個案總覽

Carmichael Roberts, a rare African-American venture capitalist, considered leaving his general partnership in a private equity firm near Boston and setting up his own in 2015. He weighed whether the timing is right, with the economy still not fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Where to base such a firm was another factor in his decision-making. A member of the board of the National Venture Capital Association, Roberts knew the industry was gravitating to the San Francisco Bay area, to invest in the social media and software startups centered there. His specialty and passion was bringing to market new products made from advanced materials that help people solve problems in their daily lives. That investment focus on manufacturing would go against the private equity trend, another factor he considered. But he knew few, if any, general partners at major private equity firms were focused singularly on the kinds of businesses he wanted to invest in. Roberts also took into account the possible impact on his mutually respectful relations with his fellow partners. From a housing project in Brooklyn, New York, Roberts became a scientist who did advanced study at Duke and Harvard, capped off with an MBA from MIT. He had experience as a developer of technical products for Fortune 500 companies, an executive of cutting-edge startups, and a venture capitalist for eight years. This case study also reviews how private equity investment works, the private equity spectrum, the history of venture capital, stages of venture capital funds, and their location.

The September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was the largest in U.S. history. In 2007, Lehman achieved record earnings. What happened? Who is to blame?

Shortly after submitting their best and final offer to acquire Merck's Consumer Care Division, a collection of "over-the-counter" (OTC) products with sales totaling $2 billion, the Bayer M&A team was given a chance to revise their bid because another potential acquirer - likely Reckitt-Benckiser, a UK based company that had outbid them in a few prior acquisition auctions - had submitted a last-minute offer to Merck. Frank Rittgen (Head of M&A) and Werner Baumann (CFO) have to decide whether to increase the cash portion of their $14.2 billion offer and/or amend the terms of a proposed joint venture (JV) with Merck involving cardiovascular drugs which had been included in their offer as a way to "sweeten" the deal. Under the current terms of the proposed JV, Merck would pay Bayer $1 billion upfront for access to their pipeline of drugs and could pay up to another $1.2 billion in contingent payments based on actual sales. Alternatively, the Bayer team could hold fast on both fronts and let their final bid stand. With only an hour to make a decision regarding one of the industry's "transformational assets", the Bayer team had to move quickly and carefully as they were determined not to overpay for the asset.

Spreadsheet supplement for case 217021.

This case examines the October 2015 initial public offering pricing decision for legendary Italian sports car company Ferrari by Fiat Chrysler management. Students are invited to model the value of Ferrari in light of Ferrari CEO Sergio Marchionne's interest in expanding production despite the company's long standing tradition of severely limiting production strategy to maintain an exclusive brand image. The case is designed to showcase corporate valuation using discounted cash flow and peer-company market multiples for a company that exists in two sectors: automotive and luxury goods.

Elizabeth Mok was the second born and the only daughter in the fourth generation of the Lee family. She was also the only one of five siblings who did not own shares in the family business, the world-renowned sauce maker Lee Kum Kee, headquartered in Hong Kong. For Elizabeth, it seemed natural not to own shares, as she had high respect for the traditional approach to succession planning, where females did not inherit a family business. Besides, she believed her brothers worked hard to build the firm's international reputation and therefore deserved the shares more than she did. Elizabeth was once again asked by her family to reconsider her decision not to own shares. This time, she could sense their determination to change the state of things.

Canada’s economy could use a blast of innovation. After all, between 2005 and 2015, productivity averaged only 1 per cent per year, while economic growth averaged under 2 per cent. Unfortunately, despite public policy talk of supporting innovation, the government does not go far enough to provide innovation incentives. Indeed, the stimulants currently in place are inadequate to produce the high-performance economy that Canada requires. To help the Canadian economy return to the 3–4 per cent growth rates of our past, policymakers should consider three strategies. 1) Improve returns on innovation by lowering taxes and freezing or lowering capital gains and options gains tax rates. 2) Improve the regulatory environment: Excessive and poorly conceived regulations serve as an innovation killer, especially for small businesses that lack the financial resources to manage an excessive compliance process. 3) Innovate government services: One approach is to take the shackles off government-sector incentive systems and specifically reward efforts at innovation. Another, less controversial approach is a competitive grant program aimed at would-be government-sector innovators. Finally, universities and colleges through their teaching and research programs are a hotbed of innovation. Enhanced post-secondary education funding with proper targets and controls could be a boon to innovation.

This case explores a complex swap transaction implemented by Metro do Porto in 2007. It represents an opportunity to study fixed income derivative instruments, such as plain-vanilla swaps and structured swaps, as well as understand the opportunities and challenges of using innovative financial instruments. The public sector setting allows to discuss the political economy implications of such transactions.

Investment manager Eliza Baena confronts an apparent convertible bond arbitrage opportunity when she notices a narrowing spread between two Boston Properties (BXP) bonds, one a convertible bond and the other a straight bond, in the wake of the 2008 Lehman bankruptcy. Baena must decide if there is an opportunity, how to structure a trade to exploit it, and how much of her fund's capital to allocate. Case exposition includes descriptions of basic financing arrangements that support arbitrage strategies, such as rehypothecation and margin lending.

In April 2014, the founder of SecureNow met with one of his classmates who was now an angel investor. The two had recently met socially and the founder had briefed his classmate on SecureNow's online business-to-business insurance marketplace. The classmate was now expressing interest in investing in SecureNow but his valuation was much lower than the founder's expectation. The founder was confident of SecureNow's future growth, but he wanted funds to expand. His classmate would provide him with the kind of relationship he was seeking with an investor, but the founder wondered how he and his classmate arrived at such different valuations. He also wondered whether he should accept the funds at a low valuation, consider other options, or just postpone his expansion plans.

This case considers the 2016 acquisition of U.S. gambling concern Hope Enterprises by a major hotel company, Carter International (Carter). It is a relatively straightforward exercise in valuing a potential acquisition target. The case presents an opportunity for students to use both discounted cash flow and market multiples in their analysis. In addition, at the instructor's discretion, students can consider the debt-equity mix in the acquiring firm and evaluate an opportunistic debt issue across different currencies. The case is commonly used as a review case or an exam case for a standard applied corporate finance course.

In January of 2016, Singapore International Airlines Group (SIA) announced that it had secured more than 90 per cent stake in Tiger Airways Holdings Limited (Tigerair), and would take Tigerair private. Once the buyout offer closed on February 19, trading in Tigerair's shares would be suspended because the free float had fallen below the minimum 10 per cent threshold. Tigerair had been suffering losses amounting to more than SG$600 million from 2012 to 2015. When SIA initiated the buyout offer, Tigerair's shareholders wanted to use the discounted cash flow model, the discounted dividend model, and relative valuation to determine whether the buyout was a fair deal.

Student spreadsheet for case KEL987.

In April 2014, the founder of SecureNow met with one of his classmates who was now an angel investor. The two had recently met socially and the founder had briefed his classmate on SecureNow’s online business-to-business insurance marketplace. The classmate was now expressing interest in investing in SecureNow but his valuation was much lower than the founder’s expectation. The founder was confident of SecureNow’s future growth, but he wanted funds to expand. His classmate would provide him with the kind of relationship he was seeking with an investor, but the founder wondered how he and his classmate arrived at such different valuations. He also wondered whether he should accept the funds at a low valuation, consider other options, or just postpone his expansion plans.

Student spreadsheet for case KEL983.

In mid-September 2015, Sara Larson, the chief financial officer of this large CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing) equipment manufacturer must decide whether to pay out dividends to the firm's shareholders, or repurchase stock. If Larson chooses to pay out dividends, she must also decide on the magnitude of the payout. A subsidiary question is whether the firm should embark on a campaign of corporate-image advertising and change its corporate name to reflect its new outlook. The case serves as an omnibus review of the many practical aspects of the dividend and share buyback decisions, including (1) signaling effects, (2) clientele effects, and (3) finance and investment implications of increasing dividend payout and share repurchase decisions. This case can follow a treatment of the Miller-Modigliani dividend-irrelevance theorem and serves to highlight practical considerations in setting dividend policy.

Student spreadsheet for case UV7227.

In 2013, the chief business officer at the Bombay Stock Exchange needed to prepare a recommendation on whether to pursue liquidity enhancement schemes in the equity cash market. The Bombay Stock Exchange, the oldest stock exchange in Asia, had held a monopoly in India until 1994, when the National Stock Exchange was launched. When derivatives were introduced to the Indian stock exchanges in 2000, the Bombay Stock Exchange had been unprepared, and the National Stock Exchange soon captured the entire derivatives market. In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Board of India approved the introduction of the Liquidity Enhancement Incentive Programmes on illiquid securities in the derivatives segment. The Bombay Stock Exchange then introduced the incentives for various illiquid products in the derivatives segment, but lost profit as a result of the incentives it paid out. Had the Liquidity Enhancement Incentive Programmes improved liquidity in the derivatives segment? Was it worth sacrificing profit to gain liquidity and market share? The chief business officer needed to address the long-term benefits of liquidity enhancement schemes and the merits of introducing such schemes to the Bombay Stock Exchange's equity cash market.

In January of 2016, Singapore International Airlines Group (SIA) announced that it had secured more than 90 per cent stake in Tiger Airways Holdings Limited (Tigerair), and would take Tigerair private. Once the buyout offer closed on February 19, trading in Tigerair’s shares would be suspended because the free float had fallen below the minimum 10 per cent threshold. Tigerair had been suffering losses amounting to more than SG$600 million from 2012 to 2015. When SIA initiated the buyout offer, Tigerair’s shareholders wanted to use the discounted cash flow model, the discounted dividend model, and relative valuation to determine whether the buyout was a fair deal.

In 2013, the chief business officer at the Bombay Stock Exchange needed to prepare a recommendation on whether to pursue liquidity enhancement schemes in the equity cash market. The Bombay Stock Exchange, the oldest stock exchange in Asia, had held a monopoly in India until 1994, when the National Stock Exchange was launched. When derivatives were introduced to the Indian stock exchanges in 2000, the Bombay Stock Exchange had been unprepared, and the National Stock Exchange soon captured the entire derivatives market. In 2011, the Securities and Exchange Board of India approved the introduction of the Liquidity Enhancement Incentive Programmes on illiquid securities in the derivatives segment. The Bombay Stock Exchange then introduced the incentives for various illiquid products in the derivatives segment, but lost profit as a result of the incentives it paid out. Had the Liquidity Enhancement Incentive Programmes improved liquidity in the derivatives segment? Was it worth sacrificing profit to gain liquidity and market share? The chief business officer needed to address the long-term benefits of liquidity enhancement schemes and the merits of introducing such schemes to the Bombay Stock Exchange’s equity cash market.