ducati case study

17
DUCATI CASE STUDY Anastasia Karpova Ekaterina Nere8na Ali Baris Sahin Sena Secilmis Alfio Shkreta (equal contribu8on)

Upload: alfio-shkreta

Post on 01-Nov-2014

8.005 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

 

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Ducati Case Study

DUCATI  CASE  STUDY  

Anastasia  Karpova  Ekaterina  Nere8na  Ali  Baris  Sahin  Sena  Secilmis  

Alfio  Shkreta    (equal  contribu8on)  

Page 2: Ducati Case Study

Agenda  

Company  snapshot   3  

SWOT  Analysis   4  

Benefits  for  the  seller   5  Turnaround   6  Valua?on  summary   7  Exit  op?ons   9  Recommenda?on   11  

Page 3: Ducati Case Study

Company  Snapshot  

Global  Brand  Recogni8on    

–  Race  winner  in  World  Championships  

–  15  models  in  4  motorcycle  families  

Efficient  Produc8on  

–  85%  of  components  are  outsourced  

–  High  level  of  standardiza?on  

Delivering  High  Margins  

–  EBITDA  Margin  is  21%  

–  ROA  is  30%  

Compe88ve  Landscape  

–  4%  share  in  World  

–  5%  share  in  Europe  

–  30%  share  in  Tour  Motorcycle    

 

 

Company  is  in  financial  distress  –  32.7%  decrease  in  volume  growth  

–  31.7%  decrease  in  revenue  

–  102%  decrease  in  EBIT  

–  Debt/Equity  is  100%  

 

     

4%  

25%  

17%  

24%  

19%  

5%  6%   Duca?    

Honda  

Kawasaki  

Suzuki  

Yamaha  

BMW  

Harley  

3  

1

2

3

4

5

World  Market  Share  in  Sports  Niche  

Page 4: Ducati Case Study

SWOT  Analysis    

       

THREATS  

–  On  the  verge  of  bankruptcy  

–  Low  switching  cost  for  the  customers  

–  Higher  produc?on  efficiency  from  rivals      

OPPORTUNITIES  

–  Capacity  to  expand  its  market  share  

–  Capitalize  on  diversified  product  lines  

–  Geographical  benefits    

STRENGHTS    

–  High  barriers  to  entry  

–  Market  segmenta?on  

–  Top-­‐?er  technology,  top-­‐notch  engineers  

–  Great  consumer  franchise    

WEAKNESSES    

–  Poor  Management  

–  Financially  intertwined  with  Cagiva’s  

troubled  subsidiaries  

–  Manufacturing  boclenecks  

4  

Page 5: Ducati Case Study

Benefits  and  costs  for  Cas8glioni  Brothers    

50%   24%   14%   11%   7%   5%   4%  

15%   15%   13%   12%   12%   12%   11%  

1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003  

Revenue  Growth  %   EBITDA  marging  

34,9   15,9   45,8   47,3   52,3   51,4   0,0  

12,8  20,2   16,9   16,6   18,7   17,2  

12,1  

Total  debt  payments   EBIT  

Presale  forecast  

5  

With  current  management  Duca8  will  bankrupt  in  1997  

–  $130-­‐170    Million  for  51%  of  the  stake  sold  to  TPG  with  possible  earn  out  of  $65  million  based  on  EBITDA  target  

–  Addi?onal  financing  for  Cagiva  core  division  

–  Lower  cost  of  capital  (Deutche)  

The  “Lollipop”  effect  –  Chairman  with  limited  competencies  

–  Front  page  in  newspapers  

–  Retain  of  control  in  “public  eyes”  

Loss  of  control    –  Limited  nego?a?on  power  due  to  

bankruptcy  and  no-­‐shop  

–  Realloca?on  of  Duca?  cash  flows  to  Cagiva  

–  Use  Duca?  assets  as  a  collateral  

–  Presence  in  luxury  motorcycles  niche  

–  R&D  team  and  developments  

Page 6: Ducati Case Study

Turnaround  

Opera?ng  efficiency  

Sales  

R&D  

   Working  capital  management  

–  Increase  inventory  turnover  –  Improve  collec?on  policy  

Supplier  rela?onships  –  Payments  schedule  –  Outsourcing  

 

