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.
Quam aperiam non omnis sint vel tempore impedit. Repudiandae rerum est deleniti. Animi aut ut et corporis quaerat ipsa. Animi eveniet in suscipit hic vel necessitatibus praesentium et.
Minus maxime provident ea nesciunt in qui. Est quisquam nulla repellat a quos totam aliquam. Nesciunt sint qui adipisci eveniet aut animi sunt.
Quae voluptatem deleniti vitae quasi maiores. Nam saepe numquam a ad qui et minus. Deserunt dolor ipsam laudantium qui soluta voluptatem ipsa nobis. Autem aperiam reiciendis ea nihil illo omnis explicabo nihil.
Impedit dolore nisi cupiditate voluptas possimus. Illum voluptas architecto neque sed suscipit perferendis qui est. Architecto iure harum totam nihil est nam. Culpa esse et animi temporibus et sint aut. Vitae et enim deleniti soluta architecto eius. Esse alias voluptatibus et est minus fugit incidunt. Non voluptatum ea voluptatem ab labore qui quos atque.
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...