DOCSLIB.ORG

XARR: Regional: Equity Investment Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
XARR: Regional: Equity Investment Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Extended Annual Review Report Project Number: 30711 Investment Number: 7134/7135 October 2012 Equity Investment Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund and the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Management Limited (Regional) This XARR contains information that is subject to disclosure restrictions agreed between the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the relevant sponsor or recipient of funds from ADB. Recipients should therefore not disclose its content to third parties, except in connection with the performance of their official duties. ADB shall make publicly available an abbreviated version of this XARR, which will exclude confidential information. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency Unit – United States dollars ($) ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank AMF – Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund AMFCL – Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Management Limited DAI – Darby Asia Investors Limited Darby – Darby Overseas Investors Limited DMC – developing member country FIRR – financial internal rate of return PAII – Prudential Asia Infrastructure Investors Limited PRC – People’s Republic of China XARR – extended annual review report NOTES (i) The fiscal year (FY) of the company ends on 31 December. (ii) In this report, "$" refers to US dollars. Vice-President L. Venkatachalam, Private Sector and Cofinancing Operations Director General P. Erquiaga, Private Sector Operations Department (PSOD) Director R. van Zwieten, Capital Markets and Financial Sectors Division, PSOD Team leader A. Taneja, Principal Investment Specialist, PSOD Team member T. Aquino, Investment Officer, PSOD In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. CONTENTS Page BASIC DATA i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ii I. THE PROJECT 1 A. Project Background 1 B. Key Project Features 1 C. Progress Highlights 2 II. EVALUATION 3 A. Project Rationale and Objectives 3 B. Development Impact 3 C. ADB Investment Profitability 5 D. ADB Work Quality 6 E. ADB’s Additionality 7 F. Overall Evaluation 7 III. ISSUES, LESSONS, AND RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 8 A. Issues and Lessons 8 B. Recommended Follow-Up Actions 9 APPENDIXES 1. Private Sector Development Indicators and Ratings 10 2. Key Features of the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund 12 3. Effect of the Asian Financial Crisis on the Infrastructure Sector 13 4. Summary of Investments 15 5. Private Equity Funds in Asia: Industry and Operations Review 17 6. Investment Summary of the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund 21 7. The Asian Development Bank’s Cash Flows from the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund 24 8. Assessment of Fund Performance 25 BASIC DATA Equity Investment: Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund and Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund Management Limited (Investment No. 7134/7135- Regional) Key Project Data As per ADB Investment Actual Documents ($ million) ($ million) Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund: Total Project Cost (target fund size) 500.0 246.0 ADB Investment: Equity: Committed 25.0 25.0 Disbursed 24.1 Returned (as of 31 December 2011) 21.5 Risk Rating E Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund Management Limited: Total Paid-In Capital 10.0 ADB Investment: Equity: Committed 2.0 0.0 Disbursed Returned (as of 31 December 2011) N/A Risk Rating N/A Key Dates Expected Actual Board Approval 17 December 1996 Signing Date 22 December 1997 Effective Date 22 December 1997 Initial Disbursement 29 December 1998 Financial Internal Rates of Return (%) Appraisal XARR Gross Financial Internal Rate of Return of Not specified 2.1% Portfolio Net Financial Internal Rate of Return to Investors Not specified (2.0%) (AMF) Project Administration and Monitoring No. of Missions No. of Person- Days Fact-Finding Data not available Appraisal Project Administration 3 3 XARR Mission 1 2 () = negative, XARR = extended annual review report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In December 1996, the Board of Directors of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) approved an investment of $25 million in the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Fund (AMF) and up to $2 million in the Asian Infrastructure Mezzanine Capital Management Limited (AMFCL). The fund was formed during a period of rising demand for infrastructure among ADB’s developing member countries. Since the fund was conceptualized prior to the Asian financial crisis, it was envisaged that private capital would complement and draw support from continued government investment in meeting the vast financing needs of this sector. AMF was structured as a closed-end fund with a term of 12 years and an option to extend the term for up to 2 years. The fund was to focus on making investments, principally through mezzanine financing structures in private sector companies developing infrastructure projects in the region. AMFCL, the fund manager, was to be jointly owned, 80% by Prudential Asia Infrastructure Investors Limited (PAII, a wholly owned subsidiary of Prudential Insurance Company of America, or Prudential) and 20% by ADB. However, due to certain differences related to capitalization of initial expenses, ADB did not participate in AMFCL. Further, in 