Which of the following is most important while evaluating a business case for acquisition of a new application?
Less than a decade after the frantic merger activity of the late 1960s, we are again in the midst of a major wave of corporate acquisitions. In contrast to the 1960s, when acquirers were mainly freewheeling conglomerates, the merger movement in the 1970s includes such long-established giants of U.S. industry as General Electric, Gulf Oil, and Kennecott Copper. Because of the decline in the value of the dollar and the greater political stability of the United States, foreign companies also have become increasingly active buyers of U.S. companies during the past few years. Most acquisitions are accomplished with cash today, rather than with packages of securities as was common in the 1960s. Finally, the current merger movement involves the frequent use of tender offers that often lead to contested bids and to the payment of substantial premiums above the premerger market value of the target company. In 1978, cash tender offer premiums averaged more than 70% above premerger market values. The popular explanation for the recent merger rage is that the market is “undervaluing” many solid companies, thus making it substantially cheaper to buy rather than to build. Couple this belief with the fact that many corporations are enjoying relatively strong cash positions and the widely held view that government regulation and increased uncertainty about the economy make internal growth strategies relatively unattractive, and we see why mergers and acquisitions have become an increasingly important part of corporate growth strategy. Despite all of the foregoing rationale, more than a few of the recent acquisitions will fail to create value for the acquirer’s shareholders. After all, shareholder value depends not on premerger market valuation of the target company but on the actual acquisition price the acquiring company pays compared with the selling company’s cash flow contribution to the combined company. Only a limited supply of acquisition candidates is available at the price that enables the acquirer to earn an acceptable return on investment. A well-conceived financial evaluation program that minimizes the risk of buying an economically unattractive company or paying too much for an attractive one is particularly important in today’s seller’s market. The dramatic increase in premiums that must be paid by a company bidding successfully calls for more careful analysis by buyers than ever before. Because of the competitive nature of the acquisition market, companies not only need to respond wisely but often must respond quickly as well. The growing independence of corporate boards and their demand for better information to support strategic decisions such as acquisitions have raised the general standard for acquisition analysis. Finally, sound analysis convincingly communicated can yield substantial benefits in negotiating with the target company’s management or, in the case of tender offers, its stockholders. Malcolm S. Salter and Wolf A. Weinhold outlined seven principal ways in which companies can create value for their shareholders via acquisition.1 In this article, I will show how management can estimate how much value a prospective acquisition will in fact create. In brief, I will present a comprehensive framework for acquisition analysis based on contemporary financial theory—an approach that has been profitably employed in practice. The analysis provides management and the board of the acquiring company with information both to make a decision on the candidate and to formulate an effective negotiating strategy for the acquisition. Steps in the AnalysisThe process of analyzing acquisitions falls broadly into three stages: planning, search and screen, and financial evaluation. The acquisition planning process begins with a review of corporate objectives and product-market strategies for various strategic business units. The acquiring company should define its potential directions for corporate growth and diversification in terms of corporate strengths and weaknesses and an assessment of the company’s social, economic, political, and technological environment. This analysis produces a set of acquisition objectives and criteria. Specified criteria often include statements about industry parameters, such as projected market growth rate, degree of regulation, ease of entry, and capital versus labor intensity. Company criteria for quality of management, share of market, profitability, size, and capital structure also commonly appear in acquisition criteria lists. The search and screen process is a systematic approach to compiling a list of good acquisition prospects. The search focuses on how and where to look for candidates, and the screening process selects a few of the best candidates from literally thousands of possibilities according to objectives and criteria developed in the planning phase. Finally comes the financial evaluation process, which is the focus of this article. A good analysis should enable management to answer such questions as:
