Sentences with phrase «debt haircut»

And implies a Net Debt haircut of GBP 213.9 mio to the purchase price (GNP 310.7 mio Average Net Debt * (1 — 31.1 %)-RRB-.

My rough & ready approximation of the expected value of these outcomes is a debt haircut — note I should more correctly say (as I do sometimes) «a haircut to equity, imposed by debt».

The expected operating profit increase, and interest reduction, should hopefully eliminate the need for a debt haircut in any valuation analysis.

To bring this back to my usual 15 % limit, we'd need to see a debt haircut of about 75 M — we'll add this as a negative debt adjustment to my P / S multiple, so my fair value's now:

This conservatively deserves a 0.75 Price / Sales ratio, with no need for a debt haircut or adjustment at this point.

Not exact matches

Per the IMF, the only way #Greece's debt can be sustainable is with a 30 % haircut & a 20 year grace period.

The hedge fund would break even on its debt investment if the Berkshire bid prevails because gains in some parts of its debt holdings, which would be paid out in full, would offset losses in the unsecured bonds it holds, where it would take a deep haircut, the people said.

Rather than accept the # 500m «haircut» in the debt they were owed, Brodsky and his fellow hedge funds refused to play ball.

This framework includes a recapitalization of the banks; a «voluntary haircut» of 50 percent on Greek debt holders; and, a leveraging of the EFSF to about $ 1 trillion.

It is true that earlier this year a swap of Greek bonds took a bite out of the country's debt load by forcing a «haircut,» the cute word bankers use to describe losses, onto creditors.

To get Greece's government debt - to - GDP ratio to a more acceptable level, like 120 % (from some 170 % now), Europe's leaders were going to have to reduce Greece's debt burden even more, and that potentially meant having to take a haircut of their own.

«Nominal haircuts» on Greece's debt «can not be undertaken,» it says, but «longer grace and payment» periods might be considered.

Newly minted Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras campaigned on the promise of seeking a write - down on the country's debt, a «haircut» so to speak, which many European finance and government officials have dismissed as out of the question.

«Under current federal law this is not permitted,» said David Tawil, co-founder and President Maglan Capital, who believes that if Congress were to pass this type of framework for debt restructuring, holders of Puerto Rico's paper who are forced to take haircuts «will have quite a strong legal argument».

«Congress should arrange some way for the debt to be reduced and for the bondholders to take a haircut and reduce it.»

Outright purchases of unsecured bank debt remain highly unlikely at this stage given the conflict of interest the ECB is facing, although other targeted options could be envisaged, including a reduction in collateral haircuts, eligibility of more risky ABS tranches, or even some targeted purchases of bank loans if things get worse.

Haircuts would seem to be off the table, while three things on the agenda are the maturity of the debt, the grace period for no interest and the reduction of the coupon, he said.

This would serve as a buffer to bankruptcy by covering unexpected debts, and force banks to invest these precious liquid assets more judiciously than if they obtained easy credit through haircut deals.

Common and Preferred Equity need to get whacked hard, and subordinated debt needs to take a haircut.

Trimming a few hundred dollars a year from restaurant expenses, clothes, haircuts, manicures and travel will go a long way towards lowering your debt load.

A haircut — can refer to the interest differentials charged and paid on Over The Counter (OTC) products like CFDs and Forex, and to reduce debt repayments when there is risk of a total loan default, an example is the huge «haircut» European banks have taken on their loans to the Greek government.

[Based on this adjusted margin, I calculate another # 23 million in debt (at an assumed 5 % rate, for acquisitions etc.) would still limit finance expense to 15 % of adjusted margin — as usual, let's apply a 50 % haircut, just to be conservative].

And with a mere $ 18 million of net debt outstanding, we can adjust for cash (& investment property), plus an incremental debt adjustment — noting actual finance expense paid of $ 7.2 million, we could comfortably add another $ 49 million of debt, but let's haircut that by our usual 50 %.

Let's be disciplined though, and haircut our debt again to bring this ratio back down to my usual 15 % limit — this now equates to a 42 M negative debt adjustment to my P / S multiple:

Putting all this together, we've a substantial (debt) haircut to the implied P / S valuation of EUR 4.9 bio, but Smurfit still presents a v attractive upside if you're prepared to bet on an economically sensitive stock still in the midst of a debt reduction programme.

iii) Now we're getting to the crux of it: The EU, ECB and Geithner (the IMF were apparently ambiguous) were resolutely opposed to any haircut on bank debt to avoid market contagion and to avoid writedowns on foreign bank holdings of this debt.

Since the company remains financially strong (with additional property to sell), we can still apply a (positive) debt adjustment — but it's much reduced now at just GBP 8 million, and I'll haircut it by 50 % as usual.

We should upgrade our valuation accordingly, by: i) adjusting for (surplus) cash, and ii) adjusting for incremental debt potential of $ 0.6 billion *, which would increase finance expense (at a standard 5 %) to a still - manageable 15 % of trading profit — but we'll apply my usual 50 % haircut to be conservative.

