Log in
HomeTextbook Notes300,000US110,000

FINA 2201 Chapter Notes - Chapter 10: Proxy Fight, Hughes Aircraft Company, Growth Stock

63 views7 pages
School
Northeastern University
Department
Finance & Insurance
Course
FINA 2201
Professor
Mazur Jack

For unlimited access to Textbook Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

9-1 legal rights and privileges of common stockholders. A firm"s common stockholders have the right to elect its directors, who in turn elect the officers who manage the business. First, corporations must hold elections of directors periodically, usually once a year, with the vote taken at the annual meeting. Each share of stock has one vote; thus, the owner of 1,000 shares has 1,000 votes for each director. Stockholders can appear at the annual meeting and vote in person, but typically they transfer their right to vote to another person by means of a proxy. However, if earnings are poor and stockholders are dissatisfied, an outside group may solicit the proxies in an effort to overthrow management and take control of the business. The frequency of proxy fights has increased, as have attempts by one corporation to take over another by purchasing a majority of the outstanding stock.

Get access

Grade+
$40 USD/m
Billed monthly
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
10 Verified Answers
Class+
$30 USD/m
Billed monthly
Class+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
7 Verified Answers

Related Documents

FINA 2201 Chapter Notes - Chapter 9: Dividend Yield, Growth Stock, Free Cash Flow
lilacmule890
FIN 3303
Final Exam
Study Guide
FIN 3303 Midterm: FIN 3303 exam 3 study guide
fuchsiawalrus922
FIN3403 Chapter Notes - Chapter 9: Dividend Yield, Retained Earnings
azureswan19

Related Questions

Jane Smith, CFA, has recently joined Zero Asset Management, Inc. (Zero) as a board member. Since Smith is also outside council for Zero, she is already very familiar with Zero’s operations and expects to begin contributing good ideas right away. Zero is a publicly traded investment management firm that historically focused on mutual fund management. Although there is current market opportunity to add a new type of mutual fund, the board recently decided against adding the fund. Instead, the board decided to expand its business to include a hedge fund operation within the existing corporation. Bill Week, CEO of Zero, has publicly stated that he is willing to bet the company’s future on hedge fund management. Week is the founder of Zero, as well as chairman of the board, and maintains a controlling interest in the company. Like the rest of Zero, the firm’s new hedge fund is quantitatively driven and index based. The fund has been set up in a separate office with new systems so that the analysts and managers can create a unique hedge fund culture. Trading and execution are the only operations that remain with Zero. The fund is run by one of Zero’s most successful portfolio managers. Smith learns that although none of the board members sit on other companies’ boards, most have at one point or another worked at Zero and so they are very familiar with Zero’s operations. A board member has attempted to make the health insurance and retirement concerns of the board members an agenda item, without success to date. Smith eagerly anticipates the next board meeting as they are always in a luxurious setting. At the board meeting, Smith asks a number of questions about Zero’s corporate gov- ernance system. The board becomes concerned by Smith’s questions and decides to hire an independent consultant to review their corporate governance responsibilities. The consultant starts his analysis by stating that a corporate governance systetem relies upon checks and bal- ances among managers, directors, and investors. Smith asks if Zero has the proper systems in place. The consultant says that he has looked at conflicts of interest and has one more area to review in order to verify that the board is meeting its major objectives. Concerned about the company’s stock price, Smith asks the consultant what work he has done concerning Zero’s corporate disclosures for investment professionals. The consultant indicates that he has reviewed Zero’s regulatory filings for clear and complete information, as well as the com-pany’s policies regarding related party transactions.

9. All of the following indicate Zero’s board’s lack of independence except:

A. personal relationships.

B. service of the outside counsel as a board member.

C. lack of interlocking directorships.

10. Which of the following is the most effective action for the board to take to address their oversight responsibilities concerning the hedge fund’s proxy voting?

A. Establish corporate values and governance structure for the company.

B. Establish long-term strategic objectives that are met and fully complied with.

C. Perform adequate training so that employees are able to perform their duties.

11. Which of the following omissions best describes a corporate governance shortcoming of Zero’s board of directors? The board’s failure to:

A. address the potential conflicts of interest between managing the firm’s hedge fund and its mutual fund business.

B. meet the market opportunity for a new kind of mutual fund.

C. establish the hedge fund operation in a separate corporation.

12. Given that Zero’s directors all previously worked at the company, which of the following would you recommend for a more effective system of corporate governance?

A. Ensure that assets are used efficiently and productively and in the best interests of investors and stakeholders.

B. Eliminate or mitigate conflicts of interest among stakeholders, particulularly between managers and shareholders

. C. Identify and measure accountabilities for the performance of the board’s responsibilities.

13. Which of the following best describes the objectives of Zero’s board that the consultant has not yet reviewed? The board should ensure:

A. that the assets of the company are used efficiently and productively and in the best interests of the investors and other stakeholders.