Corporate self-evaluationThe financial evaluation process involves both a self-evaluation by the acquiring company and the evaluation of the candidate for acquisition. While it is possible to conduct an evaluation of the target company without an in-depth self-evaluation first, in general this is the most advantageous approach.2 The scope and detail of corporate self-evaluation will necessarily vary according to the needs of each company. Two fundamental questions posed by a self-evaluation are: (1) How much is my company worth? (2) How would its value be affected by each of several scenarios? The first question involves generating a “most likely” estimate of the company’s value based on management’s detailed assessment of its objectives, strategies, and plans. The second question calls for an assessment of value based on the range of plausible scenarios that enable management to test the joint effect of hypothesized combinations of product-market strategies and environmental forces. Corporate self-evaluation viewed as an economic assessment of the value created for shareholders by various strategic planning options promises potential benefits for all companies. In the context of the acquisition market, self-evaluation takes on special significance. First, while a company might view itself as an acquirer, few companies are totally exempt from a possible takeover. During 1978 alone, 80 acquisitions exceeding $100 million were announced. The recent roster of acquired companies includes such names as Anaconda, Utah International, Babcock & Wilcox, Seven Up, Pet, Carborundum, and Del Monte. Self-evaluation provides management and the board with a continuing basis for responding to tender offers or acquisition inquiries responsibly and quickly. Second, the self-evaluation process might well call attention to strategic divestment opportunities. Finally, self-evaluation provides acquisition-minded companies a basis for assessing the comparative advantages of a cash versus an exchange-of-shares offer. Acquiring companies commonly value the purchase price for an acquisition at the market value of the shares exchanged. This practice is not economically sound and could be misleading and costly to the acquiring company. A well-conceived analysis for an exchange-of-shares acquisition requires sound valuations of both buying and selling companies. If the acquirer’s management believes the market is undervaluing its shares, then valuing the purchase price at market might well induce the company to overpay for the acquisition or to earn less than the minimum acceptable rate of return. Conversely, if management believes the market is overvaluing its shares, then valuing the purchase price at market obscures the opportunity of offering the seller’s shareholders additional shares while still achieving the minimum acceptable return. Valuation of acquisitionsRecently Business Week reported that as many as half of the major acquisition-minded companies are relying extensively on the discounted cash flow (DCF) technique to analyze acquisitions.3 While mergers and acquisitions involve a considerably more complex set of managerial problems than the purchase of an ordinary asset such as a machine or a plant, the economic substance of these transactions is the same. In each case, there is a current outlay made in anticipation of a stream of future cash flows. Thus the DCF criterion applies not only to internal growth investments, such as additions to existing capacity, but equally to external growth investments, such as acquisitions. An essential feature of the DCF technique is that it explicitly takes into account that a dollar of cash received today is worth more than a dollar received a year from now, because today’s dollar can be invested to earn a return during the intervening time. To establish the maximum acceptable acquisition price under the DCF approach, estimates are needed for (1) the incremental cash flows expected to be generated because of the acquisition and (2) the cost of capital—that is, the minimum acceptable rate of return required by the market for new investments by the company. In projecting the cash flow stream of a prospective acquisition, what should be taken into account is the cash flow contribution the candidate is expected to make to the acquiring company. The results of this projection may well differ from a projection of the candidate’s cash flow as an independent company. This is so because the acquirer may be able to achieve operating economies not available to the selling company alone. Furthermore, acquisitions generally provide new postacquisition investment opportunities whose initial outlays and subsequent benefits also need to be incorporated in the cash flow schedule. Cash flow is defined as: (earnings before interest and taxes [EBIT]) × (1 – income tax rate) + depreciation and other noncash charges – capital expenditures – cash required for increase in net working capital In developing the cash flow schedule, two additional issues need to be considered: (1) What is the basis for setting the horizon date—that is, the date beyond which the cash flows associated with the acquisition are not specifically projected? (2) How is the residual value of the acquisition established at the horizon date? A common practice is to forecast cash flows period by period until the level of uncertainty makes management too “uncomfortable” to go any farther. While practice varies with industry setting, management policy, and the special circumstances of the acquisition, five or ten years appears to be an arbitrarily set forecasting duration used in many situations. A better approach suggests that the forecast duration for cash flows should continue only as long as the expected rate of return on incremental investment required to support forecasted sales growth exceeds the cost-of-capital rate. If for subsequent periods one assumes that the company’s return on incremental investment equals the cost-of-capital rate, then the market would be indifferent whether management invests earnings in expansion projects or pays cash dividends that shareholders can in turn invest in identically risky opportunities yielding an identical rate of return. In other words, the value of the company is unaffected by growth when the company is investing in projects earning at the cost of capital or at the minimum acceptable risk-adjusted rate of return required by the market. Thus, for purposes of simplification, we can assume a 100% payout of earnings after the horizon date or, equivalently, a zero growth rate without affecting the valuation of the company. (An implied assumption of this model is that the depreciation tax shield can be invested to maintain the company’s productive capacity.) The residual value is then the present value of the resulting cash flow perpetuity beginning one year after the horizon date. Of course, if after the horizon date the return on investment is expected to decline below the cost-of-capital rate, this factor can be incorporated in the calculation. When the acquisition candidate’s risk is judged to be the same as the acquirer’s overall risk, the appropriate rate for discounting the candidate’s cash flow stream is the acquirer’s cost of capital. The cost of capital or the minimum acceptable rate of return on new investments is based on the rate investors can expect to earn by investing in alternative, identically risky securities. The cost of capital is calculated as the weighted average of the costs of debt and equity capital. For example, suppose a company’s aftertax cost of debt is 5% and it estimates its cost of equity to be 15%. Further, it plans to raise future capital in the following proportions—20% by way of debt and 80% by equity. Exhibit I shows how to compute the company’s average cost.  Exhibit I One Company’s Average Cost of Capital It is important to emphasize that the acquiring company’s use of its own cost of capital to discount the target’s projected cash flows is appropriate only when it can be safely assumed that the acquisition will not affect the riskiness of the acquirer. The specific riskiness of each prospective candidate should be taken into account in setting the discount rate, with higher rates used for more risky investments. If a single discount rate is used for all acquisitions, then those with the highest risk will seem most attractive. Because the weighted average risk of its component segments determines the company’s cost of capital, these high-risk acquisitions will increase a company’s cost of capital and thereby decrease the value of its stock. Case of Alcar CorporationAs an illustration of the recommended approach to acquisition analysis, consider the case of Alcar Corporation’s interest in acquiring Rano Products. Alcar is a leading manufacturer and distributor in the industrial packaging and materials handling market. Sales in 1978 totaled $600 million. Alcar’s acquisition strategy is geared toward buying companies with either similar marketing and distribution characteristics, similar production technologies, or a similar research and development orientation. Rano Products, a $50 million sales organization with an impressive new-product development record in industrial packaging, fits Alcar’s general acquisition criteria particularly well. Premerger financial statements for Alcar and Rano are shown in Exhibit II. Exhibit II Premerger Financial Statements for Alcar and Rano (in Millions of Dollars) Acquisition for cashThe interactive computer model for corporate planning and acquisition analysis used in the Alcar evaluation to follow generates a comprehensive analysis for acquisitions financed by cash, stock, or any combination of cash, debt, preferred stock, and common stock. In this article, the analysis will concern only the cash and exchange-of-shares cases. In the cash acquisition case, the analysis follows six essential steps:
