Thursday, July 26, 2018

CASE HARVARD: Cost of Capital at Ameritrade Corp (32)


1. What factors should Ameritrade management consider when evaluating the proposed advertising program and technology upgrades? Why?
2. How can the Capital Asset Pricing Model be used to estimate the cost of capital for a real (not financial) investment decision?
3. What is the estimate of the risk-free rate and market risk premium that should be employed in calculating the cost of capital for Ameritrade?
4. In principle, what are the steps for computing the asset beta in the CAPM for purposes of calculating the cost of capital for a project?
5. Ameritrade does not have a beta estimate as the firm has been publicly traded for only a short time period. Exhibit 4 provides various choices of comparable firms. What comparable firms do you recommend as the appropriate benchmarks for evaluating the risk of Ameritrade’s planned advertising and technology investments?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASO: Diamond Chemicals PLC (A): El Proyecto Merseyside (34)


1. What changes, if any, should Lucy Morris ask Frank Greystock make in his discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis? Why? What should Morris be prepared to say to the Transport Division, the director of sales, her assistant plant manager, and the analyst from the Treasury Staff?

2. How attractive is the Merseyside project? By what criteria?

3. Should Morris continue to promote the project for funding?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: Kota Fibres LTD. (36)


  1. How did Mehta construct his financial forecast? Using the financial forecast, prepare to show the “cash cycle” of the firm (i.e., the flow of funds through the working-capital accounts of the firm)Using the financial projections and the assumptions provided in Annexes 10 and 11
  2. Examine the exhibits in the case. On the basis of Mehta’s forecast, how much debt will Kota need to arrange for the coming year? Will Kota be able to repay the line of credit this year?
  3. Why do Kota’s financial requirements vary across the year? What are the key determinants of Kota’s borrowing needs? Please exercise the spreadsheet model to identify the critical forecast assumptions.
  4. Why does the bank require 1 30-day “clean-up” of the loan? Should the bank continue to waive compliance with this covenant? 
  5. Consider the four memos that Pundir received. Use your intuition to assess the desirability of the proposals. How each of them probably affect Kota's borrowing needs?
  6. Study the production level annex of Kota Fibers, related to the proposal at the production level and be prepared to explain why the average level of the loan increase grows and yet the maximum amount of the loans is reduced. 
  7. Are there other strategies that should be considered? How viable are these other strategies in the context of the competitive landscape? 

Solution word and excel in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: KOTA FIBERS LTD. V2 (37)


(Questions for Case Preparation)
The following questions will help you in the preparation and analysis of this case. Use these questions as a guide in your study of the case. However, do not limit yourselves to these questions only, but rather allow yourselves to expand your thinking and analysis of this case.
1. How did Mehta construct his financial forecast? Using the financial forecast, prepare to show the “cash cycle” of the firm (i.e., the flow of funds through the working-capital accounts of the firm).
2. Examine the exhibits in the case. On the basis of Mehta’s forecast, how much debt will Kota need to arrange for the coming year? Will Kota be able to repay the line of credit this year?
3. Why do Kota’s financial requirements vary across the year? What are the key determinants of Kota’s borrowing needs? Please exercise the spreadsheet model to identify the critical forecast assumptions.
4. Consider the four memos that Pundir received. Use your intuition to assess the desirability of two of the proposals:
 ➢ Pondicherry’s request for credit: What will be the effect of this proposal on accounts receivable and debt balances across the year?
 ➢ The level-production proposal: If Kota undertakes level production now, at the low point of the annual business cycle, what is the likelihood of inventory stock-outs at the peak of the business cycle? If Kota undertakes level production just after the peak, what will happen to inventory and debt balances at the cyclical low? Are these proposals liable to relieve, or worsen, Kota’s ability to “clean up” its bank loan by the end of 2001? What action should Pundir take on these two proposals?
5. Why does the bank require 1 30-day “clean-up” of the loan? Should the bank continue to waive compliance with this covenant?
6. Please identify the three most important actions or policies that Pundir should take. What should Pundir say to the bank and to the customers?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: PETROZUATA (35)


