Disrupting the IPO Process: Challenging the Banker-run Going-Public Model!

In the age of disruption, where young companies are challenging the status quo and upending conventional businesses, it was only a matter of time before they turned their attention to the process by which they are taken public. For decades, the standard operating procedure for a company going public has been to use a banker or a banking syndicate to market itself to public investors at a “guaranteed” price, in return for a sizeable fee. That process has developed warts along the way but it has remained surprisingly stable even as the investing world has changed. In the aftermath of some heavily publicized let downs in the IPO market this year, with the WeWork fiasco topping off the bad news, there is now an active and healthy discussion about how companies should make the transition to being public. Change may finally be coming to the going-public game and it is long overdue.

Going Public? The Choices

When a private company chooses to go public, there are two possible routes that it can take in making this transition. The more common one is built around a banker or bankers who manage the private to public transition:

There is an alternative, though it seems to be seldom used, which is to do a direct listing. In this process, a private company lets the markets set the price on the offering date, skipping the typical IPO dance of setting an offer price, which in retrospect is set too low or too high. 

The company still has to file a prospectus, but the biggest difference is that it cannot raise fresh capital on the offering date, though existing owners can cash out by selling their shares. That is not as much of a problem as it sounds, since the company can choose to raise cash in a pre-listing round from interested investors, or to make a secondary offering, in the months after it has gone public. In fact, one advantage that direct listing have is that there is no lock-up period, as there is with conventional IPOs, where private investors cannot sell their shares for six months after the listing. If you are interested in the details of a direct listing, this write-up by Andreesen Horowitz sums it up well. Let’s be clear. If this were a contest, the status quo is winning, hands down. While there have been a couple of high-profile direct listings in Spotify and Slack, the overwhelming majority of companies have chosen the status quo. Furthermore, the status quo seems to be global, indicating either that the benefits that issuing companies see in the banker-based model apply across markets or that the US-model has been adopted without questions in other markets.

The IPO Status Quo: The Pros and Cons

To understand how the status quo got to be the standard, it makes sense to look at what issuing companies perceive to be the benefits of having banking guidance, and weigh them off against the costs. In the process, we will also lay the foundations for examining how the world has changed, and why the status quo may be under threat.

The Banker's case

Looking at the status quo picture that I showed in the last section, I listed the services that bankers offer to issuing companies, starting with the timing and details of the offering, all the way through the after-market support. At the risk of sounding like a salesperson for bankers, let’s see what bankers bring, or claim to bring, to the table on each of the services:

1. Timing: Bankers would argue that their experience in financial markets and their relationship with institutional investors give them the insights to determine the optimal timing window for a public offering, where the investment stars are aligned to deliver the highest possible price and the smoothest post-market experience.
2. Filing/Offering Details: A prospectus is as much legal document as it is information disclosure, and past experience with other initial public offerings may allow bankers to guide companies in what information to include in the prospectus and the language to use to in providing that information, as well as provide help in navigating the regulatory rules and requirements for public offerings.
3. Pricing: It is on this front where bankers can claim to offer the most value added for three reasons. First, their knowledge of public market pricing can help them bridge the gap with the private market pricing preceding the offering, and in some cases, reduce unrealistic expectations on the part of VCs and founders. Second, they can help frame the offer pricing by finding the best metric to scale the pricing to and identifying the peer group that investors will use in public markets. Third, by reaching out to investors, bankers can not only gauge demand and fine tune the pricing but also isolate concerns that investors may have about the company. 
4. Selling/Marketing: To the extent that multiple banks form the selling syndicate, and each can reach out to their investor clientele, bankers can expand the investor base for an issuing company. In addition, the marketing that accompanies the road shows can market the company to the larger market, attracting buzz and excitement ahead of the offer date. 
5. Underwriting Guarantee: At first sight, the underwriting guarantee that bankers offer seems like one of the bigger benefits of using the banking-run IPO model, but I am afraid that there is less there than meets the eye, since the guarantee is set first and the price is not set until just before the offering, and it can be set below what you believe investors would pay for the stock. In fact, if you believe the graph on offer day price performance that I will present in the next section, the typical IPO is priced about 10-15% below fair price, making the guarantee much less valuable.
6. After-market Support: Bankers make the case that they can provide price support for IPOs in the after-market, using their trading arms, sometimes with proprietary capital. In addition, researchers have documented that the equity research arms of banks that are parts of IPO teams are far more likely to issue positive recommendations and downplay the negatives.

At least on paper, bankers offer services to issuing companies, though the value of these services can vary across companies and across time.

The Bankers’ Costs

The banking services that are listed above come at a cost, and that cost takes two forms. The first and more obvious one is the banker’s fees for the issuance and these costs are usually scaled to the issuance proceeds. They can range from 3% to more than 8% of the proceeds, with the percentage costs increasing for smaller issuers:

While issuance costs do decrease for larger issuers, it is surprising that the drop off is not more drastic, suggesting either that costs are more variable than fixed or that there is not much negotiating room on these costs. To provide an example of the magnitude of these costs, the banking fees for Uber’s IPO amounted to $105 million, with Morgan Stanley, the lead banker, claiming about 70% of the fees.

