Exam 18: Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions: Analysis and Valuation

If individual country's capital markets are segmented,the global capital asset pricing model must not be adjusted to reflect the tendency of investors in individual countries to hold local country rather than globally diversified equity portfolios.

In emerging countries where financial statements may be haphazard and gaining access to the information necessary to adequately assess risk is limited,it may be impossible to perform an adequate due diligence.Under these circumstances,acquirers may protect themselves by including a put option in the agreement of purchase and sale.Such an option would enable the buyer to require the seller to repurchase shares from the buyer at a predetermined price under certain circumstances.

The purchasing power parity theory states that one currency will appreciate (depreciate)with respect to another currency according to the expected relative rates of inflation between the two countries.

In general,the appropriate marginal tax rate used in calculating cash flows and the discount rate should be that applicable to the country in which the cash flows are produced.

In choosing how to manage an acquisition in a new country,a manager with an in-depth knowledge of the acquirer's priorities,decision-making processes,and operations is appropriate,especially when the acquirer expects to make very large new investments.

InBev Buys An American Icon for $52 Billion For many Americans, Budweiser is synonymous with American beer, and American beer is synonymous with Anheuser-Busch. Ownership of the American icon changed hands on July 14, 2008, when beer giant Anheuser Busch agreed to be acquired by Belgian brewer InBev for $52 billion in an all-cash deal. The combined firms would have annual revenue of about $36 billion and control about 25 percent of the global beer market and 40 percent of the U.S. market. The purchase is the largest in a wave of consolidation in the global beer industry, reflecting an attempt to offset rising commodity costs by achieving greater scale and purchasing power. While expecting to generate annual cost savings of about $1.5 billion, InBev stated publicly that the transaction is more about the two firms being complementary rather than overlapping. The announcement marked a reversal from AB's position the previous week when it said publicly that the InBev offer undervalued the firm and subsequently sued InBev for "misleading statements" it had allegedly made about the strength of its financing. To court public support, AB publicized its history as a major benefactor in its hometown area (St. Louis, Missouri). The firm also argued that its own long-term business plan would create more shareholder value than the proposed deal. AB also investigated the possibility of acquiring the half of Grupo Modelo, the Mexican brewer of Corona beer that it did not already own to make the transaction too expensive for InBev. While it publicly professed to want a friendly transaction, InBev wasted no time in turning up the heat. The firm launched a campaign to remove Anheuser's board and replace it with its own slate of candidates, including a Busch family member. However, AB was under substantial pressure from major investors to agree to the deal, since the firm's stock had been lackluster during the preceding several years. In an effort to gain additional shareholder support, InBev raised its initial $65 bid to $70. To eliminate concerns over its ability to finance the deal, InBev agreed to fully document its credit sources rather than rely on the more traditional but less certain credit commitment letters. In an effort to placate AB's board, management, and the myriad politicians who railed against the proposed transaction, InBev agreed to name the new firm Anheuser-Busch InBev and keep Budweiser as the new firm's flagship brand and St. Louis as its North American headquarters. In addition, AB would be given two seats on the board, including August A. Busch IV, AB's CEO and patriarch of the firm's founding family. InBev also announced that AB's 12 U.S. breweries would remain open. By the end of 2010, the combined firms seemed to be progressing well, with the debt accumulated as a result of the takeover being paid off faster than planned. Earnings per share exceeded investor expectations. The sluggish growth in the U.S. market was offset by increased sales in Latin America. Challenges remain, however, since AB Inbev still must demonstrate that it can restore growth in the U.S. ^{Schultes, 2010} : -Why would rising commodity prices spark industry consolidation?

M&As can provide quick access to a new market; and,they are subject to fewer problems than domestic M&As.

If cash flows are in terms of local currency and the U.S.Treasury bond rate is used to estimate the risk free rate,the analyst should add the expected inflation rate in the local country relative to that in the U.S.to convert the U.S.Treasury bond rate to a local country nominal rate.

Developed economies seem to exhibit significant differences in the cost of equity due to the relatively high integration of their capital markets in the global capital market.

Which of the following is not true of licensing?

While a foreign buyer may acquire shares or assets directly,share acquisitions are generally the simplest form of acquisition.