Step 1—cash flow projections:The cash flow formula presented earlier may be restated in equivalent form as— CFt = St–1 (1+gt) (pt) (1–Tt) – (St–St–1) (ft + wt) where CF = cash flow, S = sales, g = annual growth rate in sales, p = EBIT as a percentage of sales, T = income tax rate, f = capital investment required (i.e., total capital investment net of replacement of existing capacity estimated by depreciation) per dollar of sales increase, w = cash required for net working capital per dollar of sales increase. Once estimates are provided for five variables, g, p, T, f, and w, it is possible to project cash flow. Exhibit III shows Alcar management’s “most likely” estimates for Rano’s operations, assuming Alcar control; Exhibit IV shows a complete projected ten-year cash flow statement for Rano. Exhibit III Most Likely Estimates for Rano’s Operations Under Alcar Control Exhibit IV Projected Ten-Year Cash Flow Statement for Rano (in Millions of Dollars) Before developing additional scenarios for Rano, I should make some brief comments on how to estimate some of the cash flow variables. The income tax rate is the effective cash rate rather than a rate based on the accountant’s income tax expense, which often includes a portion that is deferred. For some companies, a direct projection of capital investment requirements per dollar of sales increase will prove a difficult task. To gain an estimate of the recent value of this coefficient, simply take the sum of all capital investments less depreciation over the past five or ten years and divide this total by the sales increase from the beginning to the end of the period. With this approach, the resulting coefficient not only represents the capital investment historically required per dollar of sales increase but also impounds any cost increases for replacement of existing capacity. One should estimate changes in net working capital requirements with care. Actual year-to-year balance sheet changes in net working capital may not provide a good measure of the rise or decline in funds required. There are two main reasons for this: (1) the year-end balance sheet figures may not reflect the average or normal needs of the business during the year, and (2) both the accounts receivable and inventory accounts may overstate the magnitude of the funds committed by the company. To estimate the additional cash requirements, the increased inventory investment should be measured by the variable costs for any additional units of inventory required and by the receivable investment in terms of the variable costs of the product delivered to generate the receivable rather than the absolute dollar amount of the receivable.4 In addition to its most likely estimate for Rano, Alcar’s management developed two additional (conservative and optimistic) scenarios for sales growth and EBIT-sales ratio. Exhibit V gives a summary of all three scenarios. Alcar’s management may also wish to examine additional cases to test the effect of alternative assumptions about the income tax rate and capital investment and working capital requirements per dollar of sales increase. Exhibit V Additional Scenarios for Sales Growth and EBIT/Sales Recall that cash flows should be forecast only for the period when the expected rate of return on incremental investment exceeds the minimum acceptable rate of return for the acquisition. It is possible to determine this in a simple yet analytical, non-arbitrary, fashion. To do so, we compute the minimum pretax return on sales (P min) needed to earn the minimum acceptable rate of return on the acquisition (k) given the investment requirements for working capital (w) and fixed assets (f) for each additional dollar of sales and given a projected tax rate (T). The formula for Pmin is: Alcar’s management believes that when Rano’s growth begins to slow down, its working capital requirements per dollar of additional sales will increase from .15 to about .20 and its effective tax rate will increase from .46 to .50. As will be shown in the next section, the minimum acceptable rate of return on the Rano acquisition is 13%. Thus: Alcar’s management has enough confidence to forecast pretax sales returns above 9.2% for only the next ten years, and thus the forecast duration for the Rano acquisition is limited to that period. Step 2—estimate minimum acceptable rate of return for acquisition:In developing a company’s average cost of capital, measuring the aftertax cost of debt is relatively straightforward. The cost of equity capital, however, is more difficult to estimate. Rational, risk-averse investors expect to earn a rate of return that will compensate them for accepting greater investment risk. Thus, in assessing the company’s cost of equity capital or the