Brand  awareness  –  “the  Ferrari  on  two  wheels”  –  Duca?  experience  

Distribu?on  system  Introduce  apparel  and  non-­‐motorcycle  products    

Develop  new  products  

Retain  leader  posi?on  in  racing  

Implement  racing  technology  to  street  motorcycles  

 Base  /  Low  case  Accounts  receivable  

 60  /  90  days  Inventory    40  /  70  days  Accounts  payable  

 50  /  60  days  Materials  /  Revenue  

 48%  /  53%  

Base  /  Low  case  Long  term  revenue  growth

         9%  /  6%  Revenue  growth  in  1997                

 100%  /  80%  

Base  /  Low  case  R&D  /  Revenue            2%  /  1%  

Assump8ons  Methods  

6  

Page 7: Ducati Case Study

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total revenues,  $ mln 130 260 322 368 408

Growth % -32% 100% 24% 14% 11%

EBITDA 16 65 86 104 122

EBITDA margin 13% 25% 27% 28% 30%

Growth % -58% 292% 34% 20% 17%

Net Debt 182 161 156 127 97

EV/EBITDA 16 EBITDA 122 EV 1927 Debt 97 Equity 1829 Horizon  IRR 35% Present  Equity  Value 551 Purchase  price  51% 281

Base  case  projec?ons      

14   13  

17  

20  

Porsche   KTM     Yamaha   Harley  Davidson  

EV/EBITDA  mul?ple  Valua?on,  $  mln  

LBO  valua8on  

7  

Page 8: Ducati Case Study

100   250  200  150   350  300   500  450  400   550  

LBO    16x-­‐20x  Exit  EBITDA  

DCF    Base/  Low  

Trading  Comparables  1997E;  13x-­‐16x  EV/EBITDA  

280  

130  

358  

560  

420  340  

________________________________________________  Valua8on  results  

Ini8al  Offer  Con?gent  earn-­‐out  

230  130  

8  

Page 9: Ducati Case Study

Possible  Exit  

–  Sale  to  a  strategic  buyer    

–  Secondary  LBO  (sale  to  another  PE  firm)  

–  Ini?al  Public  Offering(  IPO)  

Method    

–  Book  Building    (99.3%  of  deals  in  1995-­‐2004)  

–  Auc?on    

–  Fixed  Price  Public  Offer    

–  Hybrid  Methods  

Other  Op8ons    

–  Full  exit    

–  Par?al  exit  

IPO  op8ons  

–  Stock  Exchange:  Borsa  Italiana,  NYSE,  Other    

 

       v  

Exit  op8ons  

9  

 

 

 

 

 

 

12   15   13  21  

33  

48  

0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

0  10  20  30  40  50  60  

1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000  

Numbers  of  IPO  Capital  raised,  bl.  EUR  

Source:  Arosio,  2000;  Gajewski,  2006;  Ricer,  2003;    

 

Rationale for IPO Borsa Italiana NYSE

Market Capitalization $192.2 bln $7,277 bln

Underpricing premium +20.4% +17.6%

Expected returns +1.5% +0.34%

Underwriter’s fee 1.5-2% large cap 4-5% small cap

7%

Listing requirements No book value MC >10 bln lira 25% equity float No + profitability 3y balance sheets

Book and market requirements

Tax Income tax reduction 19%

27%

Lock-up period Voluntarily 180 days

Page 10: Ducati Case Study

Possibility  to  walk  away  

Lecer  of  Intent:  “Agreement  to  make  an  agreement”  

–  Binding  provisions:  walk  away  fee,  break  up  fee,  no  shop  clause  etc.  

–  Pre  Contractual  Liability  in  European  Law  

–  Breach  of  exclusivity  clause  by  Duca?  

–  Cagiva  cannot  demand  walk  away  fee  and  should  reimburse  the  cost  incurred  by  TPG  

Complete  the  deal  

Since  internal  value  received  from  valua?on  is  higher  than  the  deal  price  TPG  should  proceed  with  the  deal  

Threats  

–  Possible  bankruptcy  

–  Op?mis?c  projec?ons  

–  Vola?le  equity  market  in  unstable  economy  

   

 

             

Walk  away  or  complete?  

10  

Page 11: Ducati Case Study

Recommenda8on  

–  TPG  should  close  the  deal  

–  Pay  $140  million  with  earn-­‐out  provision  

–  IPO  in  3  years  

Terms  of  deal  

–  No  shop  agreement  

–  Walk  away/break  up  fee:  redeem  $7-­‐8  mln  due  diligence  cost.  

–  Working  Capital  Adjustments  Term:    $30mln  

–  Earn  out  term:  $65  mln  if  EBITDA  in  1997  exceeds  90bln  lira    

–  Pre-­‐emp?ve  right  to  purchase    

–  Control  of  Board      

–  Covenant  with  legal  en?ty  to  avoid  bankruptcy  

–  Management  op?on:  10%  op?on  granted  in  case  of  IPO  

     

 

             

Recommenda8on  

10  

Page 12: Ducati Case Study

–  1996    TPG  purchased  51%  stake  of  Duca?  for  $325  ml*.  

–  1998    TPG  purchased  most  of  the  remaining  shares  

–  1999      Listed  on  Borsa  Italiana  and  NYSE,  TPG  sold  65%  of  its  shares  s?ll  remaining  majority  shareholder  

–  2005      TPG  sold  remaining  shares  to  Inves?ndustrial  Firms  (Italian  Private  Equity  Firm)  

 

Actual  Facts  

11  

Page 13: Ducati Case Study

Ques8ons  &  Remarks  

Page 14: Ducati Case Study

•  Financial  Restructuring  The  issue  of  the  working  capital  is  a  major  problem  for  Duca?.  The  fact  that  the  accounts  payable  have  been  “mushroomed”  to  100  days  was  a  relief  for  the  short  term  goal’s  of  the  firm.  Yet  because  suppliers  were  not  being  paid  and  the  major  financial  distress  that  the  enterprise  was  facing  would  result  ul?mately   in   0   supplies.   These  would   ruin   the   company.   In   order   to   avoid  such  a   scenario  TPG  would  need   to   inject   capital   star?ng   in   the  year  1996  and  that  would  recapitalize  the  firm  and  allow  it  to  operate  normally.  

•  Stronger  product  name  The   best   racing   bikes   were   manufactured   by   Duca?   affirming   it-­‐self   as  superior   firm   with   edge-­‐cuqng   engines.   Being   so   widely   exposed   to   the  media   will   further   increase   the   customer   base   .   It   will   help   the   new  management   launch   a   more   efficient   marke?ng   campaign   that   would  adver?se   the   new   products   introduce   to   the   market.   Another   strategic  change   is   the   seqng-­‐up   on   complementary   products   such   as    motorcycle  helmets,  accessories  and  clothes.    

Appendix  –  Turnaround  Cont’d  

Page 15: Ducati Case Study

•  Re-­‐vitalize  the  rela?onship  with  sellers  The   rela?onship  with   sellers   is   to  be  much  becer  managed  and   the   result  would   be   a   stable   rela?on.   Nurturing   trust   among   the   two   par?es,   by  fulfilling  payments  on  due  ?me,  will   increase  Duca?’s   efficiency   and   lower  the  number  of  motorcycles  laying  around  in  the  produc?on  plant.  

•  Energe?c  and  close-­‐knit  R&D  team  The   engineers   of   the   R&D   team   of   Duca?,   especially   the   racing   one,   are  praised   for   the   high   quality   of   the   products   that   they   deliver.   The   very  compe??ve   environment   that   exists   in   the   racing   industry   pushes   for  constant   innova?on.   Ul?mately   the   fana?cs,   loyal   and   prospec?ve  customers  of  Duca?  will  benefit  from  the  edge-­‐cuqng  technologies  that  will  be  made  available  to  street  motorcycles.    

Appendix  –  Turnaround  Cont’d  

Page 16: Ducati Case Study

•  In  order  to  decide  whether  to  walk  away  or  quickly  complete  the  deal,  deal  terms  should  be  assessed.  However,  before  doing  that  legal  result  of  walk  away  should  be  determined.  

•  In  lecer  of  intent  there  is  an  exclusivity  clause.  It  means  that  Cagiva  should  not  shop  the  deal.  Although  it  is  not  provided  in  the  case  in  return  of  no-­‐shop  clause  Cagiva  might  have  demanded  a  walk  away  fee.  It  is  a  fee  that  obliges  buyer  to  pay  the  agreed  amount  if  buyer  decides  not  to  complete  the  deal.  Different  from  U.S.  law,  European  Law  recognizes  pre-­‐contractual  liability.  Therefore,  as  we  do  not  know  the  applicable  law,  we  have  to  take  that  into  considera?on.  Nevertheless,  as  Cagiva  has  been  in  breach  of  no-­‐shop  clause  which  is  also  a  binding  term  of  lecer  of  intent,  walk  away   from  buyer  would  be   jus?fied  and  buyer  would  not  be   required   to  pay  walk  away   fee.  Buyer  even  may  be   rewarded   its  damages  (such  as  due  diligence  costs)    since  seller  has  been  in  breach  of  no-­‐shop  clause.  That  is  to  say,  without  being  held  liable  TPG  can  walk  away  from  this  deal.  