Political Risk in Cross-Border Transactions-CNOOC's Aborted Attempt to Acquire Unocal In what may be the most politicized takeover battle in U.S. history, Unocal announced on August 11, 2005, that its shareholders approved overwhelmingly the proposed buyout by Chevron. The combined companies would produce the equivalent of 2.8 million barrels of oil per day and the acquisition would increase Chevron's reserves by about 15 percent. With both companies owning assets in similar regions, it was easier to cut duplicate costs. The deal also made Chevron the top international oil company in the fast growing Southeast Asia market. Unocal is much smaller than Chevron. As a pure exploration and production company, Unocal had operations in nine countries. Chevron operated gas stations, drilling rigs, and refineries in 180 countries. Sensing an opportunity, Chevron moved ahead with merger talks and made an all-stock $16 billion offer for Unocal in late February 2005. Unocal rebuffed the offer as inadequate and sought bids from China's CNOOC and Italy's ENI SPA. While CNOOC offered $17 billion in cash, ENI was willing to offer only $16 billion. Chevron subsequently raised its all-stock offer to $16.5 billion, in line with the board's maximum authorization. Hours before final bids were due, CNOOC informed Unocal it was not going to make any further bids. Believing that the bidding process was over, Unocal and Chevron signed a merger agreement on April 4, 2005. The merger agreement was endorsed by Unocal's board and cleared all regulatory hurdles. Despite its earlier reluctance, CNOOC boosted its original bid to $18.5 billion in late June to counter the Chevron offer. About three fourths of CNOOC's all-cash offer was financed through below-market-rate loans provided by its primary shareholder, the Chinese government. On July 22, 2005, Chevron upped its offer to $17.7 billion, of which about 60 percent was in stock and 40 percent in cash. By the time Unocal shareholders actually approved the deal, the appreciation in Chevron's stock boosted the value of the deal to more than $18.1 billion. CNOOC's all-cash offer of $67 per share in June sparked instant opposition from members of Congress, who demanded a lengthy review by President George W. Bush and introduced legislation to place even more hurdles in CNOOC's way. Hoping to allay fears, CNOOC offered to sell Unocal's U.S. assets and promised to retain all of Unocal's workers, something Chevron was not prone to do. CNOOC also argued that its bid was purely commercial and not connected in any way with the Chinese government. U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that Unocal's oil drilling might have military applications and CNOOC's ownership structure (i.e., 70 percent owned by the Chinese government) would enable the firm to secure low-cost financing that was unavailable to Chevron. The final blow to CNOOC's bid was an amendment to an energy bill passed in July requiring the Departments of Energy, Defense, and Homeland Security to spend four months studying the proposed takeover before granting federal approval. Perhaps somewhat naively, the Chinese government viewed the low-cost loans as a way to "recycle" a portion of the huge accumulation of dollars it was experiencing. While the Chinese remained largely silent through the political maelstrom, CNOOC's management appeared to be greatly surprised and embarrassed by the public criticism in the United States about the proposed takeover of a major U.S. company. Up to that point, the only other major U.S. firm acquired by a Chinese firm was the 2004 acquisition of IBM's personal computer business by Lenovo, the largest PC manufacturer in China. While the short-term effects of the controversy appear benign, the long-term implications are less clear. It remains to be seen how well international business and politics can coexist between the world's major economic and military superpower and China, an emerging economic and military superpower in its own right. Cross-border transactions often require considerable political risk. In emerging countries, this is viewed as the potential for expropriation of property or disruption of commerce due to a breakdown in civil order. However, as CNOOC's aborted effort to takeover Unocal illustrates, foreign firms have to be highly sensitive to political and cultural issues in any host country, developed or otherwise. : -The U.S.and European firms are making substantial investments (including M&As)in China.How should the Chinese government react to this rebuff?

Appreciating foreign currencies relative to the dollar increase the overall cost of investing in the U.S.

Whenever the target firm's projected cash flows are in local currency,the risk free rate is the local country's government bond rate.

Nominal or real cash flows should give different net present values if the expected rate of inflation used to convert future cash flows to real terms is the same inflation rate used to estimate the real discount rate.

It is easy to differentiate between political and economic risks,since they are generally unrelated.

Payment in transactions involving non-U.S.firms is most likely to be cash.

Firms investing in industries or countries whose economic cycles are highly correlated may lower the overall volatility in their consolidated earnings and cash flows.

Arcelor Outbids ThyssenKrupp for Canada's Dofasco Steelmaking Operations Arcelor Steel of Luxembourg, the world's second largest steel maker, was eager to make an acquisition. Having been outbid by Mittal, the world's leading steel firm, in its efforts to buy Turkey's state-owned Erdemir and Ukraine's Kryvorizhstal, Guy Dolle, Arcelor's CEO, seemed determined not to let that happen again. Arcelor and Dofasco had been in talks for more than four months before Arcelor decided to initiate a tender offer on November 23, 2005, valued at $3.8 billion in cash. Dofasco, Canada's largest steel manufacturer, owned vast coal and iron ore reserves, possessed a nonunion workforce, and sold much of its steel to Honda assembly plants in the United States. The merger would enable Arcelor, whose revenues were concentrated primarily in Europe, to diversify into the United States. Contrary to their European operations, Arcelor found the flexibility offered by Dofasco's nonunion labor force highly attractive. Moreover, by increasing its share of global steel production, Arcelor's management reasoned that it would be able to exert additional pricing leverage with both customers and suppliers. Serving the role of "white knight," Germany's ThyssenKrupp, the sixth largest steel firm in the world, offered to acquire Dofasco one week later for $4.1 billion in cash. Dofasco's board accepted the bid, which included a $187 million breakup fee should another firm acquire Dofasco. Investors soundly criticized Dofasco's board for not opening up the bidding to an auction. In its defense, the board expressed concern about stretching out the process in an auction over several weeks. In late December, Arcelor topped the ThyssenKrupp bid by offering $4.2 billion. Not to be outdone, ThyssenKrupp matched the Arcelor offer on January 4, 2006. The Dofasco board reaffirmed its preference for the ThyssenKrupp bid, due to the breakup fee and ThyssenKrupp's willingness (unlike Arcelor) to allow Dofasco to continue to operate under its own name and management. In a bold attempt to put Dofasco out of reach of the already highly leveraged ThyssenKrupp, Arcelor raised its bid to $4.8 billion on January 16, 2006. This bid represented an approximate 80 percent premium over Dofasco's closing share price on the day Arcelor announced its original tender offer. The Arcelor bid was contingent on Dofasco withdrawing its support for the ThyssenKrupp bid. On January 24, 2006, ThyssenKrupp said it would not raise its bid. Events in the dynamically changing global steel market were not to end here. The Arcelor board and management barely had time to savor their successful takeover of Dofasco before Mittal initiated a hostile takeover of Arcelor. Ironically, Mittal succeeded in acquiring its archrival, Arcelor, just six months later in a bid to achieve further industry consolidation. and Answers: -Why do you believe that Dofasco's share price rose above ThyssenKrupp's offer price per share immediately following the announcement of the bid?

The Euroequity market reflects equity issues by a foreign firm tapping a larger investor base than the firm's home equity market.