minimum expected return that will induce investors to buy the company’s shares, it is reasonable to assume that they will demand the risk-free rate as reflected in the current yields available in government bonds, plus a premium for accepting equity risk. Recently, the risk-free rate on government bonds has been in the neighborhood of 8.8%. By investing in a portfolio broadly representative of the overall equity market, it is possible to diversify away substantially all of the unsystematic risk—that is, risk specific to individual companies. Therefore, securities are likely to be priced at levels that reward investors only for the non-diversifiable market risk—that is, the systematic risk in movements in the overall market. The risk premium for the overall market is the excess of the expected return on a representative market index such as the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index over the risk-free return. Empirical studies have estimated this market risk premium (representative market index minus risk-free rate) to average historically about 5% to 5.5%.5 I will use a 5.2% premium in subsequent calculations. Investing in an individual security generally involves more or less risk than investing in a broad market portfolio, thus one must adjust the market risk premium appropriately in estimating the cost of equity for an individual security. The risk premium for a security is the product of the market risk premium times the individual security’s systematic risk, as measured by its beta coefficient. The rate of return from dividends and capital appreciation on a market portfolio will, by definition, fluctuate identically with the market, and therefore its beta is equal to 1.0. A beta for an individual security is an index of its risk expressed as its volatility of return in relation to that of a market portfolio.6 Securities with betas greater than 1.0 are more volatile than the market and thus would be expected to have a risk premium greater than the overall market risk premium or the average-risk stock with a beta of 1.0. For example, if a stock moves 1.5% when the market moves 1%, the stock would have a beta of 1.5. Securities with betas less than 1.0 are less volatile than the market and would thus command risk premiums less than the market risk premium. In summary, the cost of equity capital may be calculated by the following equation: kE = RF + Bj (RM – RF) Where kE = cost of equity capital, RF = risk-free rate, Bj = the beta coefficient, RM = representative market index. The acquiring company, Alcar, with a beta of 1.0, estimated its cost of equity as 14% with the foregoing equation: kE = .088 + 1.0(.052) = .140 Since interest on debt is tax deductible, the rate of return that must be earned on the debt portion of the company’s capital structure to maintain the earnings available to common shareholders is the aftertax cost of debt. The aftertax cost of borrowed capital is Alcar’s current beforetax interest rate (9.5%) times 1 minus its effective tax rate of 46%, which is equal to 5.1%. Alcar’s target debt-to-equity ratio is .30, or, equivalently, debt is targeted at 23% and equity at 77% of its overall capitalization as Exhibit VI shows Alcar’s weighted average cost of capital. The appropriate rate for discounting Alcar cash flows to establish its estimated value is then 12%. Exhibit VI Alcar’s Weighted Average Cost of Capital For new capital projects, including acquisitions, that are deemed to have about the same risk as the overall company, Alcar can use its 12% cost-of-capital rate as the appropriate discount rate. Because the company’s cost of capital is determined by the weighted average risk of its component segments, the specific risk of each prospective acquisition should be estimated in order to arrive at the discount rate to apply to the candidate’s cash flows. Rano, with a beta coefficient of 1.25, is more risky than Alcar, with a beta of 1.0. Employing the formula for cost of equity capital for Rano: KE = .088 + 1.25(.052) = .153 On this basis, the risk-adjusted cost of capital for the Rano acquisition is as shown in Exhibit VII. Exhibit VII Risk-adjusted Cost of Capital for Rano Acquisition Step 3—compute maximum acceptable cash price:This step involves taking the cash flow projections developed in Step I and discounting them at the rate developed in Step 2. Exhibit VIII shows the computation of the maximum acceptable cash price for the most likely scenario. The maximum price of $44.51 million, or $40.10 per share, for Rano compares with a $25 current market price for Rano shares. Thus, for the most likely case, Alcar can pay up to $15 per share, or a 60% premium over current market, and still achieve its minimum acceptable 13% return on the acquisition. Exhibit VIII Maximum Acceptable Cash Price for Rano—Most Likely Scenario, with a Discount Rate of .130 (in Million of Dollars) Exhibit IX shows the maximum acceptable cash price for each of