Seagate technology buyout exhibits-Study On The Seagate Technology Buyout Finance Essay | CustomWritings

Table of Contents 1 2 3 4 Case Summary Leveraged Buyout Analysis and Identification of the Right Alternative Findings and Recommendation This resulted in occurrences of Seagate's stake in VERITAS exceeding the entire market value of Seagate's equity, essentially assigning a negative value to Seagate's large and market-leading disk drive business.

Description: seagate buyout. How would you incorporate this into your analysis and valuation? Tarun Gupta. This will be a leveraged buyout that includes two different equity sources and two different debt sources. Seagate Technology Buyout Case Solution. Ali Latif. The equity ratio of Seagate was Why is Seagate undertaking this transaction? Agung Racers Weightlifting.

Liver fatty deposits gallbladder cleanse. Email to Receive Password

To regain its competitiveness, the company has to significantly reduce its debt, by billions of dollars. To regain its competitiveness the company has to significantly reduce its debt, by billions of dollars. Retirement Planner. See Full Profile. Seagate Q4 adj. Technology 0. Back to Learning Center. Adobe results on Tuesday offer investors a chance to reassess the group. Sign Up Log In. Journal Article - January 1, Is Your Stuff Safe in the Cloud? The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of AQR Capital Management, LLC, its affiliates or its employees. Kodak Catches Crypto Fever Jan. This information is not intended to, and does Seagate technology buyout exhibits relate specifically to any investment strategy or product that AQR offers. ET by Barron's.

This case is about the leverages buyout of Seagate Technology.

  • Gilson, Stuart C.
  • The stock has rallied
  • In March , the computer disc-drive maker Seagate Technology, Inc.

Below are the available bulk discount rates for each individual item when you purchase a certain amount. Register as a Premium Educator at hbsp. Publication Date: April 16, Source: Harvard Business School. In March , a group of private investors and senior managers were negotiating a deal to acquire the disk drive operations of Seagate Technology. The motivating factor for the buyout was the apparently anomalous market value of Seagate's equity: Seagate's equity value was just a fraction of the value of its minority stake in Veritas Software Corp.

The investor group had to decide how much to offer for the operating assets, as well as how to finance the transaction. Further complicating the analysis was the fact that, unlike in traditional buyout settings, the target company was in a highly cyclical, volatile, and capital--intensive industry.

If you'd like to share this PDF, you can purchase copyright permissions by increasing the quantity. Gilson ,. Quantity price applied. Add Copyright Permission. Copyright Permission Qty:. Current Stock:. Buying for your team? See quantity pricing. This is a copyrighted PDF. Add copies before sharing with your team. Are you an educator? Pages: Newsletter Promo Summaries and excerpts of the latest books, special offers, and more from Harvard Business Review Press.

Sign up. This Product Also Appears In. Buy Together. Related Products. View Details. By Paul M. HBR Article. Luehrman ,. By Benjamin C. Auerbach ,. By Robert F.

Copyright Permissions If you'd like to share this PDF, you can purchase copyright permissions by increasing the quantity. Order for your team and save!

The information contained herein is only as current as of the date indicated, and may be superseded by subsequent market events or for other reasons. Gilson and Sarah L. How much were Sabine's oil and gas reserves worth today? Further complicating the analysis was the fact that, unlike in traditional buyout settings, the target company was in a highly cyclical, volatile and capital-intensive industry. Gilson , Kristin Mugford and Sarah L. ET on SmarterAnalyst.

Seagate technology buyout exhibits. Most Popular Articles


Seagate LBO analysis | Dividend | Working Capital

Motivation and structure of the transaction. In early , Seagate was planning on major restructuring proposal with the private equity firm, Silver Lake partners L. We address each of these alternatives next.

Seagate could choose to sell itself to other companies that may be interested. A merger or acquisition, in this case, could be either horizontal or vertical. Whereas a horizontal merger or acquisition could be beneficial for Seagate, because of the even higher market in the very competitive disk drive market, a vertical merger would be less successful as the company is already vertically integrated. But VERITAS was not interested in entering into the disk drive industry as management believed this was to far away from their core software business.