There is a second cost and it arises because of the way the typical IPO is structured. Since investment banks guarantee an offering price, they are more inclined to underprice an offering than over price it, and not surprisingly, the typical IPO sees a jump in the price from offer to opening trade on the first day of trading:

Source: Jay Ritter, University of Florida

Thus, the median IPO sees its stock price jump about 15% on the offering date, though there are some companies where the stock price jump is much greater. To provide specific examples, Beyond Meat saw a jump of 84% on the offering date, from its offer price, and Zoom’s stock price at the end of its first trading day was 72% higher than the offering price. Note that this underpricing is money left on the table by issuing company’s owners for the investors who were able to get shares at the offering price, many preferred clients for the banks in the syndicate. In defense of banks, it is worth noting that many issuing company shareholders seem to not just view this “lost value” as part of the IPO game, but also as a basis for subsequent price momentum. That argument, though, is becoming increasingly tenuous since if it were true, IPOs, on average, should deliver above-average returns in the weeks and months after the offering date, and they do not. If momentum is the rationale, it should also follow that newly listed stocks that do well on the offering date should deliver higher returns than newly listed stocks that do badly and there is no evidence of that either. 

Revisiting the IPO Process

Given the costs of using banks to manage the going-public process, it is surprising that there have not been more rumblings from private market investors and companies planning to go public about the process. After the WeWork and Endeavor IPO debacles, the gloves seem to have come off and the battle has been joined.

The Bill Gurley Case for Direct Listings

Bill Gurley has often been an atypical venture capitalist, willing to challenge the status quo on many aspects of the VC business. For many years now, he has sounded the alarm on how private market investors have paid too much for scaling models and not paid enough attention to building sound businesses. In the last few months, he has been aggressively pushing young companies to consider the direct listing option more seriously. His primary argument has been focused on the underpricing on the offering date, which as he rightly points out, transfers money from private market investors to investment bankers' favored clientele. In fact, he has pointed to absurdity of paying for an underwriting pricing guarantee, where the guarantors get to set the price much later, and are open about the fact that they plan to under price the offering. I don’t disagree with Bill, but I think that he is framing the question too narrowly. In fact, the danger with focusing on the offer day pricing jump runs two risks.

• The first is that many issuing companies not only don’t seem to mind leaving money on the table, but some actively seem to view this under pricing as good for their stock, in the long term. After all, Zoom's CFO, Kelly Steckelberg seemed not only seems untroubled by the fact that Zoom stock jumped more than 70% on the offering date (costing its owners closer to $250-$300 million on the offered shares), but argued that that Zoom “got the most added attention in the financial community,” and even picked up business from several of its IPO banks who she said are “trialing or have standardized on Zoom now.” 
• The second is that Gurley's critique seems to suggest that if bankers did a better job in terms of pricing, where the stock price on the offer date is close to the offer price, that the banker-run IPO model would be okay. I think that a far stronger and persuasive argument would be to show that the problem with the banking IPO model is that changes in the world have diluted and perhaps even eliminated that value of the services that bankers offer in IPOs, requiring that we rethink this process.

The Dilution of Banking Services

In the last section, in the process of defending the banker presence in the IPO process, I listed a series of services that bankers offer. Given how much the investing world, both private and public, has changed in the last few decades, I will revisit those services and look at how they have changed as well:

1. No timing skills: To be honest, no one can really time the market, though some bankers have been able to smooth talk issuing companies into believing that they can. For the most part, bankers have been able to get away with the timing claims, but when momentum shifts, as it seems to have abruptly in the last few months in the IPO market, it is quite clear that none of the bankers saw this coming earlier in the year.
2. Boilerplate prospectuses: When I wrote my post on the IPO lessons from WeWork, Uber and Peloton, I noted that these three very different companies seem to have the same prospectus writers, with much of the same language being used in the risk sections and business sections. While the reasons for following a standardized prospectus model might be legal, the need for banking help goes away if the process is mechanical.
3. Mangled Pricing: This should be the strong point for bankers, since their capacity to gauge demand (by talking to investors) and influence supply (by guiding companies on offering size) should give them a leg up on the market, when pricing companies. Unfortunately, this is where banking skills seem to be have deteriorated the most. The most devastating aspect of the WeWork IPO was how out of touch the bankers for the company were in their pricing:

   