2002, as a part of its global business restructuring, Prudential decided to exit from its investment management activities. As a consequence of that, Darby Overseas Investors Ltd. (Darby) acquired the assets and operations of PAII and took over operations of AMFCL. The Asian financial crisis occurred shortly after the fund’s first closing. This resulted in much lower interest in the fund and was the main reason behind the fund not meeting its target of $500 million in committed capital. The fund had its final closing in January 1998, with $246 million in total committed capital from 11 investors. The crisis also substantially reduced the pace and the profile of the fund’s investments. The fund invested a total of $276.5 million in nine portfolio companies, of which about 80% was invested in the power and telecommunications sector and nearly 18% in the internet and broadband sector. The fund’s investments were in the range of about $1–70 million and were made in India, Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Philippines, and the Republic of Korea. Overall, the fund concept was adequately structured and aligned to the needs of the sector. However, the onset of the Asian financial crisis completely altered the investment climate, the overall private sector interest, and the flow of capital for such investments. The fund distributed $242 million to its investors from dividends, interest, loan amortization, and exit proceeds of its investments. ADB received a total of $21.49 million in distributions, resulting in a net financial internal rate of return (FIRR) of –1.99%, and a multiple to cost of 0.89 times (i.e., a loss of capital). A somewhat positive aspect has been the ability of Darby to recover capital from some of the large and intensely distressed investments initially made by the fund. In reference to private sector development, the fund is rated less than satisfactory, due to its lack of constructive impact on the investment environment and its limited ability to disseminate new industry knowledge or demonstration effects outside of its organization and stakeholders. No follow-on funds have replicated the AMF investment strategy, which invalidates any direct or indirect demonstration effect by the fund. The fund’s financial performance and its modest contribution to incremental infrastructure capacity in the region translate into unsatisfactory ratings on business success and economic sustainability-related parameters. The below-expectations performance of AMF was caused by investment conditions in the post-crisis years and shortfalls in the fund’s investment strategy. It was also, to some extent, due to weak internal processes being run by AMFCL in the initial years of AMF’s operations. While it was not clearly defined in the report and recommendation of iii the President, the fund’s documents mention a targeted return of the prevailing Treasury bond yield, plus a spread of 700–800 basis points. Against the target of net FIRR of about 13%, AMF’s FIRR of –2% is significantly short, implying an unsatisfactory rating for ADB’s investment profitability. One of the reasons for this poor performance has been the substantial write-downs (27%–35%) on some of the large investments made by the fund. This does not bring forth the fund’s success in extracting capital from other severely distressed investments, which perhaps should have been avoided in the first place. AMF’s performance on environment, social, health, and safety-related aspects has been satisfactory, as the fund’s investee companies have not reported any instances of material breaches of local environmental regulations. While the fund’s reporting and monitoring practices could be improved further to meet best practices, the overall arrangement was acceptable. The review highlights that ADB’s performance and contribution, on factors which aggregate to define its work quality and additionality, were less than satisfactory, even after factoring in the substantial impact that was made in the post-crisis fundraising period for AMF. A shortfall in the initial screening and appraisal activity was perhaps an incorrect assessment of the impact of the Asian financial crisis on the investible
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Content Part 1: Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A)
    Content Endorsements V Preface VII Authors IX Part 1: Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) Chapter 1: Why Mergers&Acquisitions? 1.1 The Term "Mergers & Acquisitions" 1 1.1.1 Mergers 2 1.1.2 Acquisitions 6 1.1.3 M&A and business alliances 6 1.1.3.1 Forms of business alliances 6 1.1.3.2 M&A versus business alliances 9 1.2 Reasons for and success factors of M&A 10 1.3 M&A of listed companies 13 1.3.1 Challenges for listed companies 13 1.3.1.1 Increased public perception 13 1.3.1.2 Shareholder structure 14 1.3.1.3 The target company's share price as an uncertainty factor 14 1.3.1.4 The bidder company's share price as an uncertainty factor 15 1.3.2 Legal characteristics 16 1.3.2.1 The regulations of § 93 AktG 16 1.3.2.2 The regulations of § 15 WpÜG 16 1.3.2.3 The regulations off 21 WpHG 16 1.3.3 Takeover regulations 16 1.3.3.1 Overview of the "Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetz" (WpÜG) (Security Purchase and Takeover Act) 17 1.3.3.2 The bid process according to the WpÜG 18 1.3.3.3 Squeeze out 20 1.4 The process of M&A 21 Chapter 2: Initial Phase (Phase 1) 2.1 Pitch 23 2.2 Choice of process 25 2.2.1 The discrete approach 25 2.2.2 Simultaneous bilateral negotiations 25 2.2.3 Controlled competitive auction 25 2.2.4 Full public auction 25 2.3 Candidate screening and selection 27 2.3.1 MBO or MBI 28 Bibliografische Informationen digitalisiert durch http://d-nb.info/997693088 XII Content 2.3.2 Financial investors 29 2.3.3 Strategie investors 30 2.4 Advisers 32 2.4.1 Investment banks 32 2.4.2 Accountants and tax advisers 33 2.4.3 Lawyers 34 2.4.4 Other