B. that material foreseeable risk factors are addressed and considered.

C. compliance with applicable laws and take into account the interest of stakeholders.

14. Which of the following is the most critical activity that an analyst can engage in to assess the quality of the corporate governance system at Zero, among those that the consultant did not review?

A. Look for vague references to off-balance-sheet or insider information.

B. Identify the responsiveness of the board to shareholder proxy votes.

C. Evaluate the quality and extent of financial information provided to investors.

Please read the article and answer these THREE questions:

1. Why are conditions currently favorable for firms to issue debt and pay out the proceeds to stockholders?

2. What are dangerous impacts of issuing additional debt mentioned in the article?

3. TransDigm used the proceeds of their debt issue to pay a one-time dividend while Intel used the proceeds to repurchase shares. How does a repurchase differ from a one-time dividend? Why do you think the two firms chose different approaches to distributing cash to shareholders?

___________

"Borrowing for Dividends Raises Worries" at the Wall Street Journal on 10/06/2009

Rock-bottom interest rates and thawed credit markets are emboldening some companies to use bond-sale proceeds to go on the offensive, even if that means rewarding shareholders at the expense of bondholders.

The nascent trend is controversial because corporate borrowers are sinking themselves deeper into debt to pay out special dividends, buy back stock or finance acquisitions. While such moves were all the rage during the credit boom, most corporate-bond offerings during the recession have been used to reduce debt or stockpile cash.

Eric Felder, global head of credit trading at Barclays Capital, says the lure of low rates and companies' stables of cash increases "the risk of non-bondholder friendly events."

Last week's sale of $425 million of bonds by aircraft-parts manufacturer TransDigm Group Inc. is one of the back-to-the-past corporate-bond deals causing concern among some analysts. More than $360 million of the proceeds will be used to pay a special cash dividend to shareholders and management of the Cleveland company.

The added debt increased TransDigm's borrowings to 4.3 times its earnings before interest and taxes, compared with 3.1 times before last week's deal. The expected dividend of $7.50 to $7.70 a share is equal to nearly all of the net income that TransDigm reported since the end of fiscal 2003, according to Moody's Investors Service.

Moody's said the dividend "illustrates the company's aggressive financial policy." Moody's gave the new debt a junk rating of B3, even though the ratings firm said TransDigm's "strong operating performance will enable the company to service the increased debt level."

Sean Maroney, director of investor relations at TransDigm, says the "stability of our business, high profit margins and consistent cash flow" give the company "the ability to support this level of leverage."

Borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholder dividends is "a hallmark of an earlier credit era," Jeffrey Rosenberg, head of credit strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, wrote in a report Friday. Such deals were popular in 2003 and 2004, the last time the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate to historically low levels, keeping it at 1% for more than a year.

Companies like Dex Media Inc. DEX -0.18% took on debt to pay dividends to its private-equity owners, including Carlyle Group and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, before taking the companies public. Dex Media filed for bankruptcy earlier this year under a mountain of debt.

With the federal-funds rate at 0% for nine months now and confidence returning to the stock and debt markets, investors have been driven to take on more risk. That is flooding the corporate-bond market with cash. Investors poured $43 billion into investment-grade corporate-bond funds in the second quarter and nearly $40 billion in the third quarter -- almost double previous peak quarters, according to Lipper AMG Data Services.

The wave of buying drove down borrowing costs for the average highly rated corporation to about 5%, according to Merrill, a level not seen since 2005. In the heat of the crisis last October, such rates averaged 9%. Through the end of September, more than 1,000 high-rated companies borrowed a record $860 billion, according to Dealogic.

In July, Intel Corp. INTC 0.33% sold $1.75 billion of convertible bonds, planning to use $1.5 billion of the proceeds to buy back shares. A spokesman for Intel declined to comment.

The computer-chip giant has a strong credit rating of single-A, so it doesn't carry a burdensome debt load. Still, the deal raised eyebrows among some analysts and investors, who say floating debt to buy back stock could become more common as companies regain confidence.

And as merger-and-acquisition activity revs up, the cheaper cost of debt compared with equity is tempting companies to use bond sales as a deal-making war chest.

Analysts are watching Kraft Foods Inc. in anticipation that the company would finance its proposed purchase of U.K. chocolate, candy and chewing gum maker Cadbury PLC by raising tons of debt. Last month's unsolicited bid by Kraft was then valued at about $16.7 billion, but it could be weeks before Kraft submits a formal offer.

Three major credit-ratings agencies have warned Kraft that they could slash the company's debt ratings if the company reaches a deal agreement with Cadbury. At the current offering price, Kraft would need to shell out at least $6 billion in cash, much of it likely from the debt markets, according to corporate-bond research firm Gimme Credit.

"Kraft is committed to maintaining an investment-grade rating," a Kraft spokesman said, declining to comment further.

