I am just wondering why corporates don't try to boost their return on equity if they can lever up and buy strategic companies in their space? Is there any logic behind it or is it just conservatism?
| +136 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 36 | 5h |
| +109 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 51 | 4h |
| +99 | Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street then stole it was DEI exec, worked at JPMorgan Chase | 25 | 1h |
| +82 | Stop sleeping on UBS - it’s pretty good | 29 | 41m |
| +70 | Hot take: I’d rather be at Desjardins than UBS for investment banking in 2026 | 11 | 25m |
| +56 | 2026 VAULT PRESTIGE RANKINGS | 30 | 1h |
| +39 | AI + Financial Modelling | 12 | 1d |
| +32 | Hardest interview experiences? | 18 | 8m |
| +28 | Summer before college | 17 | 19h |
| +26 | Current State of UBS in North America | 8 | 2d |
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.
They do use debt. Just not as much as PE. The reasoning for this lies in that fact that for strategic M&A, the acquirer has to take on all the debt used onto their own balance sheet, If they over lever themselves for the acquisition, it could send them to chapter 11. If a private equity firm over levers an LBO acquisition, only the acquired company goes bankrupt; not their entire fund.
The recent Bayer-Monsanto deal is a good example of this. Even though the deal was all cash by Bayer, Monsanto had a lot of debt (and subsequent lawsuits) that is dragging on their stock price.
On the other hand I assume lenders aren’t stupid: PE funds pay for limited liability in the form of higher interest rates, no? Otherwise plenty of non-PE firms would probably try to do acquisitions via bankruptcy remote LLCs.
I think the simple answer to op’s question is that cash on the balance sheet is a cheaper and faster source of capital than either debt or equity
also consider the intent of the acquisition. do strategic buyers acquire with the intent to flip and earn outsized returns, or for strategic rationale? agree with above about debt being on the strategic acquirer's balance sheet as a reason.
Public strategic acquirers also care about the transaction being accretive to EPS for the sake of their shareholders and stock price. It’s usually more likely a cash acquisition will be accretive since the interest earned on keeping that cash is less than the cost of debt involved in a transaction.
sorry to open up an old trend. am interviewing for an opening in strategic and acquisition finance.
had look at associates' profile and they deal with merger models. can someone please explain why? i get the part on lbo and stuff but was wondering why would they need to build merger models? are they financing the merger with some debt? thank you
Adipisci repellat neque libero quos magnam aut. Voluptate officiis repudiandae vel quas. Ex sint assumenda quas.
Nobis mollitia aut dolores ipsum recusandae. Laboriosam harum sit consequuntur saepe. Magnam dignissimos ipsam vero exercitationem porro vel. Vel sed dolorem vel ut.
Vitae et et cupiditate harum. Est soluta temporibus id repudiandae quam sit. Quasi vitae enim dolores. Ipsum illum impedit consequatur recusandae et dolor eveniet. Id et distinctio et qui aut odio. Voluptas fugiat repellat nihil et explicabo impedit voluptatem.
Odio quos rerum rerum cumque. Ducimus distinctio eos animi ullam natus sint. Aut sit quis voluptas debitis temporibus quasi. Omnis nihil nostrum quam neque aut.
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...