    [Show full text]
  • Mezzanine Finance White Paper 2Nd Edition
    Mezzanine Finance White Paper 2nd Edition Corry Silbernagel Davis Vaitkunas Amendments to Mezzanine Capital Structures section with Ian Giddy, NYU Stern School of Business, 2012 Copyright © 2003-2018 Bond Capital Mezzanine Inc. - All rights reserved. 1730 - 1111 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 4M3 T 604.687.2663 www.bondcapital.ca MEZZANINE FINANCE Mezzanine investments are tailored investments that bring the preferred features of both debt and equity into a single facility. Mezzanine investors are often non-bank institutions and specialty funds seeking absolute return on capital. Mezzanine facilities are customized to the specific cash flow need of the investee Companies that use company, which not only helps the investee company mezzanine capital get more senior debt capital, but may also reduce the access more capital need for equity and thus dilution to the shareholders. and can achieve higher Common transactions that use mezzanine facilities include growth through expansion projects, acquisitions, returns on equity. recapitalizations, management buyouts, and leveraged buyouts. Companies that use mezzanine capital access more capital and can achieve higher returns on equity. The availability of mezzanine capital can be cyclical, while the amount used in any transaction is influenced by market leverage profiles and the availability of senior debt and equity sources. The pricing of a combination of senior debt and mezzanine debt can be comparable to that of a high yield note. Most mezzanine investments are repaid through cash generated by the business, a change-of-control sale or recapitalization of the company. 2 Mezzanine Finance White Paper Copyright © 2003-2018 Bond Capital Mezzanine Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers & Acquisitions
    Chepakovich valuation model 1 Chepakovich valuation model The Chepakovich valuation model uses the discounted cash flow valuation approach. It was first developed by Alexander Chepakovich in 2000 and perfected in subsequent years. The model was originally designed for valuation of “growth stocks” (ordinary/common shares of companies experiencing high revenue growth rates) and is successfully applied to valuation of high-tech companies, even those that do not generate profit yet. At the same time, it is a general valuation model and can also be applied to no-growth or negative growth companies. In a limiting case, when there is no growth in revenues, the model yields similar (but not the same) valuation result as a regular discounted cash flow to equity model. The key distinguishing feature of the Chepakovich valuation model is separate forecasting of fixed (or quasi-fixed) and variable expenses for the valuated company. The model assumes that fixed expenses will only change at the rate of inflation or other predetermined rate of escalation, while variable expenses are set to be a fixed percentage of revenues (subject to efficiency improvement/degradation in the future – when this can be foreseen). This feature makes possible valuation of start-ups and other high-growth companies on a Example of future financial performance of a currently loss-making but fast-growing fundamental basis, i.e. with company determination of their intrinsic values. Such companies initially have high fixed costs (relative to revenues) and small or negative net income. However, high rate of revenue growth insures that gross profit (defined here as revenues minus variable expenses) will grow rapidly in proportion to fixed expenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Mezzanine Debt:Benefits Or Drawbacks for Firm's
    Revista Tinerilor Economiti (The Young Economists Journal) MEZZANINE DEBT: BENEFITS OR DRAWBACKS FOR FIRM’S FINANCING? Assoc. Prof. Ph.D Giurca Vasilescu Laura University of Craiova Faculty of Economy and Business Administration, Craiova, Romania Abstract: Mezzanine finance is an alternative source of finance to debt and equity and it can be helpful in financing the start-up and firms’ expansion. But in order to take their investment decisions, the firms should compare the benefits and challenges generated by this form of financing in function of their development stage or the specific features of their activities. Despite the fact that mezzanine finance instruments are gaining in importance, and the advantages overtake the disadvantages, they still remain little used compared with traditional forms of financing (loan financing). JEL classification: G32, M21 Key words: mezzanine debt, financing, firm, benefits, disadvantages Introduction Nowdays the access to finance become more and more restrictive: the existing credit lines have been reduced and new loans from traditional lenders are difficult to obtain. Also, the access to the public capital markets is virtually non-existent. Moreover, in the new circumstances generated by the international financial crisis, the firms have to face the difficult economic condition and an increasing need for major investments. Also, the continuing turmoil from the financial markets made lenders more risk averse and consequently, they continue to reduce the availability of credit and limit leverage (von Bradsky and French, 2008). Therefore, alternative forms of financing such as mezzanine debt are becoming more and more a supplement to the traditional forms of corporate financing for firms (Brokamp et all, 2004), (Glen, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Financing Instruments and Incentives
