DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance of Enterprise Value

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance of Enterprise Value MUDRA: Journal of Finance and Accounting Volume 5, Issue 2, July-December 2018, pp. 60-69 doi: 10.17492/mudra.v5i2.14330 Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance of Enterprise Value T. Sathishkumar* and P.N. Assai Tamby** ABSTRACT In this study, we have made an analysis on the impact of Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) on the performance of Enterprise Value in the post-merger period. For this purpose, ten firms were selected based on the adequacy of data for a period of ten years on a year-to- year basis from 2006-2007 to 2016-2017. The firms, which had gone into the M&A process during the financial year 2011–2012 are also considered for the study. Paired samples t- test is applied to study the mean difference in performance of Enterprise Value of the acquiring firms in the pre-and post-merger periods. From the analysis, it has been found that the acquiring firms drastically improved in stock price and business performance. As a result the acquiring firms are visible among competitors with a capacity to develop into something big in the future and merged firms feel that they have chosen a good acquirer firm. Hence, most of the acquiring firms have significant change in the performance of Enterprise Value in the post-merger period. Keywords: Mergers; Acquisitions; Enterprise value; Post-merger performance; Firm Performance. 1.0 Introduction Enterprise Value (EV) is one of the most important concept in investing for variety of reasons, especially when discussions on Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) arises. The EV measures the value of the ongoing operations of a company. It attempts to measure the value of a company’s business instead of measuring the value of the company. The EV is used as an alternative to market capitalization and a more accurate estimate to takeover price of a company then the market capitalization. ____________________________ *Corresponding Author; Lecturer in Commerce, GHSS, Neravy, Karaikal, Puducherry, India (E- mail: [email protected]) **Department of Revenue and Disaster Management, Puducherry, India (E-mail: [email protected] ) Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance of Enterprise Value 61 The EV helps in comparison of companies with different capital structure and stock market investors. It is used to neutralize the risks and accordingly compare the returns expected. With this brief introduction the research paper proposes to analyse the impact of M&A on Performance Enterprise Value in the post-merger period of the acquiring manufacturing firms in India. 2.0 Review of Literature Levine and Aaronovitch (1981) concluded that there was no evidence of any significant difference between the acquiring and target firms for the profit related variables and their growth. Ikeda and Do (1983) tested the operating performance by using parameters such as profitability, efficiency, growth, and research development and found that the financial performance in respect of profitability was higher in the post-merger period. Scherer (1988) revealed that most of the firms did not show significant improvement in long-term profitability after M&A. Healy et al. (1992) found that the merged firms registered improvement in the post-merger operating performance in comparison to that of their industry peers, these increases from improvements in asset productivity. Lee et al. (1996) revealed that the horizontal acquisitions showed the strongest predictive ability with the variables such as long-term debt / total assets, long- term debt / market value, market value / book value, and asset growth and sales growth showing significance in the post-merger period. Rau and Vermaelon (1998) found that the acquiring firms under-perform during the three years after M&A while tender offers earned a small but statistically significant positive abnormal return. However, the long- term performance of acquiring firms, due to M&A, is not uniform across the firms which went for M&A. Pawaskar (2001) elucidated that the acquiring firms were at the lower end in terms of growth, tax and liquidity of the industry, and the target firms performed better than that of the industry in terms of profitability. Martynova et al. (2007) found that the acquiring and target firms significantly outperformed the median peers in the industry prior to the takeover event, but the profitability of the combined firm decreased significantly following the takeover. Kar et al. (2014) elucidated that the throughout the period of study, turnover increased after the companies experienced an merger and acquisition which is in line with the findings that Indian companies grew in size and attained bigger market share. Merger and acquisitions did not have any impact on return on net worth for the period of study. Mixed results have been reported for other variables. Kar and Soni (2016) concluded that the analysis can throw some light on the strategic acumen of Indian IT companies. Kalsie and Nagpal (2017) found that