   Source: Financial Times

   I would explain this pricing disconnect with three reasons. The first is that bankers are mispricing these companies, using the wrong metrics and a peer group that does not quite fit, not surprising given how unique each of these companies claims to be. The second is that the bankers are testing out prices with a very biased subset of investors, who may confirm the mistaken pricing. The third and perhaps most likely explanation is that the desire to keep issuing companies happy and deals flowing is leading bankers to set prices first and then seek out investors at those prices, a dangerous abdication of pricing responsibility.
4. Ineffective Selling/Marketing: When issuing companies were unknown to the market and bankers were viewed as market experts, the fact that a Goldman Sachs or a JP Morgan Chase was backing a public offering was viewed as a sign that the company had been vetted and had passed the test, the equivalent of a Good Housekeeping seal of approval for the company, from investors' perspective. In today’s markets, there have been two big changes. The first is that issuing companies, through their product or service offerings, often have a higher profile than many of the investment banks taking them public. I am sure that more people had heard about and used Uber, at the time of its public offering, than were aware of what Morgan Stanley, its lead banke, does.  The second is that the 2008 banking crisis has damaged the reputation of bankers as arbiters of investment truths, and investors have become more skeptical about their stock pitches. All in all, it is likely that fewer and fewer investors are basing their investment decision on banking road shows and marketing.
5. Empty guarantee: Going back to Bill Gurley’s point about IPOs being under priced, my concern with the banking IPO model is that the under pricing essentially dilutes the underwriting guarantee. Using an analogy, how much would you be willing to pay a realtor to sell a house at a guaranteed price, if that price is set 20% below what other houses in the neighborhood have been selling for?  
6. What after-market support? In the earlier section, I noted that banks can provide after-issuance support for the stocks of companies going public, both explicitly and implicitly. On both counts, bankers are on weaker ground with the companies going public today, as opposed to two decades ago. First, buying shares in the after-market to keep the stock price from falling may be a plausible, perhaps even probable, if the issuing company is priced at $500 million, but becomes more difficult to do for a $20 billion company, because banks don’t have the  capital to be able to pull it off. Second, the same loss of faith that has corroded the trust in bank selling has also undercut the effectiveness of investment banks in hyping IPOs with glowing equity research reports. 

Summing up, even if you believed that bankers provided services that justified the payment of sizable issuance costs in the past, I think that you would also agree that these services have become less valuable over time, and the prices paid for these services have to shrink and be renegotiated, and in some cases, entirely dispensed with.

Why change has been slow
Many of the changes that I highlighted in the last section have been years in the making, and the question then becomes why so few companies have chosen to go the direct listing route. There are, I believe, three reasons why the status quo has held on and that direct listings have no become more common.

1. Inertia: The strongest force in explaining much of what we see companies do in terms of investment, dividend and financing is inertia, where firms stick with what's been done in the past, partly because of laziness and partly because it is the safest path to take.
2. Fear: Unfounded or not, there is the fear that shunning bankers may lead to consequences, ranging from negative recommendations from equity research analysts to bankers actively talking investors out of buying the stock, that can affect stock prices in the offering and in the periods after.
3. The Blame Game: One of the reasons that companies are so quick to use bankers and consultants to answer questions or take actions that they should be ready to do on their own is that it allows managers and decisions makers to pass the buck, if something goes wrong. Thus, when an IPO does not go well, and Uber and Peloton are examples, managers can always blame the banks for the problems, rather than take responsibility.

I do think that at least for the moment, there is an opening for change, but that opening can close very quickly if a direct listing goes bad and a CFO gets fired for mismanaging it.

The End Game

As the process of going public changes, everyone involved in this process from issuing companies to public market investors to bankers will have to rethink how they behave, since the old ways will no longer work.

Issuing companies (going public) 

1. Choose the IPO path that is right for you: Given your characteristics as a company, you have to choose the pathway, i.e., banker-led or direct listing that is right for you. Specifically, if you are a company with a higher pricing (in the billions rather than the millions), with a public profile (investors already know what you do) and no instantaneous need for cash, you should do a direct listing. If you are a smaller company and feel that you can still benefit from even the diminished services that bankers offer, you should stay with the conventional IPO listing route.
2. If you choose a banker, remember that your interests will not align with those of the bankers, be real about what bankers can do for you and negotiate for the best possible fee, and try to tie that feee to the quality of pricing. If I were Zoom's CFO, I would have demanded that the banks that underpriced my company by 80% return their fees to me, not celebrated their role in the IPO process.
3. If you choose the direct listing path, recognize that the public market may not agree with you on what you think your company is worth, and not only should you accept that difference and move on, you should recognize that this disagreement will be part of your public market existence for your listing life. 
4. In either case, you should work on a narrative for your company that meets the 3P test, i.e., is it possible? plausible? probable? You are selling a story, but you will also have to deliver on that story, and overreaching on your initial public offering story will only make it more difficult for you to match expectations in the future.

Investors

1. Choose your game: In my last post, I noted that there are two games that you can play, the value game, where you value companies and trade on the difference, waiting for the price to converge on value and the pricing game, where you buy at a low price and hope to sell at a higher one. There is nothing inherently more noble about either game, but you should decide what game you came to play and be consistent with that choice. In short, if you are a trader, stop pondering the fundamentals and using discounted cash flow models, since they will be of little help in winning, and if you are an investor, don't let momentum become a key ingredient of your value estimate.
2. Keep the feedback loop open: Both investors and traders often get locked into positions on IPOs and are loath to revisit their original theses, mostly because they do not want to admit mistakes. With IPOs, where change is the only constant, you have to be willing to listen to people who disagree with you and change your views, if the facts merit that change.
3. Spread your bets: The old value investing advice of finding a few good investments and concentrating your portfolio in them can be catastrophic with IPOs. No matter how carefully you do your homework, some of the investments that you make in young companies will blow up, and if your portfolio succeeds, it will be because a few big winners carried it. 
4. Stop whining about bankers, VCs and founders: Many public market investors seem to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot to defraud them, and that bankers, founders and VCs are all part of that conspiracy. If you lose money on an IPO, the truth is that it may not be your or their faults, but the consequence of circumstances out of anyone's control. In the same vein, when you make money on an IPO, recognize that it has much to do with luck as with your stock picking skills.