    Infrastructure Financing Instruments and Incentives 2015 Infrastructure Financing Instruments and Incentives Contact: Raffaele Della Croce, Financial Affairs Division, OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs [Tel: +33 1 45 24 14 11 | [email protected]], Joel Paula, Financial Affairs Division, OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs [Tel: +33 1 45 24 19 30 | [email protected]] or Mr. André Laboul, Deputy-Director, OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs [Tel: +33 1 45 24 91 27 | [email protected]]. FOREWORD Foreword This taxonomy of instruments and incentives for infrastructure financing maps out the investment options available to private investors, and which instruments and incentives are available to attract private sector investment in infrastructure. The coverage of instruments is comprehensive in nature, spanning all forms of debt and equity and risk mitigation tools deployed by governments and agents. While the taxonomy is meant to capture all forms of private infrastructure finance techniques, a focus of this work is to identify new and innovative financing instruments and risk mitigation techniques used to finance infrastructure assets. Part I of this report provides the foundation for the identification of effective financing approaches, instruments, and vehicles that could broaden the financing options available for infrastructure projects and increase as well as diversify the investor base, potentially lowering the cost of funding and increasing the availability of financing in infrastructure sectors or regions where investment gaps might exist. Part II identifies the range of incentives and risk mitigation tools, both public and private, that can foster the mobilisation of financing for infrastructure, particularly those related to mitigating commercial risks.
    [Show full text]
  • Reprint Perspectives on the Capital Markets W I N T E R 2 0 0 4
    REPRINT PERSPECTIVES ON THE CAPITAL MARKETS W I N T E R 2 0 0 4 Mezzanine Financing An intermediate stage of capital, mezzanine is typically employed by middle-market companies to fill a shortfall in financing. by Michael T. Newsome ezzanine is a tier of higher-risk capi- The two primary situations where mezzanine tal almost exclusively geared toward ......... is typically employed are: Mprivately held companies with spe- Mezzanine financing is Funding a capital investment as part of a cific event-driven financing requirements. major plant expansion or an acquisition that This capital combines the characteristics of commonly an event-driven is intended to provide significant growth; or debt and equity, and is often referred to as transitional source of funding, Re-engineering the capital structure in subordinated debt. Like the architectural providing funding for high- order to buyout one or more shareholders, or term from which it is derived, mezzanine pay out a special dividend. financing represents an intermediate stage rate-of-return investment In the former case, the new investment is of capital, squeezed between senior secured opportunities for mature, expected to be the catalyst for a significant loans and equity financing. developed companies. increase in corporate value. The latter situ- Mezzanine is the private equivalent of ation is designed to maximize equity returns public high-yield debt. Issuances usually It makes sense in circum- through the application of financial leverage. range in size from $3 million to $25 million, stances where the investment The most suitable mezzanine candidates but can be as large as $150 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Unpacking Private Equity Characteristics and Implications by Asset Class
    Unpacking Private Equity Characteristics and Implications by Asset Class www.mccombiegroup.com | +1 (786) 664-8340 Unpacking Private Equity: Characteristics & implications by asset class The term private equity is often treated as a catchall, used interchangeably to describe a broad variety of investments. Such loose use of the phrase fails to capture the range of nuanced business ownership strategies it refers to and risks branding an entire asset class with characteristics and implications that are typically relevant to only a particular sub-category. Recently, this has especially been the case given the outsized global attention placed on the leveraged buyout deals of Bain Capital, a private equity firm founded by Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In this context, popular discourse has inappropriately attached the label of private equity to a general practice of debt-fueled corporate takeovers that disproportionately focus on cost cutting. In reality, however, private equity refers to an array of investment strategies each with a unique risk-return profile and differing core skillsets for success. This article is intended to help family office executives better understand the nuances of the various sub-categories of private equity. It seeks to draw high-level distinctions, serving as a practical guide for investors entering the private equity arena, be it directly or through a more curated fund structure. Ultimately by understanding the characteristics and implications of each asset class, the reader should be equipped to make an educated choice regarding the most relevant and appropriate strategy for their unique profile. From a technical perspective, private equity is nothing more than making investments into illiquid non-publicly traded companies— i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Accession Mezzanine Capital III LP
