LUBIN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
Pace University
FIN 647 Advanced Topics in Financial Management
Prof. P.V. Viswanath
Fall 2010
Notes:
1. (15 points) Read the following article, "Film financing: Hedge funds say it's a wrap, but should they?" which appeared in the May 2009 issue of Euromoney and answer the questions below. Keep in mind that simplistic answers will not be sufficient. I will be looking to see if you have done any research as well as whether you have thought about the matter. Appropriate quotations from sources will be appreciated; you may want to also look at the article by Edward Fee, “The costs of outside equity control: Evidence from motion picture financing,” Journal of Business, Oct. 2002, vol. 75, n. 4, pp. 681 ff.
Investing in studios' slates of films had become big business for hedge funds and banks over 2005 to 2008 with the two side partnering up to create vehicles. Studios, strapped for cash and keen to offload some risk of flops in return for shares in DVD and TV sales profits, had turned to Wall Street to help them. Deals were put together whereby hedge funds and banks invested alongside the studio in seven to 25 films to be made in the future. About $15 billion is estimated to have been invested in slates of films over the three-year period ending 2008. Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan all arranged co-financing deals with studios raising money from hedge funds and private equity firms. Hedge funds such as Dune Capital and Clark Investments also created co-financing vehicles.
Last year, though, the banks started backing out of film financing, with some, such as Citi, pulling out altogether. Gordon Clark of the Movie Portfolio Fund says he is not surprised. A former CFO of a bank, Clark says he knows all too well that Wall Street and films do not always go well together. "Investing in film is a long-term commitment, and banks are notoriously short-term in their judgments. They only started getting in to slate financing deals in 2005 and already they have pulled out."
Clark's firm looks to invest over at least a five-year period. "It can take two years to begin earning revenue from a movie, and then about five to seven years to collect the bulk of the revenue," he says.
Cut!
Breaking commitments halfway through a slate of films is damaging for the studios, which end up without partners, and can be costly for the hedge funds and banks, which might face lawsuits for breach of contract. Instead, Wall Street is trying to find speciality partners who can take over their side of the contract, often at a discount. It is good news for smaller funds with expertise in film financing.
Indeed, Clark says now is a good time to be in film finance. Films tend to do well in both good and bad economic situations and provide a hedge and diversification to investors. "The returns are uncorrelated with markets -- 2009 has been a record year so far for the film industry," he says. "Box office sales in January this year were the highest in any January on record for example."
The hedge funds and banks failed in their investments because of lack of expertise, Clark suggests. "The studios managed to construct the deals on their terms, often including the banks and hedge funds on films that were deemed to have less potential," he says. Sequels to best-selling films such as Spiderman were left out of deal contracts, while less attractive films, such as flop Poseidon Adventure, were included, for example. "People tend to jump in when there is a boom without truly knowing what they are getting into," says Clark. "There was a lack of real understanding but those who have a long-term interest in investing in movies stand to make good returns."
2. Mercer Corporation is an all-equity firm with 10 million shares outstanding and $96 million worth of debt outstanding. Its current share price is $66. Mercer's equity cost of capital is 8.5%. Mercer has just announced that it will issue $370 million worth of debt. It will use the proceeds from this debt to pay off its existing debt, and use the remaining $274 million to pay an immediate dividend. Assume perfect capital markets.
3. Garnet Corporation is considering issuing risk-free debt, or risk-free preferred stock. The tax rate on interest income is 35%, and the tax rate on dividends or capital gains from preferred stock is 25%. However, the dividends on preferred stock are not deductible for corporate tax purposes, and the corporate tax rate is 35%.
4. Zymase is a biotechnology startup. Researchers at Zymase must choose one of three different research strategies. The payoffs (after-tax) and their likelihood for each strategy are shown below. The risk of each project is diversifiable.
Strategy | Probability | Payoff ($ million) |
---|---|---|
A | 100% |
85 |
B | 50% |
150 |
50% |
0 |
|
C | 10% |
350 |
90% |
30 |
5. If it is managed efficiently, Remel Inc. will have assetts with a market value of $50.8 million, $101.3 million or $149.3 million next year, with each outcome being equally likely. However, managers may engage in wasteful empire building, which will reduce the market value by $5.3 millino in all cases. Managers may also increase the risk of the firm, changing the probbability of each outcome to 48%, 10% and 42% respectively.
6. On Monday, November 15, 2004, TheStreet.Com reported: "An experiment in the efficiency of financial marktes will play out Monday following the expiration of a $4.10 dividend privilege for holders of Moft Industries." The story went on: "The stock is currently trading ex-dividend both the special $4 payout and Moft Industries' regular 10-cent quarterly dividend, meaning a buyer doesn't receive the money if he acquires the shares now." Moft Industries stock ultimately opened for trade at $27 on the ex-dividend date (November 15), down $4.10 from its previous close.
7. You are on your way to an important budget meeting. In the elevator, you review the project valuation analysis you had your summer associate prepare for one of the projects to be discussed:
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
EBIT |
10.1 |
9.9 |
9.7 |
9.8 |
|
Interest (5%) |
-4.0 |
-4.0 |
-3.0 |
-2.0 |
|
Earnings Before Tax |
6.1 |
5.9 |
6.7 |
7.8 |
|
Taxes |
-2.5 |
-2.4 |
-2.7 |
-3.2 |
|
Depreciation |
25.0 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
25.0 |
|
Capital Expenditures |
-100. |
||||
Additions to Net Working Capital |
-20.0 |
||||
Net New Debt |
80.0 |
0.0 |
-20.0 |
-20.0 |
-40.0 |
Free Cash Flow to Equity |
-40.0 |
28.6 |
8.5 |
9.0 |
9.6 |
NPV at 11% Equity Cost of Capital |
5.6 |
Looking over the spreadsheet, you realize that while all of the cash flow estimates are correct, your associate used the flow-to-equity valuatino methods and discounted the cash flows using the company's equity cost of capital of 11%. However, the project's incremental leverage is very different from the company's historical debt-equity ratio of 0.20: for this project, the company will instead borrow $80 million upfront and repay $20 milliion in year 2, $20 million in year 3, and $40 million in year 4. Thus the project's equity cost of capital is likely to be higher than the firm's, not constant over time -- invalidating your associate's calculation.
Clearly, the FTE approach is not the best way to analyze this project. Fortunately, you have your calculator with you, and with any luck you can use a better method before the meeting starts.
8. (15 points) Answer any three of the following questions: