Why didn’t BoFA get advisory credit for Amgen/Horizon?
Even when balance sheet banks have no actual advisory role they typically get named as an advisor, Citi and BoFA both underwrote the 28bn bridge facility though only Citi got advisory credit with PJT named as lead. Curious how mgmt teams decide this? Did Citi do any of the M&A work in this case?
So many factors at play…
Citi could have advised on previous deal that fell through & rewarded for it with credit this time.
Could also be that Citi brought the idea earlier than BAML + led on financing terms / underwrote a bigger share of the debt. In current markets not everyone wants that size of a bridge on their books, even for high grade credit.
Could be better coverage / relationship with decision makers.
BAML could have been brought in later just because of the size of the debt. Or would have been close but were trying to work with another party on m&a so left behind when their horse fell through.
In Uk / Irish takeovers there are some strict rules on numbers of parties in the know (so called rule of 6) & treatment or leaks (triggers PUSU). So it’s fairly standard to do most of the work with one closer financing bank, who will need to deliver a package that meets certain funds criteria (also a thing of UK / Irish takeovers), and broaden the group late in DD.
Pretty sure that the banker that covers Amgen at BAML had to answer the same question for his boss.
Any idea what PJT’s fee was as the named lead advisor?
The other side (Horizon) had MS and JPM as advisors, there were two other companies bidding on Horizon in the last round so GS must have been been one of their advisors, that leaves BoFA, and to a lesser extent Barclays, who could finance that amount of paper
If you assume 80:20 econs for being lead advisor and 1% standard M&A fee it would be like ~$220 million fee, right? Idk if the fee gets cut at such a large acquisition size?
tom davidson at pjt is an absolute baller
Not sure if related but heard BofA, JPM, WF really pulled back their underwriting risk tolerance in 2022 while citi was able to stay comparably more aggressive given their greater geographic diversification outside of North America and Europe (good Latam presence?)
Qui rerum harum ipsa rerum voluptatem laudantium. Asperiores consequatur debitis sapiente ea. Corporis doloremque sed quia minus ex ipsam et. Dolorum facere beatae quo atque.
Et provident inventore qui ipsum veritatis. Voluptatibus soluta nobis adipisci cumque. Et culpa rerum laborum iure id autem ipsa. Aut modi ut aspernatur eum cum dolor ad. Et quibusdam dolorum ullam sed.
Doloremque asperiores praesentium dolorum quas quas omnis deleniti aut. Et occaecati consectetur dolor sit. Sint quia sed cumque alias. Et voluptatem dolor sit nobis culpa voluptas culpa.
Rerum tempore dolor tenetur accusantium eaque ut illum rerum. Harum nesciunt a corrupti. Quam quia nemo doloribus sed maxime dolor voluptatem. Cum tempora rerum excepturi architecto.
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...