LBO Urgent advice - why subtract dividends from sponsor equity
Hi working on an LBO would appreciate advice within next 24 hours
During the LBO the company does a dividend recap resulting in a dividends payment of $100m
The sponsor initially invested $400m into the company and gave management 10% options at exit
should the 10% options be based on 1) the $400m initial equity invested or 2) $300m? (the $400m-$100m dividends)
I was told it should be 2) but I don’t understand why? Apparently I should subtract the $100m dividends from the equity value and calculate what the 10% options in shares would be from that? I.e cash received from exercising the options would be 10%*(400-100) instead of 10% * 400 ?
Thanks
If the PE shop sells the company after the div recap for 400, an additional 100 of value was created (apart from debt repayment from cash flow during holding period). Management therefore should be rewarded based on the remaining invested equity in the company, so after subtracting dividends.
Not exactly. First, it is 10% options in the *increase *in equity value, not 10% of the Company itself. So if the equity is $400 at close and $500 at exit, management would earn 10% x ($500-$400) = $10.
A dividend is part of the increase in equity value. So instead of subtracting it from the initial equity value, you add it to the exit equity value. So if equity at close is $400, equity at exit is $500, and dividend is $100, management options would be 10% x ($500 + $100 - $400) = $20
Wouldn't it depend on the specifics of the contract with management? You can be pretty creative and get away with a lot in the right situation.
@notyourbuddypa In full buyouts, which is most of PE, this is what is traditionally done. Think about it this way: if you buy a company for $400M and sell it for $400M, meaning you made no money, why would you reward management with $40M (ie 10%)? Management options are always at a strike price and almost always the strike price is equity value at close. This means they get % of the increase in equity value. This is the standard/market.
As for Rover-S , I didn't totally follow what you're saying but yes if the answer is the same you can use different methodologies. My methodology is what I use and gives the correct answer. My point is that a dividend in practice and in modeling does not reduce what you actually put in at close (ie doesn't change history) but is part of the increase in value of the equity that factors into the returns
I can't believe I got an MS and no SB. What I am saying is correct and is what I have done in 8+ deals over multiple firms.
Don't understand the MS either. Your response is correct and helpful.
Explain me the difference between 500-300=200 --> 20 for management - and 400-200=200 --> 20 for management.... Both capture exactly the same: the absolute increase in equity value in the holding period.
Neque alias officia et ut est. A repellendus est vel nihil et quia officiis. Inventore blanditiis dolorum fugiat praesentium. Facere sint expedita tempora. Qui et voluptas ipsum distinctio at ipsa quis et.
Eum ut error aut cumque. Officia quaerat rerum ut soluta ratione. Libero et in voluptates. Doloremque dolorem dolores reprehenderit amet rem corporis dolore. Quibusdam aspernatur quos fuga laudantium.
Animi fuga sit quidem atque. Ea sit sit et sit sit reprehenderit velit et. Amet porro reprehenderit quasi numquam.
Quis sit voluptate rerum tenetur possimus quod. Sapiente dolorem consequatur alias quia voluptate. Voluptas modi consequatur ducimus possimus.
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...