SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 21
Download to read offline
Conrail – CSX Plays its first move
Alse, Deepak
Bade, Pavan
Driscoll, Matthew
Tsurumoto, Craig
Conrail gives CSX leverage and control
•  Economies of scale & scope and Market Control with more than 60% of
market should lead to pricing power
•  A strategic synergy exists with its intermodal business; CSX needs this deal
to consolidate its access to East Coast Ports
•  In the post-NAFTA scenario, CSX can cross leverage its intermodal and
shipping container business to generate higher levels of utilization as well
as lower operating costs for the post merger entity. This is critical because
post-NAFTA, there will be higher international trade that may land in one
country’s ports but act as raw-material or provide finished goods for
another country. A 3%  average growth rate for revenues is most
reasonable given past trends. But, we have to remember that NAFTA will
substantially increase the level of traffic and expand the size of the market
for both railroads and trucking. 
•  Since this was 1996, a positive impact from the rise of ecommerce could
have been factored in.
Note : Claimed synergies in the case are lower than those claimed by BNSF
for its Union Pacific acquisition; a deal that’s half the valuation.
Operations & Productivity Improvements
•  Conrail has higher ‘Revenue per Mile of Track Operated’ , ‘Revenue per
Carload Originated’ and ‘ Revenue per Ton Originated’ but it lags on
‘Revenue per Employee’
•  This indicates a situation where
–  Conrail has substantial pricing power in terms of revenues
–  Conrail’s profitability is hurt largely by
•  Lower employee productivity
•  Higher basis costs per employee on account of location(NE has a
higher cost of living)
•  A shift towards moving Conrail’s employee productivity to the levels at CSX
will generate millions in savings.
•  Increase in DPO to reduce NWC needs.
–  Conrail DPO at 13 days is 1/5th of that for Norfolk Southern.
–  An increase of 40 days will free up $350M in working capital
The valuations indicate offer is at top end
Valuation in various scenarios
Factor Aggressive Base Worst Case
Enterprise Value $8,953 $8,576 $6,605
Implied Price Per Share $67.85 $63.69 $41.91
       
We used the Beta of BNSF(BNI) – The other
behemoth of similar size.
The cash offer for 40% of shares is
approximately $3.3 Billion in value . CSX has
less than 700M USD on its balance sheet but a
low D/E ratio.
We can definitely load the target with entire
amount in debt at the risk of taking the target
D/E ratio to 0.79.
Sensitivity Analysis – Base Case
SensitivityAnalyses
Dollars inmillions,exceptpershare
Equity Value as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC Share as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC
WACC Terminal Growth Rate WACC Terminal Growth Rate
$9,057.33 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% $100.08 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
7.20% $7,473.1 $8,298.3 $9,306.0 $10,564.5 $12,180.4 7.20% $82.58 $91.7 $102.8 $116.7 $134.6
8.20% $5,582.6 $6,115.3 $6,744.5 $7,499.1 $8,420.6 8.20% $61.7 $67.6 $74.5 $82.9 $93.0
9.20% $4,231.7 $4,593.6 $5,011.0 $5,497.6 $6,072.3 9.20% $46.8 $50.8 $55.4 $60.7 $67.1
10.20% $3,087.8 $3,329.7 $3,603.0 $3,914.2 $4,271.9 10.20% $34.1 $36.8 $39.8 $43.3 $47.2
11.20% $2,359.8 $2,537.0 $2,734.7 $2,956.4 $3,206.9 11.20% $26.1 $28.0 $30.2 $32.7 $35.4
Implied EV, range: $3,329.70 $6,115.30 Implied price per share, range: $36.79 $67.57
Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC
WACC EBITDA Multiple WACC EBITDA Multiple
$9,057.33 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 -31254.13% 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5
7.20% $8,200.0 $9,217.1 $10,234.2 $11,251.3 $12,268.4 7.20% $90.61 $101.8 $113.1 $124.3 $135.6
8.20% $7,658.4 $8,618.1 $9,577.8 $10,537.6 $11,497.3 8.20% $84.6 $95.2 $105.8 $116.4 $127.0
9.20% $7,150.4 $8,056.5 $8,962.6 $9,868.7 $10,774.8 9.20% $79.0 $89.0 $99.0 $109.0 $119.1
10.20% $6,673.7 $7,529.6 $8,385.5 $9,241.5 $10,097.4 10.20% $73.7 $83.2 $92.7 $102.1 $111.6
11.20% $6,226.0 $7,035.0 $7,843.9 $8,652.9 $9,461.8 11.20% $68.8 $77.7 $86.7 $95.6 $104.6
Implied EV, range: $7,150.37 $10,774.81 Implied price per share, range: $79.01 $119.06
Sensitivity Analysis – Aggressive Scenario
Sensitivity Analyses                    
Dollars in millions,
except per share                      
	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
  