Bankers

1. Get real about what you bring to the IPO table: As I noted before, public and private market changes have put a dent on the edge that bankers had in the IPO game. It behooves bankers then to understand which of the many services that they used to charge for in the old days still provide added value today and to set fees that reflect that value added. This will require revisiting practices that are taken as given, including the 6-7% underwriting fee and the notion that the offer price should be set about 15% below what you think the fair prices should be.
2. Speak your mind: If one of the reasons that the IPOs this year have struggled has been a widening gap between the private and public markets, bankers can play a useful role in private companies by not only pointing to and explaining the gap, but also in pushing back against private company proposals that they believe will make the divergence worse. 
3. Get out of the echo chamber: An increasing number of banks have conceded the IPO market to their West Coast teams, often based in Silicon Valley or San Francisco. These teams are staffed with members who are bankers in name, but entirely Silicon Valley in spirit. It is natural that if you rub shoulders with venture capitalists and founders all day that you relate more to them than to public market investors. I am not suggesting that banks close their West Coast offices, but they need to start putting some distance between their employees and the tech world, partly to regain some of their objectivity. 

YouTube Video

-->

Fairness Opinions: Fix them or Flush them!

My post on the Tesla/SCTY deal about the ineptitude and laziness that Lazard and Evercore brought to the valuation process did not win me any friends in the banking M&A world. Not surprisingly, it drew some pushback, not so much from bankers, but from journalists and lawyers, taking me to task for not understanding the context for these valuations. As Matt Levine notes in his Bloomberg column, where he cites my post, "a fairness opinion is not a real valuation, not a pure effort to estimate the value of a company from first principles and independent research" (Trust me. No one is setting the bar that high. I was looking for biased efforts using flawed principles and haphazard research and these valuation could not even pass that standard)  and that "they (Lazard and Evercore) are just bankers; their expertise is in pitching and sourcing and negotiating and executing deals -- and in plugging in discount rates into preset spreadsheets -- not in knowing the future". (Bingo! So why are they doing these fairness opinions and charging millions of dollars for doing something that they are not good at doing? And there is a difference between knowing the future, which no one does, and estimating the future, which is the essence of valuation.) If Matt is right, the problems run deeper than the bankers in this deal, raising questions about what the purpose of a   "fairness opinion" is and whether it has outlived its usefulness (assuming that it was useful at some point).

Fairness Opinions: The Rationale

What is a fairness opinion? I am not a lawyer and I don't play intend to play one here, but it is perhaps best to revert back to the legal definition of the term. In an excellent article on the topic, Steven Davidoff defines a fairness opinion as an "opinion provided by an outsider that a transaction meets a threshold level of fairness from a financial perspective". Implicit in this definition are the assumptions that the outsider is qualified to pass this judgment and that there is some reasonable standard for fairness.  In corporate control transactions (acquisition, leveraged buyout etc.), as practiced today, the fairness opinion is delivered (orally) to the board at the time of the transaction, and that presentation is usually followed by a written letter that summarizes the transaction terms and the appraiser's assumptions and attests that the price paid is "fair from a financial point of view". That certainly sounds like something we should all favor, especially in deals that have obvious conflicts of interest, such as management-led leveraged buyouts or transactions like the Tesla/Solar City deal, where the interests of Elon Musk and the rest of Tesla 's stockholders may diverge.

Note that while fairness opinions have become part and parcel of most corporate control transactions, they are not required either by regulation or law. As with so much of business law, especially relating to acquisitions, the basis for fairness opinions and their surge in usage can be traced back to Delaware Court judgments. In Smith vs Van Gorkom, a 1985 case, the court ruled against the board of directors of Trans Union Corporation, who voted for a leveraged buyout, and specifically took them to task for the absence of a fairness opinion from an independent appraiser. In effect, the case carved out a safe harbor for the companies by noting that “the liability could have been avoided had the directors elicited a fairness opinion from anyone in a position to know the firm’s value”.  I am sure that the judges who wrote these words did so with the best of intentions, expecting fairness opinions to become the bulwark against self-dealing in mergers and acquisitions. In the decades since, through a combination of bad banking practices, the nature of the legal process and confusion about the word "fairness", fairness opinions, in my view, have not just lost their power to protect those that they were intended to but have become a shield used by managers and boards of directors against serious questions being raised about deals. 

Fairness Opinions: Current Practice?

There are appraisers who take their mission seriously and evaluate the fairness of transactions in their opinions, but the Tesla/Solar City valuations reflect not only how far we have strayed from the original idea of fairness but also how much bankers have lowered the bar on what constitutes acceptable practice.  Consider the process that Lazard and Evercore used by  to arrive at their fairness opinions in the Tesla/Solar City deal, and if Matt is right, they are not alone:

What about this process is fair, if bankers are allowed to concoct discount rates, and how is it an opinion, if the numbers are supplied by management? And who exactly is protected if the end result is a range of values so large that any price that is paid can be justified?  And finally, if the contention is that the bankers were just using professional judgment, in what way is it professional to argue that Tesla will become the global economy (as Evercore is doing in its valuation)? 