the three scenarios for a range of discount rates. To earn a 13% rate of return, Alcar can pay at maximum $38 million ($34.25 per share), assuming the conservative scenario, and up to $53 million ($47.80 per share), assuming the optimistic scenario. Note that as Alcar demands a greater return on its investment, the maximum price it can pay decreases. The reverse is, of course, true as well. For example, for the most likely scenario, the maximum price decreases from $44.51 million to $39.67 million as the return requirement goes from 13% to 14%. Exhibit IX Maximum Acceptable Cash Price for Three Scenarios and a Range of Discount Rates Step 4—compute rate of return for various offering prices and scenarios:Alcar management believes that the absolute minimum successful bid for Rano would be $35 million, or $31.50 per share. Alcar’s investment bankers estimated that it may take a bid of as high as $45 million, or $40.50 per share, to gain control of Rano shares. Exhibit X presents the rates of return that will be earned for four different offering prices, ranging from $35 million to $45 million for each of the three scenarios. Exhibit X Rate of Return for Various Offering Prices and Scenarios Under the optimistic scenario, Alcar could expect a return of 14.4% if it were to pay $45 million. For the most likely case, an offer of $45 million would yield a 12.9% return, or just under the minimum acceptable rate of 13%. This is as expected, since the maximum acceptable cash price as calculated in Exhibit VIII is $44.51 million, or just under the $45 million offer. If Alcar attaches a relatively high probability to the conservative scenario, the risk associated with offers exceeding $38 million becomes apparent. Step 5—analyze feasibility of cash purchase:While Alcar management views the relevant purchase price range for Rano as somewhere between $35 and $45 million, it must also establish whether an all-cash deal is feasible in light of Alcar’s current liquidity and target debt-to-equity ratio. The maximum funds available for the purchase of Rano equal the postmerger debt capacity of the combined company less the combined premerger debt of the two companies plus the combined premerger temporary investments of the two companies. (Net working capital not required for everyday operations of the business is classified as “temporary investment.”) In an all-cash transaction governed by purchase accounting, the acquirer’s shareholders’ equity is unchanged. The postmerger debt capacity is then Alcar’s shareholders’ equity of $272 million times the targeted debt-to-equity ratio of .30, or $81.6 million. Alcar and Rano have premerger debt balances of $56 million and $5.1 million, respectively, for a total of $61.1 million. The unused debt capacity is thus $81.6 million minus $61.1 million, or $20.5 million. Add to this the combined temporary investments of Alcar and Rano of $26 million, and the maximum funds available for the cash purchase of Rano will be $46.5 million. A cash purchase is therefore feasible within the tentative price range of $35 to $45 million. Step 6—evaluate impact of acquisition on Alcar’s EPS and capital structure:Because reported earnings per share (EPS) continue to be of great interest to the financial community, a complete acquisition analysis should include a comparison of projected EPS both with and without the acquisition. Exhibit XI contains this comparative projection. The EPS stream with the acquisition of Rano is systematically greater than the stream without acquisition. The EPS standard, and particularly a short-term EPS standard, is not, however, a reliable basis for assessing whether the acquisition will in fact create value for shareholders.7 Exhibit XI Alcar’s Projected EPS, Debt-to-equity Ratio, and Unused Debt Capacity—Without and with Rano Acquisition Note: Assumed cash purchase price for Rano is $35 million. Several problems arise when EPS is used as a standard for evaluating acquisitions. First, because of accounting measurement problems, the EPS figure can be determined by alternative, equally acceptable methods—for example, LIFO versus FIFO. Second, the EPS standard ignores the time value of money. Third, it does not take into account the risk of the EPS stream. Risk is conditioned not only by the nature of the investment projects a company undertakes but also by the relative proportions of debt and equity used to finance those investments. A company can increase EPS by increasing leverage as long as the marginal return on investment is greater than the interest rate on the new debt. However, if the marginal return on investment is less than the risk-adjusted cost of capital or if the increased leverage leads to an increased cost of capital, then the value of the company could decline despite rising EPS. Primarily because the acquisition of Rano requires that Alcar partially finance the purchase price with bank borrowing, the debt-to-equity ratios with