Leveraged Buyouts

FOR AND AGAINST

Philosophical views of business go far in explaining positive and negative views of LBOs as well—and LBOs particularly (among merger and acquisition methods) because users of LBOs are predominantly interested in changing companies in order to extract benefits in the process. Those who see corporations predominantly in capitalist terms favor a business model in which stockholder equity is always maximized regardless of any other consideration. Those who view corporations as economic and social institutions with a wide penumbra of other interests also involved—stakeholders including employees, distributors, customers, vendors, etc.—view this method of acquisition, especially if used in hostile takeovers aimed at dismembering the corporation, slashing its employment, and taking it public again as disruptive and predatory.

In more mechanical terminology, proponents of such acquisitions claim multiple benefits. One of these is a more optimal debt-to-capital ratio. High debt and low capital mean lower taxes: interest costs are deductible. Reduced ability to invest in capital good increases the company's efficiency by reducing over-capacity. Companies using their profits for growth rather than dividends short-change the stockholder. Highly diversified companies in many unrelated businesses have much higher overheads—unnecessary if badly fitting parts are spun off. These motives translate into leaner and more profitable ventures producing higher return on investment—all of which favors ownership interests. Opponents, on the contrary, favor control and predictability through diversification, market share gains, flexibility in production and in ability to respond—all of which favors management, employees, and other stakeholders. Ultimately both sides have legitimate points to make, and the controversy, therefore, is likely to continue.

LBO TRENDS

The first LBOs were made in the 1960s; their use took hold in the 1970s and began to boom in the 1980s. LBOs in the first half of the 1980s were very successful, leading to a boom mentality in the second half of the 1980s with extraordinarily high rates of leverage, leading to many bankruptcies and failures in the early 1990s. A legislative reaction at the state level (states control incorporation and rules related to them) went through several cycles. States tightened rules against hostile takeovers; the Supreme Court curbed such activities in a 1982 judgment; states then revised their rules to get around the high court's ruling—and these work-arounds were later approved in another Supreme Court case in the late 1980s. The upshot was to make hostile takeover more difficult, requiring buyers to acquire a higher percent of stock in order to take control. LBO deals diminished in the 1990s but began to heat up again in the new century, reaching another boom in the mid-2000s.

In general, LBOs are highly dependent on the availability of investment funds—money chasing opportunity. When money is tight and less risky ventures pay high returns, LBOs diminish and/or the degree of leverage used declines—buyers having to put up more of their own equity. When the economy is flush with cash, the number of deals and their magnitudes increase, purchase prices balloon, and investors also begin "reaching down" to purchase smaller companies ("microcaps" in the jargon of investment). Second, leveraged deals depend on healthy companies with high and predictable future cash flows—without which investors are difficult to attract to a deal. Hostile LBOs also require publicly traded companies so that the buyer can reach stockholders and persuade them to give the buyer control. As the 2000s roll along, conditions very much favor LBOs. Enormous trade deficits have produced a strong influx of foreign investments and the economy is flush with money. The future will undoubtedly bring a correction as the mid-2000s' exuberance brings a flurry of bankruptcies—echoing the crashes in the 1980s.

 PREV  1 | 2