創(chuàng)始人放風(fēng)收購百思買，市場反應(yīng)冷淡
|
????百思買（Best Buy）創(chuàng)始人迪克?舒爾策日前暗示，有意以每股24-26美元的價格收購這家陷入困境的電子產(chǎn)品零售商，交易估值最高可達(dá)88億美元。 ????即便是下限每股24美元，也比百思買上周五收盤價高出36%。那么，為什么周一我寫這篇稿子時百思買股價只漲了約14%？是不是有什么新的交易策略，比如，將22%設(shè)為最高價差？ ????我唯一能想到的是，交易員們并不真地相信會出現(xiàn)這樣的收購?；蛘?，至少收購價不會是每股24-26美元。 ????一個主要原因是舒爾策沒有明確說明將如何籌集到這88億美元。舒爾策在致百思買董事會的一封信中寫道：“交易資金來源將包含私募股權(quán)公司投資，我個人約10億美元的股權(quán)投資以及債務(wù)融資?！?/p> ????舒爾策補(bǔ)充說，他“已經(jīng)與幾家在零售領(lǐng)域有豐富經(jīng)驗(yàn)的一流私募股權(quán)公司進(jìn)行了洽談，”他在瑞士信貸（Credit Suisse）的銀行家們“對于實(shí)現(xiàn)必要的債務(wù)融資非常有信心”。 ????聽起來不錯，但這些絕不是主動收購要約通常提供的那類細(xì)節(jié)。比如，那些“一流私募股權(quán)公司”有沒有表明交易興趣？只有會談并沒有太大意義?！笔聦?shí)上，我在寫這篇文章前也和“幾家在零售領(lǐng)域有豐富經(jīng)驗(yàn)的一流私募股權(quán)公司進(jìn)行了會談”，但是目的只是為寫這篇文章做準(zhǔn)備。顯然，這些私募股權(quán)公司不會支持我收購本地購物中心的那間移動電話柜臺，更別提收購百思買了。 ????當(dāng)然，我不是暗示舒爾策在編造買盤興趣。我只是在試圖解釋為何市場對此反應(yīng)平淡。 ????或許有少數(shù)交易員知道，有一項(xiàng)明尼蘇達(dá)州法律禁止舒爾策不經(jīng)董事會批準(zhǔn)便組建投資者財(cái)團(tuán)——這項(xiàng)規(guī)定可追溯到當(dāng)初萊恩?里吉奧試圖購買塔吉特百貨公司（Target Corp.）前身的時候。另外，我在私募股權(quán)界的消息人士也認(rèn)為，短期內(nèi)不會宣布任何出資承諾。換言之，即便舒爾策今天獲得了董事會批準(zhǔn)，也不太可能明天就宣布私募股權(quán)公司的名字。就算下周也不可能。 ????讓人遲疑的還有前面提到的債務(wù)融資并未落實(shí)。瑞士信貸有信心，這不錯，但為什么沒有拿到一些人的書面承諾？明尼蘇達(dá)州法律并沒有明令禁止為放貸人提供保障，大銀行可能會要求放貸的前提是獲批股權(quán)投資交易的簽署。而且，如果大型私募股權(quán)公司不能獲得協(xié)議融資，它們還愿意進(jìn)行此項(xiàng)交易嗎？有可能，但它也再次解釋了，為什么現(xiàn)在百思買的股價沒有達(dá)到25美元左右。 ????最后，這基本上不太可能吸引競購（從而推高售價）。限于規(guī)模和投資行業(yè)側(cè)重，有可能參與這項(xiàng)收購的私募股權(quán)公司也不多，可能總共也就是10家，包括貝恩資本（Bain Capital Partners）、里奧納德?格林合伙公司（Leonard Green & Partners）、KKR集團(tuán)（Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.）和德克薩斯太平洋投資集團(tuán)（TPG Capital）?；蛟S舒爾策需要聯(lián)手其中兩、三家，才能籌集到約30億美元的股本（包括他自己的10億美元）。他不選擇的那些公司可能出價更低，如果是這樣，它們?yōu)槭裁此鼈円?lián)合起來出更高的價格呢？ ????假如百思買最終真的被私有化，所有這些可能都不重要。但這有助于解釋為什么今天似乎沒有多少人賭百思買會被收購。 ????譯者：早稻米 |
????Best Buy (BBY) founder Dick Schulze today indicated an interest in buying the troubled electronics retailer for upwards of $8.8 billion, or between $24 and $26 per share. ????At the low end, that would represent around a 36% premium to Friday's closing price for Best Buy stock. So why are shares up only around 14% as of this writing? Is there some sort of new trading strategy where 22% is the margin maximum? ????All I can figure is that traders don't really believe this deal is going to happen. Or at least not at $24-$26 per share. ????One big reason may be that Schulze hasn't specifically explained how he's going to come up with the $8.8 billion. In a letter to the company's board of directors, he writes that "the transaction would be financed through a combination of investments from private equity firms, my equity investment of approximately $1 billion, and debt financing." ????Schulze adds that he has "had conversations with several premier private equity firms with deep experience in retail," and that his bankers at Credit Suisse (CS) are "highly confident that it can arrange the necessary debt financing." ????That's all well and good, but it's hardly the type of specificity that usually accompanies unsolicited buyout offers. For example, did those "premier private equity firms" indicate an interest in doing the deal? Just having conversations with them doesn't mean too much." In fact, I had "conversations with several premier private equity firms with deep experience in retail" earlier today, as prep for writing this story. Pretty sure they wouldn't back my takeover attempt for the mobile phone kiosk at my local mall, let alone Best Buy. ????To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Schulze is making up buy-side interest. I'm just trying to explain the lack of market excitement. ????Chances are that few traders understand the Minnesota law Schulze believes prevents him from putting together an investor consortium without prior board consent -- a rule dating back to when Len Riggio tried to take over what is now Target Corp. (TGT). Moreover, my private equity sources don't think that any sponsorship commitments are imminent. In other words, even if Schulze got board approval today, it's highly unlikely that he'd be announcing private equity names tomorrow. Or even next week. ????Adding to the hesitance is the aforementioned lack of committed debt financing. It's all well and good that Credit Suisse is confident, but why not get it in writing from someone? There's no Minnesota law against securing lenders, and a bulge-bracket bank could make the deal conditional on an approved equity sponsor being signed. Moreover, will big private equity firms be willing to do the deal if they can't get covenant-lite financing (which they can't)? Possible, but again goes to explain why Best Buy shares aren't currently trading in the mid-$20s. ????Finally, there is virtually no chance for this to become a competitive process (thus bumping the sale price higher). There is a very limited universe of potential private equity firms for this deal, based on size and sector focus. Maybe 10 total, including Bain Capital Partners, Leonard Green & Partners, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Capital. Chances are that Schulze will need to partner with two or three of them, in order to fund the $3 billion or so of equity (including his own $1 billion). Those he doesn't choose were likely lower on price, so why would they band together to offer more? ????None of this necessarily matters in terms of Best Buy ultimately being taken private. But it does help explain why so few people today seem to be betting on such an outcome. |
最新文章