(PETROZUATA) CASE ANALYSIS:
Q1. HOW SHOULD PDVSA FINANCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORINOCO BASIN? WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF USING PROJECT FINANCE INSTEAD OF TRADITIONAL DEBT FINANCE?
Q2. WHAT ARE PETROZUATA’A THREE OR FOUR MOST IMPORTANT RISKS? HOW DOES THE DEAL STRUCTURE ADDRESS THESE RISKS? WHO WOULD BEAR THESE RISKS IF THE PROJECT WERE FINANCED INTERNALLY BY PDVSA INSTEAD?
Q3. AS CURRENTLY ENVISIONED, DEBT WILL COMPROMISE OF 60% OF THE FUNDS NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT. WOULD YOU RECOMMEND A HIGHER OR A LOWER LEVERAGE RATIO? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MINIMUM DSCR AND IRR ON EQUITY AS THE PROJECT LEVERAGE INCREASES TO 70% OF THE PROJECT FUNDS? DECREASES BY 50%?
Q4. AS ONE OF THE SPONSORS, WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTED RETURNS? ASSUME THE ASSET BETA FOR AN INTEGRATED DRILLING, PIPELINE AND REFINING FIRM IS 0.60.
Q5. WOULD YOU INVEST IN PROJECT BONDS? WOULD YOU INVEST IN EQUITY CAPITAL AS CONCO?
Q6. HOW SHOULD PDVSA FINANCE ITS OTHER OILFIELD PROJECTS?

SOLUTION WORD IN WWW.CASESMBA.COM

CASO HARVARD: America Online, Inc (AOL) (33)

  1. Prior to 1995, why was AOL so successful in the commercial online industry relative to its competitors CompuServe and Prodigy?
  2. As of 1995, what are the key changes taking place in the commercial online industry? How are they likely to affect AOL’s future prospects?
  3. Was AOL’s policy to capitalize subscriber acquisition costs justified prior to 1995?
  4. Given the changes discussed in question 2, do you think AOL should change its accounting policy as of 1995? Is the company’s response consistent with your view?
  5. What would be the effect on AOL's 1994 and 1995 ending balance sheets if the company had followed the policy of expensing subscriber acquisition outlays instead of capitalizing them? What would be the effect of expensing subscriber acquisition costs on AOL's 1995 income statement?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASO: HANSSON PRIVATE LABEL, INC.: EVALUATING AN INVESTMENT IN EXPANSION (38)


Student Assignment:
  1. How would you describe HPL and its position within the private label personal care industry? Consider HPL’s size, growth, profitability and capital structure relative to its “peer” group. 
  2. Using the assumptions made by the Executive VP of Manufacturing, Robert Gates, estimate the projects potential free-cash-flows (FCFs). Are Gates’ projections realistic?  If not, what changes might you suggest be incorporated? 
  3. Using CFO Sheila Dowling’s projected weighted-average-cost of capital (WACC) schedule, what discount rate would you choose? What flaws, if any, might be inherent in using the WACC as the discount rate? 
  4. Estimate the project’s net present value. Would you recommend that Tucker Hansson proceed with the investment?  If yes, why?  If no, why not?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: Seagate Technology Buyout (39)


  1. Why is Seagate undertaking this transaction? Is it necessary to divest the Veritas shares in a separate transaction? Who are the winners and losers resulting from the transaction?
  2. What are the benefits of leveraged buyouts? Is the rigid disk drive industry conducive to a leveraged buyout?
  3. Luczo and the buyout team plan to finance their acquisition of Seagate’s operating assets using a combination of debt and equity. How much debt would you recommend that they use? Why? 
  4. Based on the scenarios presented in Exhibit 8, and on your assessment of the optimal amount of debt to be used in Seagate’s capital structure, how much are Seagate’ operating assets worth? For both of the assumptions listed, estimate the value of Seagate’s operating assets. Assume that of the $800 million in cash that buyout team will acquire as part of the transaction, $500 million is required for net working capital and $300 million is excess cash.
a. Assume that the buyout team plans to maintain its debt at a constant percentage of the firm’s market value.
b. Assume that the buyout team plans to pay down its debt as cash flows permit until a terminal debt level of $700 million reached