the Kotak Mahindra-ING Vysya Bank and Sun Pharma- 62 MUDRA: Journal of Finance and Accounting, Volume 5, Issue 2, Jul-Dec 2018 Ranbaxy deals were able to realise most of the synergies that were estimated and were on the right track towards synergy realisation in the post-acquisition period. However, the Amtek Auto-JMT Auto deal couldn’t realise cost synergies as their expenditures elevated to high levels after the merger but it managed to attain lower cost of capital financial synergies. On the other hand, Express Scripts-Medco deal badly failed because it couldn’t attain revenue synergies after the merger. Sathishkumar (2017) proved that in the post-merger period the acquiring manufacturing firms had the calibre to earn more & sustainable profit, to survive, to grow over a long-run period, the ability to pay interest, taxes & dividends, and more efficient management in utilizing its asset and equity. The previous studies, by and large, attempted to study the short-run impact, say three years prior to and after the M&A period. Moreover, most of the previous studies undertook almost similar research methods to evaluate firm performance in the pre-and post-merger periods. With these evidences and supports the present study is an attempt to measure the impact of M&A on the Performance of Enterprise Value in the long-run, say five years prior to merger year and five years after the merger year. The present paper attempts to overcome the limitations of the previous studies. Hence, the present paper aims at to fulfil the research gap in the existing literature in terms of applying Enterprise Value to analyse the shift-in-structure (impact) in the Performance of Enterprise Value due to M&A. 3.0 Research Methodology 3.1 Objectives and hypotheses The primary objective of the study is to examine the effect of M&A on Performance of Enterprise Value (PEV) in respect of Enterprise Value, Enterprise Value to Net Operating Revenue, and Enterprise Value to EBITDA of manufacturing firms in India after merger. The study has further attempted to investigate and test if there is any significant change in the results achieved by the manufacturing firms due to M&A. Based on the objective, the following hypothesis is developed: H0 = There is no significant mean difference between the performance of enterprise value of manufacturing firms in India before and after the M&A process. 3.2 Data source and period of the study The study used secondary sources of data, which were collected from the capital market database called Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy Private Limited (Prowess CMIE). Data on the PEV for a period of five years prior to the merger year (2007–2011) and five years after the merger year (2013-2017) for each manufacturing firm was Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on Performance of Enterprise Value 63 collected. Hence, the study period is restricted to ten years ranging from 2006–2007 to 2016–2017 considering the year 2011–2012 as the year of the M&A deal. 3.3 Sampling procedure In this study, multi-stage sampling technique is used. A total of seventy-three firms in the manufacturing and service industries had gone into the M&A deal during the financial year 2011–2012. Out of seventy-three firms, twenty-four firms only completed the M&A deal during the financial year 2011–2012. Out of the twenty-four firms, one firm was eliminated because they did a subsequent merger with another target firm in the same financial year, reducing the number of firms to twenty-three at a further stage. Out of twenty-three firms, fifteen firms fall under the manufacturing sector and eight firms fall under the service sector; hence, fifteen firms of the manufacturing sector alone are taken into account for further stages. Out of the fifteen firms, full-fledged data were available only for ten firms in the manufacturing sector. Hence, the final sample comprises ten manufacturing firms only. 3.4 Hypothesis testing A paired sample t-test is used to study the pre-and post-merger PEV ratios and these are compared to know if there is any significant change in PEV due to M&A. 4.0 Analysis and Results 4.1 Impact of M&A on Performance of Enterprise Value of Manufacturing Firms The performance of Enterprise Value (PEV) in terms of Enterprise Value (EV), Enterprise Value to Net Operating Revenue (EV_NOR), and Enterprise Value to EBITDA (EV_EBITDA) between the pre-merger and post-merger periods have been computed to analyse the impact of M&A on the PEV of the firms. The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 1 to 3. Enterprise Value (EV) is a measure of a company’s total value, often used as a more comprehensive alternative to equity market capitalization.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uva-F-1274 Methods of Valuation for Mergers And
