American Home Product (AHP) Case Essay

Higher leverage is very likely to create value for a firm considering capital structure change by exerting financial discipline and more efficient corporate strategy changes.

By the end of 1999, Seagate had a BBB credit rating issued by S&P for its long-term debt. Based upon historical operating performance, it would seem that Seagate’s leverage ratio has high volatility due to its high volatility in market value of equity and operational performance. However, we believe that the current leverage ratio is above its optimal leverage because in 1998 the firm had a -2.72 EBIT interest coverage ratio using the greater debt load of $703 million on its books. In the recapitalization for the leveraged buyout, a

What are the advantages of leveraging this company? The disadvantages? How would leveraging up affect the company’s taxes? How would the capital markets react to a decision by the company to increase the use of debt in its capital structure?

HCA, after following a conservative financial policy since its establishment, has entered the new decade preparing to make some changes in order to realign their financial strategy and capital structure. Since establishment, HCA has often been used as a measure for the entire proprietary hospital industry. Is it now time for the market to realign their expectations for the industry as a whole? HCA has target goals which need to be met in order to accomplish milestones in the future. The problem arises as to which area holds priority to the company. HCA must decide how the key components of their financial strategy and policy should my approached in order

Aside from the two aforementioned proposals the company can raise its leverage in other ways. By conducting DuPont analysis and understanding operating leverage we see that purchasing fixed assets and decreasing stockholder’s equity will raise the equity multiplier and the firm’s operating leverage. In this instance we recommend against this approach as the firm already has a large amount of excess cash above what they require to fund new positive NPV projects and purchase new assets. Investors would rather see their capital returned to them in the form of share repurchases and dividends as it is evident by the company’s cash stockpile that they can

Based upon the firm’s low target leverage of 5%, low degree of operating leverage, and favorable credit history and financial outlook, the model assumes a cost of debt in line with AAA corporate debt at 7.02%. This estimate seems reasonable and sensitivity analysis shows a 1% decrease in the forecasted share price requires at least a 2.4% increase in the cost of debt.

Overall regards to liquidity ratios, the higher the number the better; however, a too high also indicates that the firms were not using their resources to their full potential. Current ratio of 1.0 or greater shows that a company can pay its current liabilities with its current assets. JWN’s ratio increased from 2.06 in 2007 to 2.57 in 2010, and slightly decreased to 2.16 in 2011. JWN’s cash ratio increased significantly from 22% in 2007 to 80% in 2010. JWN has a cash ratio of 73% in 2011, which is useful to creditors when deciding how much debt they would be willing to extend to JWN. In addition, JWN also has moderate CFO ratio of 46%, indicating the companies’ ability to pay off their short term liabilities with their operating cash

Higher leverage is very likely to create value for a firm considering capital structure change by exerting financial discipline and more efficient corporate strategy changes.

Increased leverage would increase the risk for the shareholder. This is due to the fact that an increased amount of debt would increase the financial return that investors expect. For example, if a company has no debt and posts better than expected earnings, the equity holder would get all of this benefit. If the company had some debt and posted better than expected earnings, the bond holders would get a fixed payment as usual, and shareholders would still enjoy increased profits; the problem arises if worse than expected profits were shown by Kelly Services. If Kelly Services had no debt and posted bad earnings, then the equity bears all the risk in that situation. However, if Kelly

The company lost money almost every year since its leveraged buyout by Coniston Partners in 1989. The income generated was not sufficient to service the interest expenses of the company which stood at $2.62B in 1996. From Exhibit 1, we can say that interest coverage ratio computed as EBIT / Interest Expense was 1.31 in 1989 and has been decreasing over years and currently stands at 0.59. This raises a question of how the company can meet its interest payments without raising cash or selling assets.

The company’s debt ratios are 54.5% in 1988, 58.69% in 1989, 62.7% in 1990, and 67.37% in 1991. What this means is that the company is increasing its financial risk by taking on more leverage. The company has been taking an extensive amount of purchasing over the past couple of years, which could be the reason as to why net income has not grown much beyond several thousands of dollars. One could argue that the company is trying to expand its inventory to help accumulate future sales. But another problem is that the company’s

We assume linear increase in the EBIT and EBITDA at 3% for 1999 from 1998 figures. Considering the debt will be long-term, we test both 10- and 20-year corporate yields as interest rates to see what would be the coverage ratios, using the 1999 projected figures.

In general, the lower the company's reliance on debt for asset formation, the less risky the company is since excessive debt can lead to a very heavy interest and principal repayment burden. This is demonstrated through statistics such as high financial risk, low interest coverage ratios, and high debt ratios. However, when a company chooses to forgo debt and rely largely on equity, as in the case of AHP, the company does so at the expense of a tax reduction effect supplied by interest payments. Thus, a company has to consider both risk and tax issues when deciding on an optimal debt ratio.

According to the Equilibrium Theory, a company has reached its optimal capital structure when it minimizes the total sum of taxes paid and the cost of financial distress. Taxes paid and the costs of financial distress develop in opposite directions as the interest coverage ratio (EBIT/interest) changes. While the tax shield effect and thus the amount of taxes paid at different coverage ratios can easily be calculated using the marginal tax rate (in the case of Diageo 27%), the cost of financial distress has to be approximated using sophisticated financial models (e.g. Monte Carlo Analysis) that take into account probabilities of different direct and indirect costs of financial distress.

It seems then that companies should fully leverage the company or a least come close to doing so but there is a probability that the company enters financial distress as its leverage (D/E) increases. Financial distress can be very costly for companies, and the cost for this scenario is shown in the current market value of the levered firm's securities. Investors factor the potential for future distress into their assessment of the present value (this is where PV of distress costs is subtracted from un-levered company value and the PV of the tax-shield.) The value for the costs