the acquisition are greater than those without the acquisition (see Exhibit XI). Note that even without the Rano acquisition, Alcar is in danger of violating its target debt-to-equity ratio of .30 by the ninth year. The acquisition of Rano accelerates the problem to the fifth year. Whether Alcar purchases Rano or not, management must now be alert to the financing problem, which may force it to issue additional shares or reevaluate its present capital structure policy. Acquisition for stockThe first two steps in the acquisition-for-stock analysis, projecting Rano cash flows and setting the discount rate, have already been completed in connection with the acquisition-for-cash analysis developed in the previous section. The remaining steps of the acquisition-for-stock analysis are:
Step 1—estimate value of Alcar shares:Alcar conducted a comprehensive corporate self-evaluation that included an assessment of its estimated present value based on a range of scenarios. In the interest of brevity, I will consider here only its most likely scenario. Management made most likely projections for its operations, as shown in Exhibit XII. Again using the equation for the cost of equity capital, the minimum EBIT as a percentage of sales needed to earn at Alcar’s 12% cost of capital is 10.9%. Since management can confidently forecast pretax return on sales returns above 10.9% for only the next ten years, the cash flow projections will be limited to that period. Exhibit XII Most Likely Estimates for Alcar Operations Without Acquisition Exhibit XIII presents the computation of the value of Alcar’s equity. Its estimated value of $36.80 per share contrasts with its currently depressed market value of $22 per share. Because Alcar management believes its shares to be substantially undervalued by the market, in the absence of other compelling factors it will be reluctant to acquire Rano by means of an exchange of shares. Exhibit XIII Estimated Present Value of Alcar Equity—Most Likely Scenario, with a Discount Rate of .120 (in Millions of Dollars) To illustrate, suppose that Alcar were to offer $35 million in cash for Rano. Assume the most likely case, that the maximum acceptable cash price is $44.51 million (see Exhibit VIII); thus the acquisition would create about $9.5 million in value for Alcar shareholders. Now assume that instead Alcar agrees to exchange $35 million in market value of its shares in order to acquire Rano. In contrast with the cash case, in the exchange-of-shares case Alcar shareholders can expect to be worse off by $12.1 million. With Alcar shares selling at $22, the company must exchange 1.59 million shares to meet the $35 million offer for Rano. There are currently 10 million Alcar shares outstanding. After the merger, the combined company will be owned 86.27%—i.e., (10.00)/(10.00 + 1.59)—by current Alcar shareholders and 13.73% by Rano shareholders. The $12.1 million loss by Alcar shareholders can then be calculated as shown in Exhibit XIV. Exhibit XIV Calculation of Loss by Alcar Shareholders (in Millions of Dollars) Step 2—compute maximum number of shares Alcar can exchange:The maximum acceptable number of shares to exchange for each of the three scenarios and for a range of discount rates appears in Exhibit XV. To earn a 13% rate of return, Alcar can exchange no more than 1.033, 1.210, and 1.442 million shares, assuming the conservative, most likely, and optimistic scenarios, respectively. Consider, for a moment, the most likely case. At a market value per share of $22, the 1.21 million Alcar shares exchanged would have a total value of $26.62 million, which is less than Rano’s current market value of $27.75 million—that is, 1.11 million shares at $25 per share. Because of the market’s apparent undervaluation of Alcar’s shares, an exchange ratio likely to be acceptable to Rano will clearly be unattractive to Alcar. Exhibit XV Maximum Acceptable Shares to Exchange for Three Scenarios and a Range of Discount Rates (in Millions) Step 3—evaluate impact of acquisition on Alcar’s EPS and capital structure:The $35 million purchase price is just under ten times Rano’s most recent year’s earnings of $3.55 million. At its current market price per share of $22, Alcar is selling at about six times its most recent earnings. The acquiring company will always suffer immediate EPS dilution whenever the price-earnings ratio paid for the selling company is greater than its own. Alcar would suffer immediate dilution from $3.75 to $3.54 in the current year. A comparison of EPS for cash versus an exchange-of-shares transaction appears as part of Exhibit XVI. As expected, the EPS projections for a cash deal are consistently higher than those for an exchange of shares. Exhibit XVI Alcar’s Projected EPS, Debt-to-equity Ratio, and Unused Debt Capacity—Cash vs. Exchange of Shares Note: Assumed purchase price for Rano is $35 million. However, the acquisition of Rano for shares rather than cash would