    Graduate School of Business Administration UVA-F-1274 University of Virginia METHODS OF VALUATION FOR MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS This note addresses the methods used to value companies in a merger and acquisitions (M&A) setting. It provides a detailed description of the discounted cash flow (DCF) approach and reviews other methods of valuation, such as book value, liquidation value, replacement cost, market value, trading multiples of peer firms, and comparable transaction multiples. Discounted Cash Flow Method Overview The discounted cash flow approach in an M&A setting attempts to determine the value of the company (or ‘enterprise’) by computing the present value of cash flows over the life of the company.1 Since a corporation is assumed to have infinite life, the analysis is broken into two parts: a forecast period and a terminal value. In the forecast period, explicit forecasts of free cash flow must be developed that incorporate the economic benefits and costs of the transaction. Ideally, the forecast period should equate with the interval in which the firm enjoys a competitive advantage (i.e., the circumstances where expected returns exceed required returns.) For most circumstances a forecast period of five or ten years is used. The value of the company derived from free cash flows arising after the forecast period is captured by a terminal value. Terminal value is estimated in the last year of the forecast period and capitalizes the present value of all future cash flows beyond the forecast period. The terminal region cash flows are projected under a steady state assumption that the firm enjoys no opportunities for abnormal growth or that expected returns equal required returns in this interval.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise Value Analysis
    Enterprise Value Analysis Enterprise value (EV) is a financial matrix reflecting the market value of the entire business after taking into account both holders of debt and equity. Enterprise Value Analysis INDEX 1. What is Enterprise Value? 2. Methods to Calculate Enterprise Value ✓ DCF ✓ Multiple Based Valuation/Relative Valuation ✓ EV Equation 3. Types of EV: Total, Operating and Core 4. Equity Value Versus Enterprise Value ✓ What is Equity Value ✓ Equity versus Enterprise Value ✓ Equity Value Multiples Enterprise Value Analysis WHAT IS ENTERPRISE VALUE? Enterprise value (EV) is a financial matrix reflecting the market value of the entire business after taking into account both holders of debt and equity. EV, also called firm value or total enterprise value (TEV), tells us how much a business is worth. It is the theoretical price an acquirer might pay for another firm, and is useful in comparing firms with different capital structures since the value of a firm is unaffected by its choice of capital structure. EV is one of the fundamental metrics used in business valuation, financial modeling, accounting, portfolio analysis, etc. METHODS TO CALCULATE ENTERPRISE VALUE Enterprise Value can be calculated using one of the following valuation methods: ➢ DCF Valuation ➢ Multiple Based Valuation/Relative Valuation ➢ EV Equation DCF VALUATION A DCF analysis yields the overall value of a business (i.e. enterprise value), including both debt and equity. The DCF method of valuation involves projecting FCF over the forecast period, calculating the terminal value at the end of that period, and discounting the projected FCFs and terminal value using the discount rate to arrive at the NPV of the total expected cash flows of the business or asset.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Finance and Accounting Perceive Relationship Value?
    How do finance and accounting perceive relationship value? Work-in-progress Tibor Mandják Corvinus University of Budapest and Bordeaux Business School Ágnes Wimmer Corvinus University of Budapest Helena Naffa Corvinus University of Budapest Linda Balpataki Corvinus University of Budapest Keywords: value creation, business relationship value, finance, international accounting Introduction In the field of financial accounting, numerous studies were published that dealt with valuation. These highlighted the paradigm clash between accountants - proponents of historical value – and financial analysts preferring the future cash flow generation mechanism (Barberis and Thaler 2002). The value beyond financial statements insinuates that value exists beyond what is recorded in the books of a company. Usually, such “assets” are not owned, nor possessed, but rather they are an attribute that can be managed. Therefore, quantification poses a severe problem – a problem that w shall not attempt to tackle in this paper. Rather, we wish to draw attention to the importance of such assets, which, we will attempt to organise into a framework that fits the traditional firm valuation mentality that economists are familiar with. Quasi-Assets Strategy, corporate culture, business relationships and human resources are the most important quasi-assets that an enterprise “possesses.” As introduced above, these invisible elements are “quasi” assets as their property does not allow them to be actually owned by the companies. They are rather attributes, intangible relations that have the power to influence performance. There are four invisible assets. These invisible assets could be set in a framework for valuation purposes. The paper proposes a simple but comprehensive logical model for the valuation of these quasi-assets.
