= 10 means that you have an earnings yield of 10%, so you are 'paying' 10% for every share issued. You then weight-average this with the after tax cost of debt (x) to understand what "earnings" you are giving up, both in earnings yield from the equity and interest payments from the debt, in exchange for what earnings you are getting, which is 12 PE, or 8.3% Earnings yield. When you set it equal, it means the deal is neither accretive nor dilutive.
For 2....this question, and your answer are very confusing. I think it's because you don't understand how the consideration for a deal works - in a transaction, the target's shares get wiped out. The only additional shares we have are the ones we issue. This misunderstanding is fucking everything up, starting with your valuation, so I'm just gonna redo this.
As I understand the prompt, Company B has 500k shares outstanding and is being purchased for $15 a share, valuing the firm at $7,500k. Company A is using 40% stock and 60% debt to finance the deal. Company A's stock is $25.
40% Equity * $7,500k = $3,000k paid in equity 60% Debt * $7,500k = $4,500k paid in debt
Equity portion -> $3,000k / $25 Company A share price = 120,000 new shares issued
Debt portion -> $4,500 * 6% * (1-40%) = $162k Interest
Pre Transaction EPS = $4,000k/1,000k shares = $4 / share (you got this piece right)
PF EPS = ($4,000k + $1,000k + $250k - $162k)/(1,000k+ 120k) = $4.07
Accretive by $0.07/Share
First sentence in Q2 is worded very poorly and leads to two different conclusions depending on how you interpret it. Not sure if Company B has TSO of 500K. Or, if the 500K TSO represents only the equity portion of the consideration. If the former, then it is accretive. If the latter (which OP had assumed), then it is dilutive.
Yea - super dilutive if the latter, not to mention a really wacky way of describing a deal and the consideration.
I think the lesson here too for all you prospects going through superdays is ASK for clarification. They will not ding you if you say something like, "just to make sure I have this right....", as opposed to getting twisted into knots (and wasting interview time) because the prompt doesn't make sense.
This explanation is very thorough. Thanks for taking the time to help me.
The funniest part is that for interviewing for SA roles nobody gave me anything like this question with the exception of Evercore. I'd say if you can do these, go back to the basics and make sure you can really speak well on those technicals.
Interesting. So none of the BBs asked this type of high level question?
Sint est modi dolores sint tempora itaque. Vel facere repudiandae omnis est similique et. Qui dolorem officiis doloribus quo suscipit temporibus sit adipisci. Officia eveniet debitis veritatis placeat.
Non est natus illum cum eos nisi laboriosam. Corrupti iure enim maxime aut ut. Reiciendis voluptatem quia illum quisquam iure voluptatem. Est odit animi et molestiae et. Harum dicta nihil odit porro officiis. Ut tenetur a ab in. Laboriosam iure et et sunt.
Et corrupti quos minus laboriosam accusamus sit dicta. Neque et earum aut autem et aut. Reprehenderit ad enim autem deserunt labore facere. Nihil quis odio dicta et soluta cum. Dolores sint aperiam aut accusantium ducimus et sed dolores. Asperiores qui et corrupti ea et et harum.
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...