remove, at least for now, Alcar’s projected financing problem. In contrast with a cash acquisition, an exchange of shares enables Alcar to have unused debt capacity at its disposal throughout the ten-year forecast period. Despite the relative attractiveness of this financing flexibility, Alcar management recognized that it could not expect a reasonable rate of return by offering an exchange of shares to Rano. Concluding NoteThe experience of companies that have implemented the approach to acquisition analysis described in this article indicates that it is not only an effective way of evaluating a prospective acquisition candidate but also serves as a catalyst for reevaluating a company’s overall strategic plans. The results also enable management to justify acquisition recommendations to the board of directors in an economically sound, convincing fashion. Various companies have used this approach for evaluation of serious candidates as well as for initial screening of potential candidates. In the latter case, initial input estimates are quickly generated to establish whether the range of maximum acceptable prices is greater than the current market price of the target companies. With the aid of a computer model, this can be accomplished quickly and at relatively low cost. Whether companies are seeking acquisitions or are acquisition targets, it is increasingly clear that they must provide better information to enable top management and boards to make well-conceived, timely decisions. Use of the approach outlined here should improve the prospects of creating value for shareholders by acquisitions. The competitive significance of leading-edge strategic planning is underscored by something that the chief executive of one of America’s most successful companies said recently. In responding to a question asking him to identify the reasons for his company’s outstanding and long-sustained leadership position in its industry, he said: “In the main, our competitors are acquainted with the same fundamental concepts and techniques and approaches that we follow, and they are as free to pursue them as we are. More often than not, the difference between their level of success and ours lies in the relative thoroughness and self-discipline with which we and they develop and execute our strategies for the future.” 1. Malcolm S. Salter and Wolf A. Weinhold, “Diversification via Acquisition: Creating Value,” HBR July–August 1978, p. 166. 2. For a more detailed description on how to conduct a corporate self-evaluation, see my article, “Do You Know the Value of Your Company?” Mergers and Acquisitions, Spring 1979. 3. “The Cash-Flow Takeover Formula,” Business Week, December 18, 1978, p. 86. 4. For an illustration of this calculation, see my article, “Measuring Company Growth Capacity During Inflation,” HBR January–February 1979, p. 91. 5. For example, see Roger G. Ibbotson and Rex A. Sinquefield, Stock, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation: The Past (1926–1976) and the Future (1977–2000) (New York: Financial Analysts Research Foundation, 1977), p. 57. They forecast that returns on common stocks will exceed those on long-term government bonds by 5.4%. 6. For a discussion of some of the problems in estimating beta as a measure of risk, see Eugene F. Brigham, Financial Management: Theory and Practice Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, 1977), p. 666. 7. See William W. Alberts and James M. McTaggart, “The Short-Term Earnings Per Share Standard for Evaluating Prospective Acquisitions,” Mergers and Acquisitions, Winter 1978, p. 4; and Joel M. Stern, “Earnings Per Share Don’t Count,” Financial Analysts Journal, July–August 1974, p. A version of this article appeared in the July 1979 issue of Harvard Business Review. Which of the following is the area of greatest concern in an EDI process?One of the biggest risks applicable to EDI is transaction authorization. Due to electronic interactions, no inherent authentication occurs.
Which information is included in a business case quizlet?The business case presents a detailed explanation of the purpose and objectives for the project. It explains the approach and implications for the business along with the costs, benefits and risks associated with the project and the impacts on [key stakeholders].
Which of the following should be an auditor's primary concern after discovering that the scope of an IS project has changed and impact study has not been performed?The IS auditor's MAIN concern should be that the: complexity and risk associated with the project have been analyzed.
Who should review and approve software deliverables to confirm the successful conclusion and operation of a new system application?User Mgt should review and approve system deliverables as they are defined and accomplished or implemented. works on the principle of obtaining project time lines based on project events for 3 likely senarios (worst, best, normal).
|
