Quasi-equity when structuring a deal
Dear all,
Just trying to understand, when considering an LBO deal : 1 - Why would a sponsor invest in quasi-equity (convertible bonds, preferred shares, etc) on top of ordinary shares when doing an LBO ? What would he gain from investing the same amount in ordianry equity ?
2 - How are amount and form of this investment chosen ? I guess maximizing profit is the ultimate goal but are there other considerations (ManPack is the only thing that comes to my mind right now)
Also v. interested if you have some reading materials about this
Many thanks !
Bump
What is your question? Why would an investor want pref stock or convertibles?
If so, simple answer. Downside protection.
Is there a good book or article we can read more about the various instruments and when to use them? Thank you.
Also interested
None that come to mind, most of it I learned on the job really. Hear of something --> Google.
Most of the definitions and examples will likely live in venture capital books/articles. Although, "when to use them" comes down to negotiations. If a competing investor will come in at the same price with commons then all your knowledge of participating preference shares is useless.
Management package usually includes over-representation of the management team in the ordinary equity, and under-representation on the fixed rate quasi-equity instruments. As a result their returns are boosted when the deal yields a return higher than the quasi-equity fixed rate. It also gives management higher than pro-rata ordinary voting rights.
Depending on countries and jurisdictions there may be ways of using them in the structuring to be more tax efficient (use the entire interest tax shield allowance, shift between capital gains and interest income, etc.).
PS - Obviously this is referring to when Funds invest both in Equity and quasi-equity in the same deal, which is purely a structuring and MEP decision. When you are just deciding, from a commercial point of view, if you want to invest EITHER in equity or in quasi equity, the answer is just the classic risk-return that you expect from the deal, and the probability distribution of expected returns. For example, a biotech with one product in Phase 3 that could either be worth billions or zero requires an equity investment, as using quasi-equity you would give away a huge upside for a statistically irrelevant downside protection.
Feel like I haven't made myself clear, v sorry for that :)
Let's say a fund invests 70% ordinary equity and 30% convertibles in a target, as part of a LBO
Why not 100% ordinary equity ? And how is that ratio determined ?
This is how you create "sweet equity" for managers to incentivize them
Example If you buy a firm with 1bn EV and have 500m of debt, equity will be 500. Managers have 5m to invest in total. Equity doubles in value at exit: 1. Only common equity: managers will have 1% of equity and receive 1% of the 1000 equity at exit = 10m (100% return) 2. If you use a mix of 90% preferred (10% PIK return) and 10% common, managers have 10% of common equity with that same investment. After 5 years the pref shares will be worth c. 724 (90%500m1.10^5), leaving c. 276 for the fund+management team. 10% = 27.6m for managers is a 452% return on same investment.
If company value remains the same, managers will actually lose their investment because the prefs keep on earning 10% return that has to be paid at exit.
Sometimes "senior common" or non-coupon paying preferred shares are used in a deal to prioritize the sponsor's claim ahead of management's equity. This is purely for the purpose of downside protection and I would say is more often than not used as a lever in negotiating key deal terms, i.e. I'll go up a half a turn if my equity is given senior priority.
So basically we got : 1 - For ManPack purposes 2 - Downside protection 3 - Give priority to Sponsor's equity
Any other thoughts ?
2 and 3 are really the same imo. If your equity has priority you get your money back first in a downside case. Obviously if there is a chunk of debt from an LBO on the business, in a nuclear case it doesn't matter anyways. That's why you typically hear of the fun structures in venture/growth case more often.
Non qui quia aperiam quia iusto. Voluptatem necessitatibus et consequatur excepturi ea ut voluptates accusamus. Repudiandae nulla veritatis distinctio distinctio et dolorem doloribus.
Ipsum dolorem omnis ipsa magni animi ut aliquid quasi. Sit nostrum porro et consequatur. Atque dicta maiores repudiandae.
Itaque delectus rerum quis nobis ut repellat optio. Possimus libero illum ipsum quasi omnis doloribus voluptatem. Ea quisquam consequuntur voluptatem. Dolore assumenda laudantium suscipit sunt eligendi nam harum. Quo quos tempora consequatur qui aliquam.
Et dolorem neque porro culpa rerum. Eos incidunt cumque eos enim quasi. Qui ducimus voluptas aliquam voluptas reprehenderit voluptatem. Unde eligendi laboriosam minima omnis occaecati harum. Blanditiis distinctio nisi harum repellat. Similique blanditiis expedita veniam vel maiores.
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...