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: the acquisition of consolidated rail corporation (A) (41)


Conrail Case Study
1.  Why does CSX want to buy Conrail? Why can CSX justify paying a premium to acquire Conrail?
2. Why would the Surface Transportation Board (STB) likely approve the merger (i.e., why might the STB not be too concerned about the impact the merger will have on competition in the northeast)?
3. How much should CSX be willing to pay for Conrail? Value Conrail using the multiples of competitors as well comparable transactions methods. For calculations, show your work (don’t just write the final number).
4. Analyze the structure of CSX’s offer for Conrail.
(a) Why did CSX make a two-tiered offer?
(b) Discuss the various anti-takeover measures included in the CSX-Conrail merger agreement (i.e., no-talk clause, poison pill, break-up fee, lock-up options). What implications do these provisions have for the cost of acquiring Conrail for other bidders (other than CSX)?
5. As a shareholder of Conrail, would you tender your shares to CSX at $92.50 in the first-stage offer? Why?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: the acquisition of consolidated rail corporation (40)


Case A
Question 1: Why is CSX interested in Conrail? How much should CSX pay for Conrail? 
Question 2a: Analyse the structure of the CSX-Conrail deal. Why did CSX make a two tiered offer? What effect does this structure have on the transaction?
Question 2b: What are the economics rationales and takeover implications of the various provisions in the merger agreement (no talk clause, lockup options, breakup fee, and poison pill?)
Question 3: As a Conrail Shareholder would you tender your shares to CSX at a price of 92.50 in the first offer?


Case B
Question 1: Why did Norfolk Southern make a hostile bid for Conrail?
Question 2: How much is Conrail worth? In a bidding war who would be willing to pay more Norfolk Southern or CSX? 
Question 3: Why does CSX refer to Norfolk’s bid as a non-bid? What should Norfolk Southern do as of Mid-January 1997?
Question 4: As a shareholder would you vote to opt-out of the Pennsylvania antitakeover statute? What do the capital markets expect to happen?
Question 5: What are the costs and benefits of regulating the market for corporate control for statutes such as Pennsylvania’s anti-takeover law?

Other question
Question 1: Why is CSX interested in acquiring Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)? Describe the arguments for the offer being motivated by synergies, as well as arguments for the motivation to pre-empt a bid by Norfolk.

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: Cooper Industries. Inc (42)


Mergers and Acquisitions
Cooper Industries. Inc
  1. If you were Mr. Cizik of Cooper Industries, Inc., would you try to gain control of Nicholson File Company in May 1972?
  2. What is the maximum price that Cooper can afford to pay for Nicholson and still keep the acquisition attractive from the standpoint of Cooper?
  3. What are the concerns and what is the bargaining position of each group of Nicholson stockholders? What must Cooper offer each group in order to acquire its shares?
  4. On the assumption that the Cooper management wants to acquire at least 80 percent of the outstanding Nicholson stock and to make the same offer to all stockholders, what offer must Cooper management make in terms of dollar value and the form of payment (cash, stock, debt).
  5. What should Mr. Cizik recommend that the Cooper management do?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

CASE HARVARD: Analysis of Cooper Industries, Inc. (43)


Analysis of Cooper Industries, Inc.
  1. If you were Mr. Cizik of Cooper Industries, would you try to gain control of Nicholson File Company in May 1972?
  2. What is the Maximum price that Cooper can afford to pay for Nicholson and still keep the acquisition attractive from the standpoint of Cooper?
  3. What are the concerns and what is the bargaining position of each group of Nicholson stockholders? What must Cooper offer each group in order to acquire its shares?
  4. On the assumption that the Cooper Management wants to acquire at least 80% of the outstanding Nicholson stock and to make the same offer to all stockholders, what offer must Cooper management make—in terms of dollar value and of the form of payment (cash, stock, debt)?
  5. What should Mr. Cizik recommend that the Cooper management do?