    SECTION I: NON-CONFIDENTIAL PROJECT INFORMATION Host Countries: Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Czech Republic Name of Borrower: Accession Mezzanine Capital III L.P. or a subsidiary thereof (“AMC III” or the “Fund”), an English limited partnership. Sponsor: Mezzanine Capital Partners Limited (the “Sponsor”), a Jersey limited company. Project Description: The Fund will make mezzanine loans with equity warrants or options in small and medium-sized firms in Central and Eastern Europe (“CEE”). Total Fund Capitalization: The Fund has a total capitalization target of €300 million (approx. US$ 405 million), including the proposed OPIC loan amount. Proposed OPIC Loan: OPIC loan guaranty of up to $75 million in principal plus accrued and accreted interest thereon. Term of Fund: Ten years, with the possibility of two one-year extensions subject to approval by limited partners. Selection Process: On November 1, 2011, OPIC announced a Global Engagement Call for proposals (the “Call”). The purpose of the Call is to finance one or more selected funds to facilitate the investment of risk capital to companies or projects within OPIC-eligible countries for new business development, existing company expansion, restructuring, and/or privatization. During the Call, OPIC has been guided by its present policy priorities and asset allocation strategy in its selection process to coordinate its response to policy initiatives and market needs, and to maintain a balanced portfolio. The OPIC Evaluation Committee selected the Fund from among 158 respondents to the GEC with the assistance of Altius Associates as investment consultant. The Fund advances the objectives of the Call as it invests risk capital that facilitates new business development and existing company expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy Primer: Investing in Mezzanine Debt
    oaktree insights may 2016 strategy primer: investing in mezzanine debt 333 s. grand ave 28th floor, los angeles, ca 90071 | (213) 830-6300 | www.oaktreecapital.com bill casperson Managing Director and Co-Portfolio Manager Mr. Casperson joined Oaktree in 2001. He has been with the Middle-Market Finance Group since its inception, and currently serves as co‐portfolio manager. Prior to joining, Mr. Casperson worked in the Leveraged Finance and Global Syndicated Finance Groups at J.P. Morgan Chase where he was responsible for leading high yield deal teams in all phases of due diligence and “one‐stop” financings including senior credit facilities, high yield bonds and bridge loans. Prior thereto, Mr. Casperson was a member of Chase Manhattan’s Financial Sponsor Group, where he was responsible for managing relationships with a variety of buyout funds. From 1989 to 1998, Mr. Casperson worked at NationsBank N.A., most recently as a Principal in the High Yield Finance Group. Prior to NationsBank, he was an auditor at Touche Ross & Co. Mr. Casperson holds a B.A. degree in accounting from Rutgers University and an M.B.A. from the University of Michigan School of Business Administration with a concentration in finance. “Mezzanine capital plays an important role in growth- and acquisition-related financings in the North American middle-market. Private lending in the middle-market is relatively inefficient; and with banks and other traditional lenders exiting the market, there remains a unique opportunity for seasoned mezzanine capital providers to find attractive investments.” “This paper intends to discuss the mezzanine debt asset class, the opportunity set and our perspectives at Oaktree.
    [Show full text]
  • Mezzanine Financing
    Reprinted from the May 2003 Issue Mezzanine Financing: Bridging the Funding Gap As mezzanine financing gains understanding and acceptance throughout the capital markets, it is proving to be a powerful resource for funding growth and provides lenders and borrowers alike a tool in bridging the funding gap. By Theodore H. Sprink well-known and respected manufacturer of automobile parts is bank loan. The mezzanine debt is senior to the original equity but junior to focused on an opportunity to acquire a leading competitor, which the bank, hence, viewed to reside in the middle. Mezzanine financing is gener- A will firmly position the new entity as a market leader for its ally used to fill the gap between first mortgage financing and the equity partic- combined product line. Each company has operated for more than 15 ipation of the principals of the borrowing entity. The mezzanine loan is often years under its current ownership and management, each believes it has viewed as “interim” financing, and is sometimes referred to as a “bridge”. a solid balance sheet and both enjoy positive cash flows. Both have impres- The mezzanine component generally represents well below 50% of a sive production facilities, and each firm’s product line complements the “transaction’s” capital structure. With the Loan-To-Value (LTV) ratio of first other’s customer list. There are savings that can be associated with elim- mortgage financing commonly limited by loan agreement to 75% (this agree- inating certain expenses once the companies are combined; and it appears ment frequently restricts further encumbrances in the form of second mort- the purchase price is right.