Equity Value as a function of:
Terminal Growth & WACC          
Share as a function of: Terminal
Growth & WACC        
	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
     	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
  
WACC  
Terminal Growth
Rate         WACC  
Terminal Growth
Rate      
$8,952.57 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%   $121.17 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
6.88% $11,048.9 $11,974.9 $13,112.0 $14,542.0 $16,394.4   6.88% $122.09 $132.3 $144.9 $160.7 $181.2
7.88% $14,124.2 $15,682.1 $17,700.3 $20,418.4 $24,276.6   7.88% $156.1 $173.3 $195.6 $225.6 $268.2
8.88% $14,124.2 $15,682.1 $17,700.3 $20,418.4 $24,276.6   8.88% $156.1 $173.3 $195.6 $225.6 $268.2
9.88% $11,048.9 $11,974.9 $13,112.0 $14,542.0 $16,394.4   9.88% $122.1 $132.3 $144.9 $160.7 $181.2
10.88% $7,532.8 $7,937.3 $8,405.2 $8,952.6 $9,601.6   10.88% $83.2 $87.7 $92.9 $98.9 $106.1
                         
  Implied EV, range: $11,974.88     $24,276.60    
Implied price per
share, range: $132.32     $268.25
                         
Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC       Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC    
	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
     	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
   	
  	
  
WACC   EBITDA Multiple         WACC   EBITDA Multiple      
$10,965.78 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5   -$355.29 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5
6.88% $8,725.4 $9,799.6 $10,873.8 $11,948.0 $13,022.2   6.88% $96.41 $108.3 $120.2 $132.0 $143.9
7.88% $8,153.6 $9,167.0 $10,180.5 $11,193.9 $12,207.4   7.88% $90.1 $101.3 $112.5 $123.7 $134.9
8.88% $7,617.4 $8,574.1 $9,530.8 $10,487.4 $11,444.1   8.88% $84.2 $94.7 $105.3 $115.9 $126.5
9.88% $7,114.4 $8,018.0 $8,921.5 $9,825.1 $10,728.6   9.88% $78.6 $88.6 $98.6 $108.6 $118.5
10.88% $6,642.2 $7,496.0 $8,349.9 $9,203.7 $10,057.5   10.88% $73.4 $82.8 $92.3 $101.7 $111.1
                         
  Implied EV, range: $7,617.41     $11,444.11    
Implied price per
share, range: $84.17     $126.45
Sensitivity Analysis – Worst Case
Scenario
SensitivityAnalyses
Dollars inmillions,exceptpershare
Equity Value as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC Share as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC
WACC Terminal Growth Rate WACC Terminal Growth Rate
$5,213.58 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% $26.54 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%
9.02% $5,518.6 $6,124.9 $6,865.4 $7,790.0 $8,977.4 9.0% $60.98 $67.7 $75.9 $86.1 $99.2
10.02% $4,100.1 $4,491.4 $4,953.5 $5,507.8 $6,184.6 10.0% $45.3 $49.6 $54.7 $60.9 $68.3
11.02% $3,080.3 $3,346.0 $3,652.5 $4,009.8 $4,431.7 11.0% $34.0 $37.0 $40.4 $44.3 $49.0
12.02% $2,326.5 $2,514.8 $2,728.1 $2,033.6 $3,252.8 12.0% $25.7 $27.8 $30.1 $22.5 $35.9
13.02% $1,743.0 $1,880.2 $2,033.6 $2,206.1 $2,401.6 13.0% $19.3 $20.8 $22.5 $24.4 $26.5
Implied EV, range: $2,514.76 $4,491.38 Implied price per share, range: $27.79 $49.63
Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC
WACC EBITDA Multiple WACC EBITDA Multiple
$2,401.58 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 -$241.57 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5
9.02% $6,457.8 $7,253.6 $8,049.3 $8,845.1 $9,640.8 9.0% $71.36 $80.1 $88.9 $97.7 $106.5
10.02% $6,936.0 $7,779.9 $8,623.7 $9,467.5 $10,311.4 10.0% $76.6 $86.0 $95.3 $104.6 $113.9
11.02% $6,936.0 $7,779.9 $8,623.7 $9,467.5 $10,311.4 11.0% $76.6 $86.0 $95.3 $104.6 $113.9
12.02% $6,457.8 $7,253.6 $8,049.3 $8,845.1 $9,640.8 12.0% $71.4 $80.1 $88.9 $97.7 $106.5
13.02% $5,588.9 $6,297.7 $7,006.5 $7,715.3 $8,424.1 13.0% $61.8 $69.6 $77.4 $85.3 $93.1
Implied EV, range: $6,936.03 $10,311.36 Implied price per share, range: $76.64 $113.94
On multiples, however, we are closer to
the lower end.
0.0	
  