    [Show full text]
  • Valuation Multiples Calculation
    Valuation Multiples Calculation: What Goes in the Numerator and Denominator With One Simple Rule… Question the Other Day… “You’ve said before that if the Numerator of a valuation multiple – Equity Value or Enterprise Value – includes the value of a Balance Sheet item, then you should not include its corresponding income or expenses in the Denominator.” Question the Other Day… “But you subtract Equity Investments when calculating Enterprise Value… …and then metrics such as EBIT and EBITDA also exclude Net Income from Equity Investments. So, is this rule correct?” Valuation Multiples – The Rule • SHORT ANSWER: “No, this rule is not quite correct.” • It’s better to think of it using this logic: • Numerator of Valuation Multiples: Should be Equity Value or Enterprise Value… sometimes slight variations • Denominator of Valuation Multiples: Could be almost anything – Revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, Net Income, Free Cash Flow, etc. • Test: Does the Numerator add or subtract a Balance Sheet line item? Valuation Multiples – The Rule • Test: Does the Numerator add or subtract a Balance Sheet line item? • If so, then you should not include income or expenses from that item in the Denominator • Rule: And if the Numerator does not add or subtract a Balance Sheet line item, then you should include the income or expenses from that item in the Denominator • Implication #1: If Equity Value is the Numerator, the Denominator must be Net Income to Common, or a metric that starts with Net Income to Common, such as Free Cash Flow Valuation Multiples – The Rule • Why: When you calculate Equity Value for a public company, you don’t add or subtract any Balance Sheet line items; it’s just Share Price * Share Count! • So: You must include everything on the Income Statement – all income and expenses – in Denominators paired with Equity Value • Implication #2: If Enterprise Value is the Numerator, the Denominator must exclude or be “before” Interest Income, Interest Expense, Other Income, Preferred Dividends, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Banking Agencies Revamp Guidance on Leveraged Lending
    Federal Banking Agencies Revamp Guidance on Leveraged Lending Heightened Standards Set for Bank Underwriting Practices and Evaluating the Financial Support of Private Equity Sponsors March 27, 2013 The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) have jointly issued guidance on leveraged lending activities by financial institutions.1 The guidance, which is similar to the proposal released by the Agencies last year,2 updates and replaces guidance that the Agencies issued in 2001.3 According to an interagency press release, the revised guidance applies to transactions that are “characterized by a borrower with a degree of financial leverage that significantly exceeds industry norms,” as measured by various leverage ratios (for example, debt-to-assets, debt-to-net-worth, debt-to- cash flow, or other similar standards common to particular industries or sectors). The guidance, which does not constitute a formal rulemaking, outlines “minimum expectations” for financial institutions with substantial exposures to leveraged lending activities, focusing on several key areas, including: • credit policies and procedures that identify risk appetite as to both retention and underwriting of leveraged loans; • underwriting and valuation standards, as well as underwriting and monitoring standards for purchased loan participations; • timely measurement of transactions “in the pipeline”; •
    [Show full text]
  • Reorganization Value What It Is and Isn't
    VALUATION 2016 Q3 This principle is illustrated as follows from an accounting Reorganization Value: balance sheet perspective: What It Is…..and Isn’t Assets = Liabilities + Equity BORIS J. STEFFEN, CDBV Assets are comprised of operating and non-operating RSM US LLP assets, while liabilities combine operating liabilities and The importance of reorganization value is that it is perhaps long-term interest-bearing debt. Consequently, the the measure that determines whether a debtor will be able accounting balance sheet equation comingles operating to reorganize, and the value of the reorganized debtor liabilities and financing sources on the right side of the that is distributable to holders of interests and claims. balance sheet: Nevertheless, reorganization value is not specifically Assets = Operating Liabilities + Debt + Equity defined in the Code or in case law, other than by reference to the general principle that a debtor should be valued Rearranging the formula by moving operating liabilities based on the capitalization of its expected future earnings. to the left side of the equation leads to the measure of Bankruptcy courts must therefore determine the “extent invested capital. The left side calculation shows how much and method of inquiry necessary for a valuation based on capital has been deployed by the firm; the right side earning capacity….dependent on the facts of each case.”1 calculation shows how much financing has been provided Courts determine reorganization value by reference to the by creditors and investors: debtor’s enterprise value based on the fair value standard, Assets – Operating Liabilities = Debt + Equity = Invested going concern premise, and present value of expected Capital future cash flows and/or market multiples.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit F Valuation Analysis
    Exhibit F Valuation Analysis Valuation Analysis In order to provide information to parties in interest regarding the possible range of values of their distributions under the Plan, the Debtors have been advised by Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (“Lazard”),1, their retained investment banker and financial advisor, with respect to the estimated consolidated value of the Reorganized Debtors on a going-concern basis (this “Valuation Analysis”), including Enterprise Value, Distributable Value and Equity Value (each as defined herein). THE ESTIMATES OF THE ENTERPRISE VALUE AND EQUITY VALUE CONTAINED IN THIS EXHIBIT DO NOT REFLECT VALUES THAT COULD BE ATTAINABLE IN PUBLIC OR PRIVATE MARKETS. THE IMPUTED ESTIMATE OF THE RANGE OF EQUITY VALUE OF THE REORGANIZED DEBTORS ASCRIBED IN THE ANALYSIS DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE AN ESTIMATE OF THE POST- REORGANIZATION MARKET TRADING VALUE. ANY SUCH TRADING VALUE MAY BE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE IMPUTED ESTIMATE OF EQUITY VALUE RANGE FOR THE REORGANIZED DEBTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LAZARD’S VALUATION ANALYSIS. THE VALUATION INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION IS NOT A PREDICTION OR GUARANTEE OF THE ACTUAL MARKET VALUE THAT MAY BE REALIZED THROUGH THE SALE OF ANY SECURITIES TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT TO THE PLAN. A. Overview Lazard has estimated the consolidated value of the Reorganized Debtors as of an assumed Effective Date of September 30, 2010 (the “Assumed Effective Date”). Lazard has undertaken this valuation analysis to determine the value available for distribution to holders of Allowed Claims as well as value available for distribution to holders of Interests in Chemtura Corporation pursuant to the Plan and to analyze the relative recoveries to such holders thereunder.
    [Show full text]
  • Valuing Debt in a Down Market – Implications from the New AICPA PE/VC Guide Amanda Miller, EY Shaan Elbaum, Pwc Overview: the AICPA PE/VC Valuation Guide
    Valuing Debt in a Down Market – Implications from the New AICPA PE/VC Guide Amanda Miller, EY Shaan Elbaum, PwC Overview: the AICPA PE/VC valuation guide The final version of the new AICPA PE/VC Valuation Guide was released on 15 August 2019. Goals of the guide: • Harmonize the diverse views of industry participants, auditors and valuation specialists • Provide user friendly guidance with case studies that can be used to reason through real situations faced by investment fund managers, valuation specialists and auditors Final version released August 2019: • Non-authoritative (like all other AICPA guides issued) • Reflects consensus, including input from industry • Comments from review period on working draft were helpful and resulted in minor changes. • Funds should expect to consider the impact of the guide for 2019 valuations. Scope of guide • Applies to companies covered by FASB ASC 946 – Investment Companies, reporting fair value in accordance with FASB ASC 820 – Fair Value Measurement • Valuation guidance may apply to investments valued under IFRS and for corporate investors as well • Assets covered: portfolio company investments, defined as equity and debt instruments in privately held enterprises and certain enterprises with traded instruments • Does not address disclosures Debt valuation – When debt is the unit of account • Fair value of debt instruments • If you have a traded price as of the measurement date this may be the best estimate of fair value, assuming the transaction is determined to be orderly. • When a traded price as of the measurement date is not available or is deemed to not be determinative of fair value, the typical valuation technique is the yield method.