Solution word in www.casesmba.com

Saturday, July 21, 2018

CASE: REESE CAMPBELL CASE SCENARIO (31)

Reese Campbell is an equity analyst at triad investment management (TIM), an asset management firm that offer investment products to private wealth and institutional clients. Campbell is evaluating the appropriateness of several investments to include in their aggressive equity fund, a fund that has a mandate of achieving high returns by investing in risky ventures.
Campbell is currently evaluating the financial value of capital enterprises. Capital enterprises is a manufacturing and trading firm with a current free cash flow to the firm of $350 million. Based on its target capital structure, the firm will constitute of 30 percent debt. CE´s cost of debt is 6.4%, and based on the riskiness of its cash flows, its equity investors require a return of 12.2%.
Campbell has estimate that the company FCFF would grow at a long-term growth rate of 4.5%. The current market value of de company´s debt is $1.3 billion, and the firm has 150 million shares outstanding. The tax rate is 37%.
Campbell is examining the financial statement of emergent technologies (ET), a technology firm incorporated in 2006 with an initial investment in fixed capital of $700,000. Exhibit 1 and 2 display some information from the financial statements of the firm for three years following incorporation (the figures given are in thousands)
Campbell is planning to use the statement of cash flow of a distributing firm to estimate the free cash flow to the firm and free cash flow to equity. However, Campbell knows that the effects of different accounting standards related to the cash flow statement must be kept in mind before proceeding with the calculations. For clarification, Campbell approached Jeremiah Bret, her supervisor at the firm. Bret made the following comments:
Statement 1: "To estimate FCFF starting with FCO, the treatment of interest must be kept in mind. Although the U.S. GAAP treats interest paid or received as operating activities, the IFRS treats them as either operating or financing activities"
Statement 2: "The value of a firm can be estimated by discounting FCFF using the WACC calculated on a pre-tax basis. However, for this, the FCFF should be computed by adding back interest paid with no tax adjustment".
Bret is estimating the FCFF of SkyHigh Manufacturing Ltd. (SHM), a firm that earned a net income of $310,000 over the most recent year. The firm underwent corporate restructuring a few years ago and the net income includes an amount of $50,000 resulting from a reversal of a previous accrual. In addition, the firm has recorded a gain of $30,000 from the sale of its equipment, and has amortized long-term bond discounts in the amount of $55,000. Some of the financial information for the current year is provided in Exhibit 3. The company has a tax rate of 30%.
While talking to Campbell about her analysis, Bret made the following comment:
“The FCFF could also be calculated using the firm´s EBIT and EBITDA amounts. However, there is one slight difference in using these two amounts as a starting point for calculating FCFF.”
1. Capital Enterprises value per share is closest to:
  1. $56.57
  2. $35.78
  3. $37.78
 2. The FCFF (in thousands) of Emergent Technologies  for the year 2008 is closest to:
  1. $205.052
  2. $144.572
  3. $110.092
 3. The FCFF (in thousands) of Emergent Technologies  for the year 2009 is closest to:
  1. $239.30
  2. $222.072
  3. $210.753
 4. Bret is most accurate whit respect to:
  1. Statement 1 only
  2. Statement 2 only
  3. Both statement 1 and 2
 5. The FCFF for SkyHigh Manufacturing Ltd for the current year is closest to:
  1. $16,000
  2. $26,000
  3. $  6,000
 6. The difference in estimating FCFF using EBIT versus using EBITDA as a starting point is most likely related to the handling of:
  1. Interest
  2. Depreciation
  3. Taxes

Solution in excel  www.casesmba.com

CASE: Valuing Cross-Border LBO: Bidding on the Yell Group (30)

  1. Is Yell a good leveraged buyout candidate?
  2. How similar are the U.K. and U.S. businesses? Do the management projections in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 make sense to you? In other words, if you were part of the Apax/Hicks Muse team, would you trust them?
  3. How does Yell’s projected debt affect its valuation?
  4. How does the cross-border nature of the Yell deal affect the valuation of the firm?
  5. How much is Yell worth? How much would you bid?
  6. If you were Apax/Hicks Muse would you do the deal?

