How much debt paydown is necessary by Year 5 in an LBO?
I am assuming 80%+ for the typical business. What if you're investing in a slightly younger company that has solid growth potential? I am modeling in only 5x entry leverage, but cash flow yield is not strong enough to support 80% debt paydown due to growth capex requirements. Only able to paydown 45% debt by Year 5. Would raising debt be difficult for such a company? I am assuming most lenders want their money back by Year 5, in which case would it be possible to do a refi just before exit?
Could experienced PE professionals give insights into what typical debt paydown requirements are?
The sponsor's incentive is to never pay down any debt.
Most will only amortize the required 1% per year (typical TLB). They also try to avoid ECF sweeps by doing acquisitions, spending on capex, or taking dividends.
Sponsors will typically lie to banks and lenders about pay down projections.
From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with never paying down debt, or even increasing the debt burden using dividends, as long as the company continues to grow into the new cap structure.
Finally, most lenders do not want their money back via prepays. We would rather leave it outstanding forever. Getting prepaid creates cash drag until you find somewhere new to deploy it. Keep in mind, banks don't lend to sponsors anymore - it's all hedge funds, CLOs, and high yield MFs. We have return hurdles and like to stay fully invested, generally.
What about covenants? Don't they mandate paydown?
If so, you dont need to reduce debt to lower your leverage. You can grow EBITDA instead. This is what I meant by "growing into the cap structure."
or maybe you meant ECF sweep covenant? In which case, see what I wrote originally. You can just avoid them by spending capex, acquiring shit, or paying dividends.
The closer you can get to that, the better. Therefore, nobody is paying down debt unless they have to. They are taking dividends instead, if they have nothing else to do with the money
You don't always want to pay down debt. Most of the time, the optimal capital structure for a company/project includes some form of debt to make the potential equity IRR attractive. Therefore your question assumes that the initial debt level is higher than the optimal debt level - that may not always be the case.
Before you answer this question, I think you need to specify the type of project/company. For example, I work in infrastructure where project timelines can be more than 30 years. For technology firms, you'd probably be at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Going to use some made up numbers: $100M EBITDA, $500M debt and $300M equity at entry. Starting covenant wouldn't be below 6x if you're starting at 5x leverage. A reasonably aggressive stepdown might be to 3.5x by the end of five years. Under your case, even if EBITDA is flat at $100M and you pay down 45% of the debt, you're fine (as you'd have $275M, or 2.75x EBITDA).
But if you're spending growth capex, you're hopefully growing the business. Assuming flow-through to the bottom line, you'd be able to deal with covenant stepdowns through EBITDA growth, not just debt paydown.
Most use a 7 year projection period and have to be able to pay down less than 80% for term loan b's. They usually only pay the 1% amort unless there are cash flow sweep covenants as noted above.
From a DCM underwriting perspective (ie perspective of the banks who have to sell this to the market), the amount of deleverage will depend on the nature of the business and how hot the debt market is running.
For a first lien term loan B deal in the last 2 months on B2/B credit, I'd be wanting to see something like deleverage your 5.0x starting point to 2.0x or less by maturity in year 6-7.
As @Cries says, you can delever by raising EBITDA rather than by paying down debt. However, lenders will still want to see some degree of pay down. @petergibbons suggested 45% pay down (ie 55% remaining when the debt is due for refi) is a good number to market the deal on. You may be able to get away with less for a business that's got a strong competitive position in an industry that has a good long term outlook.
Banks stress this stuff a lot during the underwriting process, but we don't really think about it because we know the sponsor is always lying. Plus, less paydowns is always better if the company is flatlining or growing due to return hurdles.
Another useful metric is Net debt/FCF. On an absolute basis, in any market, I'm looking for an 8x or less for your average HY cap structure. This is a good proxy for pay down capacity, and is much more back-of-the-envelope, but accomplishes the same thing.
FCF = Ebitda - capex. Don't bother including interest, because higher rates are always better. But traditional pay down statistics punish companies who pay you a higher coupon.
Sorry if I muddied the water with this comment. i understand that you are looking for the answer, but the point I'm trying to make is that you are probably wasting your energy modeling this stuff out in practice. False precision or something like that.
Repudiandae est aut labore rerum. Aliquam quae laboriosam sint est mollitia dolor. Repellat ea tempore necessitatibus asperiores nulla et repudiandae.
Asperiores quam pariatur unde atque aliquid est voluptatem illo. Ratione provident est consequuntur ut. Magni vero rerum laborum perspiciatis ut vero ad. Enim unde delectus voluptas vel ipsum esse. Exercitationem voluptas voluptatem suscipit ipsam hic libero ratione. Harum quis ut odit eius fugit inventore facere.
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...