However both actions proved to be ineffective. Even if they could sell off the entire VERITAS stake, it still seems an undesirable outcome since the transactions would be taxable on both the corporate as personal accounts. Second when the company performed a repurchase it had little impact on its stock price. A tax free spin-off would imply that Seagate spins off one of its business units, the core disk drive business or the VERITAS stake as an entirely new company.

However the internal revenue code, as part of the US statuary tax law, requires that both the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation must be engaged immediately after the distribution in an actively conducted trade or business for a five-year period.

Furthermore it also states that the corporate divisions lacking a business purpose can not be accomplished tax free IRS, Besides the distribution must be the last resort for solving the business problem. In other words, it must be established that the business problem cannot be solved otherwise. This condition also does not hold since, as we will later see, the proposed two step transaction remains as a valid alternative.

After reviewing these alternatives the proposed two step transaction seems to be baneful, mostly due to its low tax nature.

As indicated in the case the stock-for-stock swap qualifies as a reorganization under the Internal Revenue Code, thus avoiding the tax implications as a swap. VERITAS will swap ,, shares for ,, shares previously owned by Seagate, and the tax advantage will be Huge as no personal or corporate taxes have to be paid on the transaction.

Furthermore the decrease in total outstanding shares associated with the deal will cause earnings per share to rise, cetris paribus. Compared to the 25 percent increase over the same period of its own shares this is a significant difference.

The benefits to be received here, and thus also the potential benefits of Silver lake Partners L. Corporate governance is now considerable tighter than in the old situation. A sincere loser of the reorganization is the government that could have gained more in taxes if one of the pre-described alternatives were chosen. There are a number of benefits of leveraged buy outs. Business efficiency improvements, increased interest tax shields, change of management or improved management incentives and higher firm value are the most important possible effects.

In the case Seagate an increase of the stock price was the most important target of the leveraged buyout. The trial to increase the stock price by means of selling VERITAS shares and buy own shares in the open market did not lead to the aimed target. Besides of this main purpose to disconnect the stock price development from VERITAS also other positive effects of leveraged buyout could be realized, as the improvement of the market position of Seagate from a strategic and long-term point of view.

As a consequence a higher probability to secure a positive stock price development after being on the stock market again can be attained. Another positive aspect of leveraged buyouts are taxes that can be saved through higher debts and interest that is tax-deductible.

Although it should be considered that interest cannot be deducted unlimited because of interest barrier rules or earnings stripping rules. Therefore the interest only can be deducted to a certain extent, depending on the debt-to-equity ratio. There are specific regulations that differ from country to country. In case of cross-border leveraged buyouts the situation should be analyzed separately. Within the EU there is no different treatment in cross-border situations because of the freedom of establishment and the freedom of capital of the EC Treaty.

A decisive argument of leveraged buyouts is the possibility that enterprises that were poorly managed before their acquisition can undergo valuable corporate reformation when they become private. An important change in the corporate structure is often the modification and replacement of the management staff or improved management incentives.

In the Seagate case Silver Lake was convinced about the abilities of the management team. Silver Lake argued that the members of the management team had over ten years of experience in the disk drive industry and underlined that it was an important condition of the deal that the six top managers were taken over.

In many articles it is argued differently as a restructuring without modification of management staff is much harder and there is a stronger opposition against many unpleasant but necessary changes. As incentives the management had to convert a portion of their Seagate equity into new equity and also got some deferred compensation.

The rejection of unnecessary company sectors as well as the reduction of excessive expenditures also is an important factor for the success of the deal. In the leveraged buyout market stable and predictable cash flows and significant tangible assets which can be provided as security for bank loans are positive preconditions.

These are features that make an enterprise for private equity firms interesting to invest. In the s and early s industrial companies were strongly favored and technology business was avoided. These are features that make buyouts very risky. It makes it difficult to predict cash flows, which plays a significant role for the success of a leveraged buyout.