To the extent that what you see in the Tesla/Solar City deal is more the rule than the exception, I would argue that fairness opinions are doing more harm than good. By checking off a legally required box, they have become a way in which a board of directors buy immunization against legal consequences. By providing the illusion of oversight and an independent assessment, they are making shareholders too sanguine that their rights are being protected. Finally, this is a process where the worst (and least) scrupulous appraisers, over time, will drive out the best (and most principled) ones, because managers (and boards that do their bidding) will shop around until they find someone who will attest to the fairness of their deal, no matter how unfair it is. My interest in the process is therefore as much professional, as it is personal. I believe the valuation practices that we see in many fairness opinions are horrendous and are spilling over into the other valuation practices.

It is true that there are cases, where courts have been willing to challenge the "fairness" of fairness opinions, but they have been infrequent and  reserved for situations where there is an egregious conflict of interest. In an unusual twist, in a recent case involving the management buyout of Dell at $13.75 by Michael Dell and Silver Lake, Delaware Vice Chancellor Travis Lester ruled that the company should have been priced at $17.62, effectively throwing out the fairness opinion backing the deal. While the good news in Chancellor Lester's ruling is that he was willing to take on fairness opinions, the bad news is that he might have picked the wrong case to make his stand and the wrong basis (that markets are short term and under price companies after they have made big investments) for challenging fairness opinions.

Fish or Cut Bait?

Given that the fairness opinion, as practiced now, is more travesty than protection and an expensive one at that, the first option is to remove it from the acquisition valuation process. That will put the onus back on judges to decide whether shareholder interests are being protected in transactions. Given how difficult it is to change established legal practice, I don't think that this will happen. The second is to keep the fairness opinion and give it teeth. This will require two ingredients to work, judges that are willing to put fairness opinions to the test and punishment for those who consistently violate those fairness principles.

A Judicial Check

Many judges have allowed bankers to browbeat them into accepting the unacceptable in valuation, using the argument that what they are doing is standard practice and somehow professional valuation.  As someone who wanders across multiple valuation terrain, I am convinced that the valuation practices in fairness opinions are not just beyond the pale, they are unprofessional. To those judges, who would argue that they don't have the training or the tools to detect bad practices, I will make my pro bono contribution in the form of a questionnaire with flags (ranging from red for danger to green for acceptable) that may help them separate the good valuations from the bad ones.

Question	Green	Red
Who is paying you to do this valuation and how much? Is any of the payment contingent on the deal happening? (FINRA rule 2290 mandates disclosure on these)	Payment reflects reasonable payment for valuation services rendered and none of the payment is contingent on outcome	Payment is disproportionately large, relative to valuation services provided, and/or a large portion of it is contingent on deal occurring.
Where are you getting the cash flows that you are using in this valuation?	Appraiser estimates revenues, operating margins and cash flows, with input from management on investment and growth plans.	Cash flows supplied by management/ board of company.
Are the cash flows internally consistent?	1.     Currency: Cash flows & discount rate are in same currency, with same inflation assumptions. 2.     Claim holders: Cash flows are to equity (firm) and discount rate is cost of equity (capital). 3.     Operations: Reinvestment, growth and risk assumptions matched up.	No internal consistency tests run and/or DCF littered with inconsistencies, in currency and/or assumptions. -       High growth + Low reinvestment -       Low growth + High reinvestment -       High inflation in cash flows + Low inflation in discount rate
What discount rate are you using in your valuation?	A cost of equity (capital) that starts with a sector average and is within the bounds of what is reasonable for the sector and the market.	A cost of equity (capital) that falls outside the normal range for a sector, with no credible explanation for difference.
How are you applying closure in your valuation?	A terminal value that is estimated with a perpetual growth rate < growth rate of the economy and reinvestment & risk to match.	A terminal value based upon a perpetual growth rate > economy or a multiple (of earnings or revenues) that is not consistent with a healthy, mature firm.
What valuation garnishes have you applied?	None.	A large dose of premiums (control, synergy etc.) pushing up value or a mess of discounts (illiquidity, small size etc.) pushing down value.
What does your final judgment in value look like?	A distribution of values, with a base case value and distributional statistics.	A range of values so large that any price can be justified.

If this sounds like too much work, there are four changes that courts can incorporate into the practice of fairness opinions that will make an immediate difference:

1. Deal makers should not be deal analysts: It should go without saying that a deal making banker cannot be trusted to opine on the fairness of the deal, but the reason that I am saying it is that it does happen. I would go further and argue that deal makers should get entirely out of the fairness opinion business, since the banker who is asked to opine on the fairness of someone else's deal today will have to worry about his or her future deals being opined on by others.
2. No deal-contingent fees: If bias is the biggest enemy of good valuation, there is no simpler way to introduce bias into fairness opinions than to tie appraisal fees to whether the deal goes through. I cannot think of a single good reason for this practice and lots of bad consequences. It should be banished.
3. Valuing and Pricing: I think that appraisers should spend more time on pricing and less on valuation, since their focus is on whether the "price is fair" rather than on whether the transaction makes sense. That will require that appraisers be forced to justify their use of multiples (both in terms of the specific multiple used, as well as the value for that multiple) and their choice of comparable firms. If appraisers decide to go the valuation route, they should take ownership of the cash flows, use reasonable discount rates and not muddy up the waters with arbitrary premiums and discounts. And please, no more terminal values estimated from EBITDA multiples!
4. Distributions, not ranges: In my experience, using a range of value for a publicly traded stock to determine whether a price is fair is useless. It is analogous to asking, "Is it possible that this price is fair?", a question not worth asking, since the answer is almost always "yes". Instead, the question that should be asked and answered is "Is it plausible that this price is a fair one?"  To answer this question, the appraiser has to replace the range of values with a distribution, where rather than treat all possible prices as equally likely, the appraiser specifies a probability distribution. To illustrate, I valued Apple in May 2016 and derived a distribution of its values:

Let's assume that I had been asked to opine on whether a $160 stock price is a fair one for Apple. If I had presented this valuation as a range for Apple's value from $80.81 to $415.63, my answer would have to be yes, since it falls within the range. With a distribution, though, you can see that a $160 price falls at the 92nd percentile, possible, but neither plausible, nor probable.  To those who argue that this is too complex and requires more work, I would assume that this is at the minimum what you should be delivering, if you are being paid millions of dollars for an appraisal.

Punishment
The most disquieting aspect of the acquisition business is the absence of consequences for bad behavior, for any of the parties involved, as I noted in the aftermath of the disastrous HP/Autonomy merger. Thus, managers who overpay for a target are allowed to use the excuse of "we could not have seen that coming" and the deal makers who aided and abetted them in the process certainly don't return the advisory fees, for even the most abysmal advice. I think while mistakes are certainly part of business, bias and tilting the scales of fairness are not and there have to be consequences:

1. For the appraisers: If the fairness opinion is to have any heft, the courts should reject fairness opinions that don't meet the fairness test and remove the bankers involved  from the transaction, forcing them to return all fees paid. I would go further and create a Hall of Shame for those who are repeat offenders, with perhaps even a public listing of their most extreme offenses. 
2. For directors and managers: The boards of directors and the top management of the firms involved should also face sanctions, with any resulting fines or fees coming out of the pockets of directors and managers, rather than the shareholders involved.

I know that your reaction to these punitive suggestions is that they will have a chilling effect on deal making. Good! I believe that much as strategists, managers and bankers like to tell us otherwise, there are more bad deals than good ones and that shareholders in companies collectively will only gain from crimping the process.

YouTube Video


Attachments

1. The Fairness Questionnaire (as a word file, which you are free to add to or adapt)

Keystone Kop Valuations: Lazard, Evercore and the TSLA/SCTY Deal

It is get easy to get outraged by events around you, but I have learned, through hard experience, that writing when outraged is dangerous. After all, once you have climbed onto your high horse, it is easy to find fault with others and wallow in self-righteousness. It is for that reason that I have deliberately avoided taking issue with investment banking valuations of specific companies, much as I may disagree with the practices used in many of them. I understand that bankers make money on transactions and that their valuations are more sales tools than assessments of fair value and that asking them to pay attention to valuation first principles may be asking too much. Once in a while, though, I do come across a valuation so egregiously bad that I cannot restrain myself and reading through the prospectus filed by Tesla for their Solar City acquisition/merger was such an occasion. My first reaction as I read through the descriptions of how the bankers in this deal (Evercore for Tesla and Lazard for Solar City) valued the two companies was "You must be kidding me!".

The Tesla/Solar City Deal

In June 2016, Tesla announced that it intended to acquire Solar City in a stock swap, a surprise to almost everyone involved, except for Elon Musk. By August 1, the specifics of the deal had been ironed out and the broad contours of the deal are captured in the picture below:

At the time of the deal, Mr. Musk contended that the deal made sense for stockholders in both companies, arguing that it was a "no-brainer" that would allow Tesla to expand its reach and become a clean energy company. While Mr. Musk has a history of big claims and perhaps the smarts and charisma to deliver on them, this deal attracted attention because of its optics. Mr. Musk was the lead stockholder in both companies and CEO of Tesla and his cousin, Lyndon Rive, was the CEO of Solar City. Even Mr. Musk's strongest supporters could not contest the notion that he was in effective control at both companies, creating, at the very least. the potential for conflicts of interests. Those questions have not gone away in the months since and the market concerns have been reflected in the trend lines in the stock prices of the two companies, with Solar City down about 24% and Tesla's stock price dropping about 8%.

The board of directors at Tesla has recognized the potential for a legal backlash and as this New York Times article suggests, they have been careful to create at least the appearance of an open process, with Tesla's board hiring Evercore Partners, an investment bank, to review the deal and Solar City's board calling in Lazard as their deal assessor. Conspicuously missing is Goldman Sachs, the investment banker on Tesla's recent stock offering, but more about that later.