Solution in word www.casesmba.com

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

CASE: Using EVA and MVA at OUTSOURCE, INc. (27)

Using EVA and MVA at OUTSOURCE, INc.
"I've been hearing a lot lately about something called MVA, which stands for Market Value Added, and I was curious whether it is something we can use at OSI." This was Keith Martin's comment as he finished eating bis lunch. Keith is president and CEO of OutSource, lnc. His guest for lunch that day was a computer-industry analyst from a local brokerage firm. Keith invited him to lunch to get more information on MVA and its uses.
"Yes," replied the analyst, "I've heard a great deal about MVA. lt's based on Economic Value Added, or EVA, which is a residual income approach where a firm's net operating profit after taxes-called NOPAT- is compared with a minimum level of return a firm must earn on the total amount of capital placed at its disposal."
"Have you seen the most recent issue of Fortune?" he continued, as he handed a copy of the publication to Keith. ''It has an article[1] in it updating Stem Stewart's list of the top 1,000 firms ranked by MVA. You will also be interested in an earlier Fortune article[2] on EVA; however, don't be misled by the simplicity of the EVA calculations in that article. The after-tax operating profit-NOPAT-and the amount used for capital don't come directly off the financial statements. You have to analyze the footnotes to determine the adjustments that have to be made to come up with those amounts; Bennett Stewart calls them equity equivalents."
"Those articles sound like very interesting reading for me at the point I'm at on this topic," said Keith. "Can you send me a copy of the earlier article too?"
"Yes, 1 will," said the analyst. "But tell me, what is it about MVA and EVA that piqued your interest in trying them at OSI?"
"In tracking our industry," Keith replied, "I see the stock prices of some of our key competitors, like Equifax, increasing. Yet, when I compare OSI's recent growth in sales and earnings, our return on equity and earnings per share compare well, but our stock price doesn't achieve nearly the same rate of increase, and I don't understand why.”
The analyst offered that "some of those firms might be benefiting from using EVA already, and the market value of their stock probably reflects the results of their efforts. lt's been shown that a higher level of correlation exists between EVA and a stock's market value than has been found with the traditional accounting performance measures, like ROE or EPS."
"But the MVA 1,000 ranking probably includes only large firms," Keith observed after looking over the article the analyst had given him. "Will EVA work in a small service firm like OSI?"
"Most of the largest U.S. firms are in the Stem Stewart MVA ranking," said the analyst, "but I've read about EVA being used at smaller firms. And some firms in the ranking are service firms, such as AT&T, McDonald's, Marriott International, and Dun & Bradstreet I'm not an expert on MVA or EVA, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work at OSI."
"I'd like to find out more in detail about MVA and EVA and how we can use it at OSI. For example, we've talked about a new incentive plan; will it work in that area? And, if so, will it help us in deciding how we should organize and manage our operations as we expand and grow in the future? What can you do to get more information on these things to me fairly soon?"
"An application EVA is touted for is its use in incentive plans," replied the analyst. "I have a team of MBA students from Wake Forest assigned to me this fall to do an industry-related project and I was looking for something 'meaty' for them to do. This looks like just the ticket. I'II brief them on it and have them come over to get the necessary information and interview you."
"Great! I look forward to meeting them," said Keith. "And, in that case, lunch is on me," as he reached for the check.
Company lnformation
OutSource, Inc. (OSI) is a computer service bureau that provides basic data processing and general business support services to a number of business firms, including several large firms in their immediate local area. lts offices are in a large city in the mid-Atlantic region, and it serves client firms in several mid-Atlantic states. OSI's revenues have grown fairly rapidly in recent years as businesses have downsized and outsourced many of their basic support services.