    [Show full text]
  • Mezzanine Finance for Independents: How to Keep Your Project Moving
    Mezzanine Finance for Independents: How to Keep Your Project Moving SIPES Houston, TX August 22, 2013 Overview . About Five States . Why Review Financing? . What is Mezzanine? . Cost of Capital . Case Studies ABOUT FIVE STATES Five States Energy Capital, LLC •Five States Energy Company, Inc. 1985 •Acquires operated and non-operated working interests • Five States Operating Company, Inc. • Operates Five States’ interest properties 1985 • Total Energy Asset Management Services (TEAMS) • Oversight of portfolio asset properties 2004 • Five States Energy Capital, LLC • Provides mezzanine capital to independents 2007 Why Review Financing? Independents % Allocation of Time Activity % of Time Research & Culling Data 35 - 65 Project Development 10 - 20 Project Financing 20 - 50 Administration 10 - 20 Why Review Financing? Independents’ Sources of Development Capital • Available Cash • Cash Flow from Previous Activities • Sell Down of Promoted Interest • Cash Flow from Current Project • Convert Working Interest to Override • Bank Loans • Convenient Sources • Mezzanine Financing! WHAT IS MEZZANINE? What is Mezzanine? . Fills Gap Between Senior Senior Asset Backed Debt Debt and Equity . Subordinate in Priority of Payment to Senior Debt MEZZANINE . Senior in Rank to Equity . Stretch Debt . As With Banks, Advances Usually Based on Proved Equity Reserve Base Mezzanine typically fits: . Development drilling programs . Acquisition financing . Infrastructure financing . Bank clients that are over extended (but typically still solvent) Capital Structure in Oil & Natural Gas Transaction • Advantages – Not a sale of equity – No loss of control of company – No requirement to sell on a schedule – Puts up majority of development capital with minority stake in project – Appears as debt; can be financed from pre-tax revenue – No board position required Companies with Efficient Capital Structures Expected Typical Private Equity Structure .
    [Show full text]
  • Mezzanine Finance Explained
    Mezzanine Finance by Corry Silbernagel Davis Vaitkunas Bond Capital With a supplement by Ian Giddy Mezzanine Debt--Another Level To Consider Mezzanine debt is used by companies that are cash flow positive to fund: further growth through expansion projects; acquisitions; recapitalizations; and, management and leveraged buyouts. When mezzanine debt is used in conjunction with senior debt it reduces the amount of equity required in the business. As equity is the most expensive form of capital, it is most cost effective to create a capital structure that secures the most funding, offers the lowest cost of capital, and maximizes return on equity. Mezzanine debt has been around for over 30 years, however its use in Western Canada and the Pacific Northwest is relatively new and growing. Leading companies in this region are starting to use mezzanine debt to fund the growth today that the chartered banks will not fund until tomorrow. What Is Mezzanine Debt? Mezzanine debt capital generally refers to that layer of financing between a company's senior debt and equity, filling the gap between the two. Structurally, it is subordinate in priority of payment to senior debt, but senior in rank to common stock or equity (Exhibit #1). In a broader sense, mezzanine debt may take the form of convertible debt, senior subordinated debt or private "mezzanine" securities (debt with warrants or preferred equity). MEZZANINE FILLS THE GAP BETWEEN SENIOR DEBT AND ASSET BASED LENDING, AND EQUITY SENIOR DEBT & ASSET BACKED (STRETCH) LENDING SENIOR SUBORDINATED DEBT CONVERTIBLE SUBORDINATED DEBT MEZZANINEMEZZANINE REDEEMABLE PREFERRED STOCK EQUITY Source: FitchRatings Exhibit 1 Mezzanine capital is typically used to fund a growth opportunity, such as an acquisition, new product line, new distribution channel or plant expansion, or in private business’ for the company owners to take money out of the company for other uses or to enable management to buyout company owners for Mezzanine Finance 2 succession purposes.
    [Show full text]