Nevertheless Silver Lake was convinced that in general the disk drive industry market development would be extremely positive and that the disk drives would be the key technological component in hardware products.

It also should be taken into account that Seagate had a number of characteristics that were from a positive nature for a leveraged buyout like vertical integration for a better competitive position on the market. Another advantage of Seagate was the relatively high equity ratio compared with the technological industry. The equity ratio of Seagate was The equity ratio of its competitors were lower, f.

The average equity ratio of mature industries is between 20 and 25 per cent depending on the country. In order to assess the capital structure of the deal and in essence the amount of debt the Luczo and the buyout team should take it is necessary to estimate the firm value.

Two model are being considered for this task. The first one is the relative valuation model. The rationale for relative valuation stems from the notion that the intrinsic value of an asset is difficult to estimate. Its value can be measured by the price the market is willing to pay for its assets, based upon its characteristics.

The second model being considered is the DCF model. When comparing relative valuation with DCF, one advantage over DCF is the reflection of market perceptions on the value of the company. Thus, in a perfect market, the perceptions of future prospects are already reflected in the stock price.

It requires less information than DCF models and is therefore less prone to estimation errors. In addition, managers are often judged on a relative basis and relative valuation might therefore match their needs and horizons.

Markets are assumed to make mistakes when pricing assets across time. DCF valuations detach themselves from market valuations and assess the fundamentals underlying the firm and its growth perspectives. Relative valuation leads to a reasonable estimate when there are many comparable assets that are priced in the market and a common variable can be applied to standardize the prices.

Although the case offers some information on competitors we deem the data to be insufficient. Even more, relative valuation works best for investors that usually have relatively short investment horizons as it is rather difficult or impossible for the market to perceive long-term growth perspectives. More confidence in reasonable firm value estimation is thus assigned to the DCF valuation. The fundamentals of a company provide a prudent basis for estimations.

Assumptions for the estimations are transparent while these are rather not in the case of relative valuation. A DCF valuation can be applied to long-time horizons and is thus more applicable for investors with long-term investment perspectives.

In addition, a fundamental approach might work as a catalyst that moves the price in the market towards the real value of the assets. Silver Lake Partners L. Cash flows coming from operating activities would therefore need to be estimated. A first step concludes in the calculation of free cash flows to firm FCFF. Capital expenditures and Depreciation are to remain the same in all three cases.

The values used are provided in the operating performance projections table of Seagate. The working capital WC is mentioned in the case as being historically equal to 0 for the industry so the change in WC is to be ignored. According to this values the FCFF can be computed. The value for the risk free rate and the market risk premium have been set as given by Damodaran as 3. The beta of the company is supplied by the case as 1.

By summing up this values for the required time horizon we get to the firm values for the three cases. As it can be noticed the firm values for the cases register important differences. The Upside case stands out. Comparable to this the Downside Case has a much smaller difference. This will be a leveraged buyout that includes two different equity sources and two different debt sources.

This structure was chosen based on the BBB three-year median rates as referenced in the case Exhibit In order to get the highest value for the firm when deciding to sell it, the PE firm will try to maintain its rating or even to improve it so it makes sense to consider the BBB value as appropriate.

Even more lower rating will also mean higher interest rates for its debt. Using this value and the EBIT values provided for the case we can compute the amount of interest that the firm can afford to pay every year. It can be noticed in Exhibit 1 that the lowest value for EBIT is predicted in year so it makes sense to consider this value as a benchmark as the following years the performance is expected to improve. Starting from amount of interest that the firm can afford to pay every year we calculated the value of debt that the firm has to take in order to be required to pay that amount of interest.

By comparing this result with the values provided in Exhibit 11 from the case it can be noticed that the firm will remain under BBB rating. It should also be considered that Silver Lake Partners L.

In order to better assess the impact of the three scenarios on the capital structure of the deal we also used the values computed under The Base Case, The Upside Case and The Downside Case. Again it can be noticed that the better performance predictions stand out. This is based on the possibility that in the latter years of the investment the firm will perform over the expectations even though is perceived as the same in all cases.