The Corplnfo Data Service (CIDS) classifies OSI as an information services firm (SIC 7374). This group is composed, in large part, of smaller, independent entrepreneurs that provide a variety of often disparate services to both corporate and government clients. Market analysts feel a continuously healthy economy translates into strong potential for higher earnings by members of this group. A factor sustaining an extended period of growth is the increased attention of firms to control costs and to outsource their noncore functions, such as personnel placement, payroll, human resources, insurance, and data processing. This trend is expected to continue, probably at an increasing rate, through to the end of the decade. Several firms in this industry have capitalized on their growth and geographic expansion to win lucrative contracts with large clients that previously had been awarded on a market-by-market basis.
Although OSI operates out of its own facilities, which include some computing equipment and furniture, the bulk of its computer processing power is obtained from excess computer capacity in the local area, primarily rented time during third-shift operations at a large local bank. However, to be successful in the long-term, OSI management knows it must expand its business considerably, and, to ensure it has full control over its operations, it must set up its own large-scale computing facility in-house. These items are included in OSI's long-range strategic plan.
As OSI's reputation for accurate, reliable, quick response service has spread, the firm has found new business coming its way in a variety of data processing and support services. The issue has been deciding which services to take on or to stay out of in light of the current limitations on OSI's computing resources and to ensure that they can continue to provide high-quality service to customers. Things are definitely looking up for OSI, and industry market analysts have recently begun to look more favorably on their stock.
In 1993, OSI's board decided to pursue additional opportunities in payroll processing and tax filing services, and OSI purchased a medium-sized firm that had an established market providing payroll calculating, processing, and reporting services for several Fortune 500 firms on the East Coast. OSI is now in the midst of developing a new payroll processing system, called PayNet, to replace the outmoded system that was originally created by the firm it acquired.
Once PayNet is developed, it will give users an integrated payroll solution with a simple, familiar graphical user interface. From an administrative perspective, it will allow OSI to reduce its manual data entry personnel, speed data compilation and analysis, and simplify administrative tasks and the updating of customer files for adds, moves, and changes. PayNet will serve as the backbone for OSI's service bureau payroll processing operations in the future; however, developmental and programming costs are proving to be higher than expected and will delay the roll-out of the final version of the new payroll engine. Beta testing of the production version of PayNet is being delayed from the second to the third quarter.
Additional Accounting lnformation
OSI's financial statements for 1995 appear in Exhibit 1. The following is a list of information pertinent to calculating a firm's EVA extracted from the footnotes to OSI's financial statements for 1995.
A. Inventories are stated principally at cost (last-in, first-out), which is not in excess of market Replacement cost would be $2,796 greater than in 1994 and $3,613 greater than in 1995.
B. Deferred tax expense results from timing differences in recognizing revenue and expense for tax and reporting purposes.
C. On July 1, 1993, the Company acquired CompuPay, a payroll processing and reporting service firm. The acquisition was accounted for as a purchase, and the excess of cost over the fair value of net assets acquired was $109,200, which is being amortized on a straight-line basis over 12 years. One-half year of goodwill amortization was recorded in 1993.
D. Research and development costs related to software development are expensed as incurred. Software development costs are capitalized from the point in time when the technological feasibility of a piece of software has been determined until it is ready to be put on line to process customer data. The cost of purchased software, which is ready for service, is capitalized on acquisition. Software development costs and purchased software costs are amortized using the straight-line method over periods ranging from three to seven years. A history of the accounting treatment of software development costs and purchased software costs follows:
EXPENSED
CAPITALIZED
AMORTIZED
1993
$166,430
$9,585
0
1994
$211,852
$5,362
$4,511
1995
89,089
18,813
5,111
$467,371
$33,760
$9,622

