August has become the new October for markets in terms of increased volatility and downward pressure on equities and high yield credit. This year has seen similar volatility as was the case in some memorable years. Declining commodity markets, exchange rate volatility and a pronounced widening of credit spreads finally began to reverberate in global equity markets this year. Declining markets in the context of negotiating and opining on a transaction will raise the question: How do current market conditions impact fairness?
Dividends and dividend policies are important for the owners of closely held and family businesses. Dividends can provide a source of liquidity and diversification for owners of private companies. Dividend policy can also have an impact on the way that management focuses on financial performance.
After several years of litigation involving a number of hearings and trials on various issues, a trial to conclude the collective fair value of a group of related companies known as the AriZona Entities occurred. This article presents an in-depth discussion of the case and the valuation issues present.
Although successful bank acquisitions largely hinge on deal execution and realizing expense synergies, properly assessing and pricing credit represents a primary deal risk. Additionally, the acquirer’s pro forma capital ratios are always important, but even more so in a heightened bank regulatory environment and merger approval process. Against this backdrop, merger-related accounting issues for bank acquirers have become increasingly important in recent years and the most significant fair value mark typically relates to the determination of the fair value of the loan portfolio. Fair value is guided by ASC 820 and defines value as the price received/paid by market participants in orderly transactions. It is a process that involves a number of assumptions about market conditions, loan portfolio segment cash flows inclusive of assumptions related to expected credit losses, appropriate discount rates, and the like. To properly evaluate a target’s loan portfolio, the portfolio should be evaluated on its own merits, but markets do provide perspective on where the cycle is and how this compares to historical levels.
Golden parachute payments have long been a controversial topic. These payments, typically occurring when a public company undergoes a change-in-control, can result in huge windfalls for senior executives and in some cases draw the ire of political activists and shareholder advisory groups. Golden parachute payments can also lead to significant tax consequences for both the company and the individual. Strategies to mitigate these tax risks include careful design of compensation agreements and consideration of noncompete agreements to reduce the likelihood of additional excise taxes.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Sept. 17 proposed to oversee nonbank auto finance companies, noting that the action was undertaken after it uncovered auto lending discrimination at the banks it supervises. What was striking to me about the release is what appears to be the creeping and maybe soon to be rapid federalization of another credit product.
It is sort of like the pre-crisis days, but not really. Bank acquisition activity involving non-assisted transactions has been gradually building since the financial crisis. The only notable interruption occurred in the second half of 2011 when the downgrade of the U.S. by S&P (but not Moody’s or Fitch) and a funding crisis among many European banks caused markets to fall sharply.
In this article, we discuss the case of Richmond v. Commissioner in which the valuation of the Estate of Helen Richmond was questioned.
On July 16th, 2014 Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ ticker: BPFH), the holding company of Boston Private Bank & Trust Company, entered an asset-purchase agreement to acquire Banyan Partners, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida with approximately $4.3 billion in client assets.
Although it is difficult to discern with the ten-year U.S. Treasury presently yielding about 2.4% compared to 3.0% at the beginning of the year, many market participants believe the Federal Reserve will begin to raise the Fed Funds target rate next year. The thought process is not illogical. How high short-term rates may rise is unknown. (A corollary question for others is what, if anything, will the Fed do with its enlarged balance sheet as shown in Table 1.) Pimco’s Bill Gross has opined that the “new neutral” target rate will be around 2% rather than a historical policy bias of 4%. For lenders, money market funds and trust/processing companies, a hike in short rates cannot occur soon enough.
All is never quiet on the regulatory front, and the first half of 2014 was no exception. Below is a discussion of some (but certainly not all) developments affecting financial institutions at the federal regulatory level, from QMs, TruPS CDOs, and CCAR to payday lending, mobile banking, and the fines and penalties parade.
Portfolio manager Grant Williams remarked at John Mauldin’s Strategic Investment Conference in mid-May that there may be a bubble in complacency. Maybe so with the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) below 12, high yield credit trading at tight spreads to Treasurys and other risk measures that are comparable to the period leading up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
It’s no secret that the number of insurance agency acquisitions by banks and thrifts has declined considerably over the last ten years. According to SNL Financial, an average of 60 agencies were purchased by banks annually between 2004 and 2008. Over the next five years, the average annual tally dropped to 27. The most likely reason for this decline is the effects of the recession and less capital available for investment. Interestingly enough, however, the number of agency divestitures by banks has been fairly constant at about ten per year. In the broader market for insurance agencies/brokerages, transaction volume has only gotten more robust over the last ten years, including a record 361 deals completed in 2012.