•  Arer  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  TPG  can  walk  away,  it  remains  to  discuss  whether  TPG  should  walk  away  from  deal  or  complete  to  deal.  For  that  purpose  terms  of  the  deals  should  be  analyzed  to  see  how  advantageous  they  are  and  to  what  extent  they  meet  the  concerns  of  TPG.  

•  Terms:    •  No  shop  clause:  Explana?on  and  defini?on  made  above.  •  Walk  away  fee:  Explana?on  and  defini?on  made  above.  •  Break  up  fee:  Break  up  fee  is  the  reverse  of  walk  away  fee.  It  has  to  be  paid  by  seller  to  buyer  in  case  seller  decides  not  to  complete  the  deal.  In  

the  case  it   is  not  stated  that  break  up  fee  is  determined.   If  there  is   it   is  advantageous.  However,  even  there  is  not  a  set  break-­‐up  fee  if   it   is  European  Law  is  to  be  applied  to  contract.  For  its  break  up  buyer  will  be  held  liable  under  pre-­‐contractual  liability.  However,  if  U.S.  law  will  be  applied,  there  is  a  slight  chance  based  on  promissory  estoppel  to  held  seller  liable  for  the  damages.  

•  Working  capital  adjustments  term:  According  to  deal,  not  all  of  the  purchase  price  will  be  paid  to  Cagiva.  Deal  provides  that  a  part  of  deal  price  will  be  paid  to  company  so  that  it  is  working  capital  requirements  are  met.  This  is  a  quite  advantageous  term  as  most  essen?al  problem  of  Duca?  is  working  capital  and  it  will  decrease  the  probability  of  Duca?  to  go  bankrupt.  In  addi?on  as  Cagiva  will  have  49%  percent  of  the  Duca?  arer  closing  the  deal,  49%  of  this  amount  shall  be  deemed  to  be  paid  to  Cagiva.  

•  Covenant  with  the  legal  en8ty  selling  Duca8  to  technically  avoid  insolvency:  It  is  also  a  term  to  avoid  insolvency.  •  Earn  out   term:  This   term  will   allow  TPG   to  pay   somewhere  between  20-­‐25%  of   the  deal  price  on   the  condi?on   that  previously   set  EBITDA  

targets  are  met.  This  also  decrease  the  probability  of  TPG  facing  a  loss  arising  from  failure  to  improve  Duca?’s  performance.        •  Control  of  Board:  According  to  deal  TPG  will  control  the  board  un?l  TPG’s  interest  drop  under  10%.  It  is  also  a  very  advantageous  term  that  

ensures  that  TPG  will  achieve  its  goals.  It  especially  takes  TPG’s  par?al  exit  from  the  investment.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  it  may  not  bind  third  par?es  but  only  Cagiva.  In  addi?on  there  is  a  term  to  avoid  bot  party  to  collect  majority  of  public  shares  in  IPO.  It  also  ensures  that  management  will  remain  at  TPG.  

 With  all  these  provisions  deal  set  in  a  way  to  make  sure  that  TPG  will  achieve  its  goals.  Source  Balz  2004;  Tene,  2006  

Appendix  –  Walk  away  or  complete?  

Page 17: Ducati Case Study

Lis8ng  Standards  -­‐  United  States                              Round-­‐lot  Holders   400  U.S.   Alterna8ve  #3  -­‐  Affiliated  Company        Public  shares   1,100,00  outstanding   For  new  en??es  with  a  parent  or  affiliated      Market  Value  of  Public  Shares   $40  million   company  listed  on  the  NYSE      IPOs,  Spin-­‐offs,  Carve-­‐Outs,  Affiliates   $100  million   Global  Market  Capitaliza0on     $500  million           Opera0ng  History   12  months  Financial  Criteria              Alterna8ve  #1  -­‐  Earnings  test       Alterna8ve  #4  -­‐  Asset  and  Equity      Aggregate  pre-­‐tax  income  for  last  3  years   $10  million   Global  Market  Capitaliza0on   $150  million  Minimum  in  each  of  the  most  2  recent       Total  Assets   $75  million  years;  Third  year  must  be  posi0ve   $2  million   Stockholders'  Equity   $50  million                  Alterna8ve  #2a  -­‐  Valua8on  with  Cash  Flow       REITs      Global  Market  Capitaliza0on   $500  million   Stockholders'  Equity   $60  million  Revenues  (most  recent  12-­‐month  period)   $100  million          Adjusted  Cash  Flow:       Funds  and  BDCs      Aggrehate  for  the  last  3  year       Net  Assets   $60  million  All  3  years  must  be  posi0ve   $25  million          

Appendix  –  Lis8ng  Requirements  

Source:  NYSE  EURONEXT