With net finance cost just under 10 % of trading margin, an additional $ 0.7 billion debt adjustment is appropriate — which we'll haircut by 50 %, as usual.

For over-indebtedness, I'll haircut my valuation by 100 % of the company's incremental debt (i.e. the debt reduction required to reduce interest expense to 15 % of EBITA)-- a clumsy but often effective measure of the operating / dilution / bankruptcy risks an investor faces with such a company.

Debt Adjustment is based on Gross Interest Expense, and I generally aim for an increased debt level where interest is still limited to 15 % of EBIT, which normally seems prudent — almost inevitably, I haircut my Debt Adjustment by 50 % to be more conservatDebt Adjustment is based on Gross Interest Expense, and I generally aim for an increased debt level where interest is still limited to 15 % of EBIT, which normally seems prudent — almost inevitably, I haircut my Debt Adjustment by 50 % to be more conservatdebt level where interest is still limited to 15 % of EBIT, which normally seems prudent — almost inevitably, I haircut my Debt Adjustment by 50 % to be more conservatDebt Adjustment by 50 % to be more conservative.

And with actual interest paid amounting to just 8.3 % of operating profit, debt could increase an additional $ 101 million (again, at a 5 % rate) & still leave interest coverage at a manageable 6.7 times (i.e. 15 % of operating profit)-- as usual, to be prudent, we'll haircut this debt adjustment by 50 %.

I find that if I haircut my (relatively debt - free) equity valuation by the value of excess debt, on average it tends to capture an appropriate value for the company.

Against this, however, we need to haircut AERL's debt / leases to a more sustainable level — I reckon a 65 % debt reduction is needed here.

The equity and preferred stock go out worthless, and the subordinated debt gets some sort of haircut (partial conversion to senior, plus an earn - out based off the losses the the government has to bear).

Clearly, the cash could be extracted & debt of (say) almost $ 20 M comfortably supported, without impacting our P / S multiple — as per usual, I'll haircut this debt by 50 % to be conservative.

[And if debt's already excessive, a negative Debt Adjustment is also appropriate — in that instance, I don't apply a 50 % haircut (to be more conservatidebt's already excessive, a negative Debt Adjustment is also appropriate — in that instance, I don't apply a 50 % haircut (to be more conservatiDebt Adjustment is also appropriate — in that instance, I don't apply a 50 % haircut (to be more conservative).

What exactly do you mean by «haircutting» a company's debt?

Companies with debt / interest in excess of that risk suffering: i) a significantly adjusted price for their equity in the event of a takeover — acquirer will refuse to take on debt, or will take on debt but haircut equity to compensate, ii) an eventual rights issue / placing to pay - down debt — this will probably hurt the share price and / or dilute intrinsic value per share significantly, or iii) investors will mark down company severely at some point.

As usual, we'll apply a 50 % haircut to this debt adjustment to be conservative.

Finance expense is de minimis, so an incremental $ 16 million of debt ** can be comfortably employed here also (limiting finance expense to 15 % of Op FCF)-- as usual, I'll apply a 50 % haircut to this debt adjustment to be conservative:

To be (somewhat) conservative, let's haircut this incremental debt by 50 % & include it as a (positive) debt adjustment to our P / S valuation.

Now, this means underlying interest coverage isn't great either — I should probably haircut my P / S valuation accordingly, with a negative debt adjustment.

To better reflect actual cash flows, this time we'll reference Google's 31 % GAAP operating margin: The company could add $ 91 billion of debt & comfortably maintain 6.7 times interest coverage (assuming a 5 % long - term interest rate)-- as usual, I'll apply a conservative 50 % haircut & deduct current outstanding debt of $ 3.9 billion, to arrive at a $ 42 billion debt capacity adjustment.

Again, a higher level of debt can be sustained — an additional 9.4 million of debt still limits interest expense to 15 % of our average adjusted Op FCF margin, and as usual we'll haircut by 50 % & include as a further adjustment.

Let's conservatively haircut this by 50 %, and include it as another adjustment (my P / S multiple already accommodates this level of sustainable debt).

I consider my valuation multiple a reasonable compromise between higher sector multiples & the risk of a devastating client loss... Plus it allows me to (fairly) comfortably apply a (positive) debt adjustment: Based on the company's 4.7 M of (annualized) adjusted operating profit (& zero debt), management could easily draw down 14.2 M of debt for expansion, acquisitions, etc. — as usual, I'll haircut this by 50 %.

And # 7.5 million interest paid implies interest coverage of 18 times plus — an additional # 0.3 billion of debt would be sustainable, but we'll apply our usual 50 % haircut to this debt adjustment.

And net debt's falling rapidly, so if we (conservatively) annualise Q1 net interest expense (of $ 2.9 million), we can see ICON remains massively under - leveraged — I calculate an additional $ 0.7 billion in debt would still limit interest expense (to 15 % of operating profit), but let's apply our usual 50 % haircut to this debt adjustment.

Let's apply our usual 50 % haircut & assume $ 4.5 million of debt capacity instead (which equates to a reasonable 1.4 times EBITDA, or 1.3 times operating cash flow).