EXHIBIT 1 OSI 1995 Financial Statements
OUTSOURCE,INC. BALANCE SHEET (DECEMBER 31)
ASSETS19951994
Current Assets$144,724$169,838
Cash217,085192,645
Trade and other receivables (net)15,82923,750
Inventaries61,04749,239
Other$438,685$435,472
Total current assets
Noncurrent Assets$123,135$109,600
Property, plant, and equipment33,76014,947
Software and development costs151,357141,892
Data processing equipment and furniture3,6508,844
Other noncurrent assets$311,902$275,283
Less: Accumulated depreciation85,01857,929
Total noncurrent assets$226,884$217,354
Goodwill88,20096,600
Total assets$753,769$749,426
Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity
Current Liabilities
Short-term debt + current portian oflong-term note$27,300$31,438
Accounts payable67,08557,483
Deferred income45,05032,250
lncome taxes payable19,93612,100
Employee compensation and benefits payable30,15528,950
Other accrued expenses28,45827,553
Other current liabilities17,19229,769
Total current liabilities$235,176$219,543
Long-term debt less current portian98,744117,155
Deferred income taxes6,7844,850
Shareholders' Equity
Cumulative nonconvertible preferred stock, $100 par value,
authorized 5,000 shares, issued and outstanding 1,000 shares100,000100,000
Common stock, $1 par value; 300,000 shares authorized;
219,884 shares issued and outstanding219,884219,884
Additional paid-in capital32,05632,056
Retained earnings61,12555,938
Total shareholders' equity413,065$407,878
Totalliabilities and shareholders equity$753,769$749,426
1995
Statement of lncome for Year Ended December 31, 1995
Operating revenue$2,604,530
Less: Costs of services1,466,350
Gross profit$1,138,180
Less: Operating expenses
Selling, general and administrative902,388
Research and development89,089
Other expense (income)59,288
Write-off of goodwill and other intangibles13,511
Earnings (loss) before interest and taxes$73,904
lnterest income1,009
lnterest expense12,427
Earnings (loss) before income taxes$62,486
lncome tax provision21,870
Earnings (loss)$40,616
Statement of Cash Flows for Year Ended December 31, 1995
1995
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Net Earnings (Loss)$40,616
Depreciation21,978
Amortization of software & development costs5,111
Decrease (lncrease) in accounts receivables-24,440
Decrease (lncrease) in inventaries7,921
Decrease (lncrease) in other current assets-11,808
lncrease (Decrease) in deferred income9,602
lncrease (Decrease) in accounts payable12,800
lncrease (Decrease) in income taxes payable7,836
lncrease (Decrease) in employee compensation1,205
lncrease (Decrease) in other accrued expenses905
lncrease (Decrease) in other current liabilities-12,577
lncrease (Decrease) in deferred income taxes1,934
Net cash provided by operating activities$61,083
Cash Flows from lnvesting Activities
Expended for capital assets$-36,619
Goodwill amortized8,400
Net cash used for investing activities$-28,219
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Payment of long-term note$-4,138
Payment of short-term note$-18,411
Preferred dividends$-11,000
Common stock dividends$-24,429
Net cash used for financing activities$-57,978
Net cash flows used ($25, 114)
Cash at beginning of year$169,838
Cash at end of year$144,724
Additional Financial lnformation
OSI's common stock is currently trading at $2.00 per share. A preferred dividend of $11 per share was paid in 1995, and the current price of the preferred stock is approximately at its par value. Other information pertaining to OSI's debt and stock follows:
RATE
Short-terrn debt:
$8,889
8.00%
Long-terrn debt:
Current portion
$18,411
10.00%
Long-terrn portion
$98,744
10.00%
Totallong-terrn debt
$117,155
Stock market risk-free rate
5.00%
(90-day T-bills)
Expected return on the
12.50%
market
Beta value of OSI's
1.2
common stock
Growth rate of dividends
8.00%
Incometax
35.00%
Requirements
The management of OutSource, Inc., has asked you to prepare a report explaining EVA (economic value added) and MVA (market value added), how they are calculated, and how they compare with traditional measures of a firm's financial performance. OSI's management would also like to know the advantages and disadvantages of using EVA to evaluate the firm's performance on an ongoing basis as well as in assessing the performance of individual managers throughout its organization. As part of your report, calculate EVA and MVA from OutSource, Inc.'s, financial statements for 1995. Finally, OSI's management would like to know if EVA can be used as part of an incentive system for its employees and how they should proceed to implement such an incentive system at OutSource, Inc.
[1] 'Who Are the Real Wealth Creators?" R. B. Lieber, Fortune (Decemher9, 1996), pp. 107-08,110,112,114.
[2] The Real Key to Creating Wealth," S. Tully, Fortune (September 20, 1993), pp. 38-40, 44-48, 50.

Solution in excel and word in WWW.CASESMBA.COM