    [Show full text]
  • Enterprise-Multiple-Vs-Tobins-Q
    The Enterprise Multiple Factor and the Value Premium Tim Loughran∗ Mendoza College of Business University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 46556-5646 (574) 631-8432 voice [email protected] Jay W. Wellman School of Hotel Administration Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853-6902 (607) 255-8302 voice [email protected] October 1, 2009 ABSTRACT Following the work of Fama and French (1992, 1993), there has been wide-spread usage of book-to-market as a factor to explain stock return patterns. In this paper, we highlight serious flaws with the use of book-to-market and offer a replacement factor for it. The Enterprise Multiple, calculated as (equity value + debt value + preferred stock – cash)/ EBITDA, is better than book-to-market in cross-sectional monthly regressions over 1963-2008. In the top three size quintiles (accounting for about 94% of total market value), EM is a highly significant measure of relative value, whereas book-to-market is insignificant. The significance of EM is also confirmed with UK and Japanese data. We use the Enterprise Multiple to create an EMD factor which generates a return premium of 5.76% per year. ∗We thank Paul Gao, Todd Houge, Bill McDonald, Paul Schultz, and seminar participants at the University of Notre Dame for helpful comments. We are grateful to Hang Li for research assistance. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1481279 I. Introduction The book-to-market value premium of Fama and French (1992, 1993) has generated considerable discussion in the finance literature. The value premium is defined as the difference between the returns on high book-to-market (BE/ME) value stocks and low book-to-market growth stocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Interagency Guidance on Leveraged Financing (42 KB PDF)
    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Thrift Supervision Description: Sound Risk Management Subject: Leveraged Financing Practices PURPOSE In 1998 and 1999, the Agencies issued separate statements1 to the banking industry commenting on the relaxation of sound lending standards for certain types of loans. Since that time, there has been a sharp increase in classified and other problem assets related to these weakened standards. In particular, a significant share of recent problem credits is associated with leveraged financing. Financial institutions have responded to these problems by tightening lending standards, and the current level of problem credits is modest relative to the resources of the system. However, in many cases the problems associated with weakened standards were largely unanticipated by institution management and clearly indicate that the lessons learned from this experience need to be fully incorporated into institution risk management processes and examiner guidance. As with a broad range of lending activities, leverage financing can be conducted in a safe and sound fashion if pursued with the appropriate risk management structure. Sound practices dictate fully articulated policies with regard to underwriting standards, concentration limits, and ongoing monitoring of risk. In the wake of these recent developments, institutions have started to improve their management of leveraged financing activities. To facilitate that process, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of Thrift Supervision (the Agencies) are issuing this guidance to bankers and examiners to describe more fully supervisory expectations regarding sound practices for leveraged financing activities.
    [Show full text]
  • EVALUATION: Investing Insights Brought to You by the Students of NYU Stern
    December 2013 EVALUATION Inaugural IssuePage 1 December 2013 EVALUATION: Investing Insights brought to you by the Students of NYU Stern LETTER FROM THE EDITORS INSIDE THE ISSUE One thing that NYU Stern students know really well is financial James Rosenwald III: valuation – that is, determining the intrinsic value of securities. Perspective from a Global Renowned NYU professor Aswath Damodaran teaches several courses on the subject matter, ensuring that all Stern students (as Value Investor…Page 2 well as those who follow his blog) have a solid understanding of how to value stocks and bonds. But investing is not just about Professor Aswath valuation – it’s about the evaluation of a number of quantitative and Damodaran: qualitative factors, including price, value, risk and return, in the Valuation Expert…Page 6 context of an ever-changing investment opportunity set. Hence, the name of NYU Stern’s inaugural investment newsletter: Albert Hicks: EVALUATION . Young Alumnus on the Buy-Side…Page 9 It is our pleasure to introduce the first issue of Stern’s student- run investment newsletter, covering a range of topics, from global value investing to sector-specific commentary. Inside you will find Cleveland Rueckert: interviews with industry participants and academics alike, Young Alumnus on the Sell- perspectives from seasoned professionals to young alumni, as well as Side…Page 11 student-submitted work. We hope that you enjoy, and take away a few new ideas! Christopher Dixon: Entertainment & Media Finally, we would like to thank our interviewees for their contributions, as this would not be possible without their valuable Guru…Page 15 insights.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions of Terms
    Definitions of Terms Agency – Agency bonds are issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE), but are NOT direct obligations of the U.S. government. Common GSE’s are the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. (Freddie Mac) Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB). Beta: A measure of the risk arising from exposure to general market movements as opposed to company-specific factors. Betas in this report, unless otherwise noted, use the S&P 500 as the market benchmark and result from calculations over historic periods. A beta below 1.0, for example, can suggest the equity has tended to move with lower volatility than the broader market or, due to company-specific factors, has had higher volatility but generally low correlations with the overall market. Consensus Estimate data points are provided by Bloomberg. The Bloomberg Consensus is an arithmetic average of selected broker estimates for a specific company. The Bloomberg Professional service utilizes statistics and accounting, as well as market, industry, and company knowledge to determine which estimates to include in the consensus for the best representation of the current and future fundamentals of the company. Corporate Bonds – Are debt instruments issued by a private corporation. Non-Investment grade securities, commonly known as “high-yield” or “junk” bonds, are historically subject to greater risk of default, including the loss of principal and interest, than higher-rated bonds, which may result in greater price volatility than experienced with a higher-rated issue. EV/EBITDA: Enterprise value as a multiple of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA).
    [Show full text]