The Banking Challenge in a Friendly Merger

In any friendly merger, the bankers on the two sides of the deal face, what at first sight, looks like an impossible challenge. The banker for the acquiring company has to convince the stockholders of the acquiring company that they are getting a good deal, i.e., that they are acquiring the target company at a price, which while higher that the prevailing market price, is lower than the fair value for the company. At the same time, the banker for the target company has to convince the stockholders of the target company that they too are getting a good deal, i.e., that they are being acquired at is higher than their fair value. If you are a reasonably clever banking team, you discover very quickly that the only way you can straddle this divide is by bringing in what I call the two magic merger words, synergy and control. Synergy in particular is magical because it allows both sides to declare victory and control adds to the allure because it comes with the promise of unspecified changes that will be made at the target company and a 20% premium:

In the Tesla/Solar City deal, the bankers faced a particularly difficult challenge. Finding synergy in this merger of an electric car company and a solar cell company, one of which (Tesla) has brand name draw and potentially high margins and the other of which is a commodity business (Solar City) with pencil thin margins) is tough to do. Arguing that the companies will be better managed as one company is tricky when both companies have effectively been controlled by the same person(Musk) before the merger. In fact, it is far easier to make the case for reverse synergy here, since adding a debt-laden company with a questionable operating business (Solar City) to one that has promise but will need cash to deliver seems to be asking for trouble. The bankers could of course have come back and told the management of both companies (or just Elon Musk) that the deal does not make sense and especially so for the stockholders of Tesla but who can blame them for not doing so? After all, they are paid based upon whether the deal gets done and if asked to justify themselves, they would argue that Musk would have found other bankers who would have gone along. Consequently, I am not surprised that both banks found value in the deal and managed to justify it.

The Valuations

It is with this perspective in mind that I opened up the prospectus, expecting to see two bankers doing what I call Kabuki valuations, elaborately constructed DCFs where the final result is never in doubt, but you play with the numbers to make it look like you were valuing the company. Put differently, I was willing to cut a lot of slack on specifics, but what I found failed even the minimal tests of adequacy in valuation. Summarizing what the banks did, at least based upon the prospectus (lest I am accused of making up stuff):

Tesla Prospectus

Conveniently, these number provide backing for the Musk acquisition story, with Evercore reassuring Tesla stockholders that they are getting a good deal and Lazard doing the same with Solar City stockholders, while shamelessly setting value ranges so wide that they get legal cover, in case they get sued.  Note also not only how much money paid to these bankers for their skills at plugging in discount rates into spreadsheets but that both bankers get an additional payoff, if the merger goes through, with Evercore pocketing an extra $5.25 million and Lazard getting 0.4% of the equity value of Solar City.  There are many parts of these valuations that I can take issue with, but in the interests of fairness, I will start with what I term run-of-the-mill banking malpractice, i.e., bad practices that many bankers are guilty of.

1. No internal checks for consistency: There is almost a cavalier disregard for the connection between growth, risk and reinvestment. Thus, when both banks use ranges of growth for their perpetual value estimates, it looks like neither adjusts the cash flows as growth rates change. (Thus, when Lazard moves its perpetual growth rate for Solar City from 1.5% to 3%, it looks like the cash flow stays unchanged, a version of magical growth that can happen only on a spreadsheet).
2. Discount Rates: Both companies pay lip service to standard estimation technology (with talk of the CAPM and cost of capital), and I will give both bankers the benefit of the doubt and attribute the differences in their costs of capital to estimation differences, rather than to bias.  The bigger question, though, is why the discount rates don't change as you move through time to 2021, where both Tesla and Solar City are described as slower growth, money making companies.
3. Pricing and Valuation: I have posted extensively on the difference between pricing an asset/business and valuing it and how mixing the two can yield a incoherent mishmash. Both investment banks move back and forth between intrinsic valuation (in their use of cash flows from 2016-2020) and pricing, with Lazard estimating the terminal value of Tesla using a multiple of EBITDA. (See my post on dysfunctional DCFS, in general, and Trojan Horse DCFs, in particular).

There are two aspects of these valuations that are the over-the-top, even by banking valuation standards:

1. Outsourcing of cash flows: It looks like both bankers used cash flow forecasts provided to them by the management. In the case of Tesla, the expected cash flows for 2016-2020 were generated by Goldman Sachs Equity Research (GSER, See Page 99 of prospectus) and for Solar City, the cash flows for that same period were provided by Solar City, conveniently under two scenarios, one with a liquidity crunch and one without. Perhaps, Lazard and Evercore need reminders that if the CF in a DCF is supplied to you by someone else,  you are not valuing the company, and charging millions for plugging in discount rates into preset spreadsheets is outlandish. 
2. Terminal Value Hijinks: The terminal value is, by far, the biggest single number in a DCF and it is also the number where the most mischief is done in valuation. While some evade these mistakes by using pricing, there is only one consistent way to get terminal value in a DCF and that is to assume perpetual growth. While there are a multitude of estimation issues that plague perpetual growth based terminal value, from not adjusting the cost of capital to reflect mature company status to not modifying the reinvestment to reflect stable growth, there is one mistake that is deadly, and that is assuming a growth rate that is higher than that of the economy forever. With that context, consider these clippings from the prospectus on the assumptions about growth forever made by Evercore in their terminal value calculations:
   

   

   Tesla Prospectus

   I follow a rule of keeping the growth rate at or below the risk free rate but I am willing to accept the Lazard growth range of 1.5-3% as within the realm of possibility, but my reaction to the Evercore assumption of 6-8% growth forever in the Tesla valuation or even the 3-5% growth forever with the Solar City valuation cannot be repeated in polite company. 

Not content with creating one set of questionable valuations, both banks doubled down with a number of  of other pricing/valuations, including sum-of-the-parts valuations, pricing and transaction premiums, using a "throw everything at the fan and hope something sticks" strategy.