So far in 2009, returns to high-grade bond investors are 19%, according to Merrill. "We've seen a feeding frenzy" because of low interest rates, says Kathleen Gaffney, portfolio manager at Loomis, Sayles & Co. She sold some bonds recently to take profits from the rally. Loomis Sayles wants to have cash on the sidelines in case the Fed raises rates soon or Treasury bonds sell off.

Please read the article and answer these THREE questions:

1. Why are conditions currently favorable for firms to issue debt and pay out the proceeds to stockholders?

2. What are dangerous impacts of issuing additional debt mentioned in the article?

3. TransDigm used the proceeds of their debt issue to pay a one-time dividend while Intel used the proceeds to repurchase shares. How does a repurchase differ from a one-time dividend? Why do you think the two firms chose different approaches to distributing cash to shareholders?

___________ "Borrowing for Dividends Raises Worries" at the Wall Street Journal on 10/06/2009

Rock-bottom interest rates and thawed credit markets are emboldening some companies to use bond-sale proceeds to go on the offensive, even if that means rewarding shareholders at the expense of bondholders. The nascent trend is controversial because corporate borrowers are sinking themselves deeper into debt to pay out special dividends, buy back stock or finance acquisitions. While such moves were all the rage during the credit boom, most corporate-bond offerings during the recession have been used to reduce debt or stockpile cash.

Eric Felder, global head of credit trading at Barclays Capital, says the lure of low rates and companies' stables of cash increases "the risk of non-bondholder friendly events." Last week's sale of $425 million of bonds by aircraft-parts manufacturer TransDigm Group Inc. is one of the back-to-the-past corporate-bond deals causing concern among some analysts. More than $360 million of the proceeds will be used to pay a special cash dividend to shareholders and management of the Cleveland company. The added debt increased TransDigm's borrowings to 4.3 times its earnings before interest and taxes, compared with 3.1 times before last week's deal. The expected dividend of $7.50 to $7.70 a share is equal to nearly all of the net income that TransDigm reported since the end of fiscal 2003, according to Moody's Investors Service. Moody's said the dividend "illustrates the company's aggressive financial policy." Moody's gave the new debt a junk rating of B3, even though the ratings firm said TransDigm's "strong operating performance will enable the company to service the increased debt level." Sean Maroney, director of investor relations at TransDigm, says the "stability of our business, high profit margins and consistent cash flow" give the company "the ability to support this level of leverage." Borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholder dividends is "a hallmark of an earlier credit era," Jeffrey Rosenberg, head of credit strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, wrote in a report Friday. Such deals were popular in 2003 and 2004, the last time the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate to historically low levels, keeping it at 1% for more than a year.

Companies like Dex Media Inc. DEX -0.18% took on debt to pay dividends to its private-equity owners, including Carlyle Group and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, before taking the companies public. Dex Media filed for bankruptcy earlier this year under a mountain of debt. With the federal-funds rate at 0% for nine months now and confidence returning to the stock and debt markets, investors have been driven to take on more risk. That is flooding the corporate-bond market with cash. Investors poured $43 billion into investment-grade corporate-bond funds in the second quarter and nearly $40 billion in the third quarter -- almost double previous peak quarters, according to Lipper AMG Data Services. The wave of buying drove down borrowing costs for the average highly rated corporation to about 5%, according to Merrill, a level not seen since 2005. In the heat of the crisis last October, such rates averaged 9%. Through the end of September, more than 1,000 high-rated companies borrowed a record $860 billion, according to Dealogic. In July, Intel Corp. INTC 0.33% sold $1.75 billion of convertible bonds, planning to use $1.5 billion of the proceeds to buy back shares. A spokesman for Intel declined to comment. The computer-chip giant has a strong credit rating of single-A, so it doesn't carry a burdensome debt load. Still, the deal raised eyebrows among some analysts and investors, who say floating debt to buy back stock could become more common as companies regain confidence. And as merger-and-acquisition activity revs up, the cheaper cost of debt compared with equity is tempting companies to use bond sales as a deal-making war chest. Analysts are watching Kraft Foods Inc. in anticipation that the company would finance its proposed purchase of U.K. chocolate, candy and chewing gum maker Cadbury PLC by raising tons of debt. Last month's unsolicited bid by Kraft was then valued at about $16.7 billion, but it could be weeks before Kraft submits a formal offer.

Three major credit-ratings agencies have warned Kraft that they could slash the company's debt ratings if the company reaches a deal agreement with Cadbury. At the current offering price, Kraft would need to shell out at least $6 billion in cash, much of it likely from the debt markets, according to corporate-bond research firm Gimme Credit. "Kraft is committed to maintaining an investment-grade rating," a Kraft spokesman said, declining to comment further. So far in 2009, returns to high-grade bond investors are 19%, according to Merrill. "We've seen a feeding frenzy" because of low interest rates, says Kathleen Gaffney, portfolio manager at Loomis, Sayles & Co. She sold some bonds recently to take profits from the rally. Loomis Sayles wants to have cash on the sidelines in case the Fed raises rates soon or Treasury bonds sell off.