In a low interest rate environment coupled with rising capital requirements, many banks are turning their attention to asset managers and trust companies to improve ROE and diversify revenue.
Powered by a fairly steady market tailwind over the last few years, many asset managers and trust companies have more than doubled in value since the financial crisis and may finally be posturing towards some kind of exit opportunity to take advantage of this growth. Still, there are often several overlooked deal considerations that banks and other interested parties should be apprised of prior to purchasing an asset manager or trust company. In this article, we outline our top three considerations when looking to purchase these kinds of businesses in today’s environment.
It appears that Mr. Koons’ careful estate planning, involving a significant sale and redemption transaction of business operations to provide liquidity and flexibility in his later years, was disrupted by an untimely death. While estate planning professionals can hardly advise against a premature passing, the disruption here highlights the importance of starting early with business valuation input to help avoid a complex confluence of strategic transactions within a narrow time frame.
On January 7, 2014 Tri-State Capital Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ ticker: TSC), the holding company of Pittsburgh-based TriState Capital Bank, entered a definitive asset-purchase agreement to acquire Chartwell Investment Partners, L.P., a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) in the Philadelphia area with approximately $7.5 billion in assets under management (AUM). Unlike most acquisitions of closely held RIAs, the terms of the deal were disclosed via a conference call and investor presentation; the details of which are outlined in this article.
While many banks chafe under tightening regulatory policy directed by the Federal Reserve and other agencies, the Fed’s monetary policy has, however, created favorable conditions for equity investors. Likewise, the Fed’s monetary policy has compressed spreads on credit-sensitive assets and negated the return on holding liquidity. From bank management’s perspective, these conditions have led to continued deterioration in asset yields, pressure to extend loan portfolio durations, and few remaining alternatives to reduce funding costs. In sum, the Federal Reserve and other agencies have created conditions that complicate bank managers’ decision making – namely, greater regulatory burdens and the effects of a prolonged low interest rate period. However, the Fed’s monetary policy also has created conditions ripe for expansion of banks’ stock prices.
The fairness opinion states that a transaction is fair from a financial point of view of the subject company’s shareholders. The opinion does not express a view about where a security may trade in the future; nor does it offer a view as to why a board elected to take a certain action. Valuation is at the heart of a fairness opinion, though valuation typically is a range concept that may (or may not) encompass the contemplated transaction value.
Dividend recaps can be an attractive transaction for a board to undertake to unlock value, especially since multiples for many industries have recovered to pre-crisis levels while borrowing rates are very low and most banks are anxious to lend. In addition, dividend recaps allow privately held businesses to convert “paper” wealth to liquid wealth and thereby facilitate diversification.
Merger related accounting issues for bank acquirers are often complex. In recent years, the credit mark on the acquired loan portfolio has often been cited as an impediment to M&A activity as this mark can be the most critical component that determines whether the pro-forma capital ratios are adequate. As economic conditions have improved in 2013, bank M&A activity has also picked up and we thought it would be useful to take a look at the estimated credit marks for some of the larger deals announced in 2013 (i.e., where the acquirer was publicly traded and the reported deal values were greater than $100 million) to see if any trends emerged.
Business owners seldom think about a valuation strategy for dealing with the IRS on gift and estate tax matters. Many owners ignore the importance of estate tax planning, which can also be called lifetime planning. Lack of vision or short-sightedness on planning can be damaging to family wealth and succession.
In this second part of a two-part series, we have collected eight examples of mistakes that valuation experts have made, as reported in federal courts tax decisions. It is important to note that there are two sides to every story, and courts do not always get it right. For this reason, we do not name any valuators in this collection of mistakes to avoid.
Many bank analysts have been arguing that investors should buy bank stocks because capital is building faster than it can be deployed. The Federal Reserve, unlike during the pre-crisis era, is governing the amount of capital returned to shareholders. Basel III is another governor, especially given the enhanced leverage ratio requirement large U.S. banks are facing. But are buybacks a good idea for bank managers today?
The following provides an illustrative example of the primary steps to construct a “top-down” portfolio-level stress test.