Now what? 

I don't think that Tesla's Solar City acquisition passes neither the smell test (for conflict of interest) nor the common sense test (of creating value), but I am not a shareholder in either Tesla or Solar City and I don't get a vote. When Tesla shareholders vote, given that owning the stock is by itself an admission that they buy into the Musk vision, I would not be surprised if they go along with his recommendations. Tesla shareholders and Elon Musk are a match made in market heaven and I wish them the best of luck in their life together.

As for the bankers involved in this deal, Lazard's primary sin is laziness, accepting an assignment where they are reduced to plugging in discount rates into someone else's cash flow forecasts and getting paid $2 million plus for that service. In fact, that laziness may also explain the $400 million debt double counting error made by Lazard on this valuation,. Evercore's problems go deeper. The Evercore valuation section of the prospectus is a horror story of bad assumptions piled on impossible ones, painting a picture of ignorance and incompetence. Finally, there is a third investment bank (Goldman Sachs), mentioned only in passing (in the cash flow forecasts provided by their equity research team), whose absence on this deal is a story by itself. Goldman's behavior all through this year, relating to Tesla, has been rife with conflicts of interest, highlighted perhaps by the Goldman equity research report touting Tesla as a buy, just before the Tesla stock offering. It is possible that they decided that their involvement on this deal would be the kiss of death for it, but I am curious about (a) whether Goldman had any input into the choice of Evercore and Lazard as deal bankers, (b) whether Goldman had any role in the estimation of Solar City cash flows, with and without liquidity constraints, and (c) how the Goldman Sachs Equity Research forecast became the basis for the Tesla valuations. Suspicious minds want to know! As investors, the good news is that you have a choice of investment bankers but the bad news is that you are choosing between the lazy, the incompetent and the ethically challenged.

If there were any justice in the world, you would like to see retribution against these banks in the form of legal sanctions and loss of business, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen. The courts have tended to give too much respect for precedence and expert witnesses, even when the precedent or expert testimony fails common sense tests and it is possible that these valuations, while abysmal, will pass the legally defensible test. As for loss of business, my experience in valuation is that rather than being punished for doing bad valuations, bankers are rewarded for their deal-making prowess. So, for the many companies that do bad deals and need an investment banking sign-off on that deal (in the form of a fairness opinion), you will have no trouble finding a banker who will accommodate you.

If this post comes across as a diatribe against investment banking, I am sorry and I am not part of the "Blame the Banks for all our problems" school. In fact, I have long argued that bankers are the lubricants of a market economy, working through kinks in the system and filling in capital market needs and defended banking against its most virulent critics. That said, the banking work done on deals like the this one vindicate everyone's worst perceptions of bankers as a hired guns who cannot shoot straight, more Keystone Kops than Wyatt Earps!

YouTube Video


Attachments

1. Tesla Prospectus for Solar City Deal

The end of investment banking?

The big news of the morning is that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley will reorganize themselves as bank holding companies, thus ending a decades-long experiment with stand-alone public investment banking. Before we buy into the hyperbole that this represents the end of of investment banking as we know it, it behooves to us to look both back in time and into the future and examine the implications.

Independent investment banks have been in existence for a long time, but for much of their existence, they were private partnerships that made the bulk of their profits from transactions and as advisors. They seldom put their own capital at risk, largely because they had so little to begin with and it was their own money (partners). Part of the impetus in their going public was the need to raise more capital, which in turn, freed them to indulge in more capital-intensive businesses including proprietary trading. That model worked well for much of the last two decades, but three things (in my view) destroyed it. The first was that it became easier to access low cost, short term debt (especially in the last few years) to fund the capital bets that these firms were making, whether in mortgage backed securities or in other investments. The second was that the compensation structure at investment banks encouraged bad risk-taking, since it rewarded risk-takers for upside gains (extraordinary bonuses tied to trading profits) and punished them inadequately for the downside (at worst, you lost your job but you were not required to disgorge bonuses in prior years... in many cases, finding another trading job on the Street or at a hedge fund was not difficult to do even for the most egregious violators). The third was a patchwork of government regulation that was often exploited by investors to make risky bets and to pass the risk on elsewhere, while pocketing the returns. The combination worked in deadly fashion these last two years to devastate the capital bases at these institutions. Lehman, Bear Stearns and Merrill have fallen...

So, what will change now that Goldman and Morgan Stanley have chosen the bank route? The plus is that it opens more sources of long term capital since they can now attract deposits from investors. Having never done this before, they start off at a disadvantage. The minus is that they will now be covered by banking regulation, where the equity capital they be required to have will be based upon the risk of their investments. This will effectively mean that they will need more equity capital, if they want to keep taking high risk investments, or that they will have to bring down the risk exposure on their investments. My guess is that they would have gone down one of these roads anyway. In pragmatic terms, it will also mean that their returns on equity at investment banks will drop to banking levels - more in the low teens than in the low twenties. I think the stock prices for both investment banks already reflects this expectation.

Ultimately, Goldman and Morgan Stanley have sent a signal to the market that they are willing to accept a more restrictive risk taking system. In today's market, that may be the best signal to send. There will be times in the future, where I am sure that they will regret the restrictions that come with this signal, but they had no choice.