50.0	
  
100.0	
  
150.0	
  
200.0	
  
EPS-­‐Based	
   Book	
  Value	
  based	
   TEV	
  Based	
  
Offer	
  Price	
  
TEV as a multiple of EBIDTA shows the lowest error ( std.dev/mean
value). Offer price is at median on this multiple – But at a lower multiple
compared to the $4 Billion BNSF deal. However, none of the recent deals
are of a similar size(8+ Billion USD)
However, offer structure is convoluted
Stage119.7%
(17.86M
Shares) at
$92.50
Stage2
20.3% at
$92.5 after
Conrail
Shareholders
approve deal
Stage3
1.85619:1
CSX:Conrail
Stock Swap
The Pennsylvania Law requiring bidders holding 20% or more of company’s
stock to offer all shareholders same price unless target shareholders explicitly
vote to nullify the provision. CSX is attempting to use its first mover advantage
and positive engagement with the management team to achieve two
objectives
Makes it easier for CSX to control offer price by combining with a stock
swap.
Control the total cost of the deal by utilizing a swap against lower valued
CSX shares after 35% control is achieved.
Impact of Clauses in Agreement
Clause Impact to Conrail Impact to CSX
No Talk Clause – Six month (no
talk from Conrail)
Difficult to assess – It seems the
board and management are
friendly so that talk clause
seems more like a fiduciary
cloak.
Prevents a bidding war –
Positive control over the
negotiations.
Breakup Fee - $300M – Conrail
to pay to CSX if no transaction
occured
Adds $300M to valuation
expectations if another bidder
emerges
Gets $300M if no deal occurs
Poison Pill Suspended Prevented by executing share
dilution to retain control( It
seems like the board and
management don’t desire to do
this).
Prevents loss of value from
discounted shares hurting
market value of Conrail equity.
Lock-up Options – 15.96M
newly issue common shares at
$92.50 – Options granted by
Conrail to CSX
Guaranteed influx of cash if
options are exercised. Financial
impact depends on more the
stock price moves after deal is
announced.
Allows CSX to acquire 10-20%
at a fixed price even if Conrail
shareholders don’t tender the
required number of shares.
A Conrail shareholder should wait and watch..
•  Due to the blended nature, and the
expected drop in stock price of
CSX , we will have impact to value
of holdings during the stock swap
•  As an individual shareholder, it does
not makes sense to sell against the
first stage $92.50 cash offer.
Multiples for comparable
transactions indicate that the offer is
not in line with other transactions.
•  In adopting a ‘wait and watch’
mode till the second stage for
additional 20% opens up, there is
an opportunity to let the non-
individual shareholders negotiate
for a better deal.
Principal Agent Problem
Details provided in the case indicate that the Conrail management
failed to fulfill its duties as an agent of its owners and stakeholders.
By agreeing to a set of clauses that limit Conrail’s ability to find the
highest valuation for the firm and by issuing options fixed at CSX’s
offer price in stage 1, the management team seems to have placed its
own interests ahead of those of Conrail.
Individual investors are a small segment
of owners
Non	
  Taxable	
  
48%	
  
Tax-­‐Paying	
  
34%	
  
Individuals	
  
17%	
  
Insiders	
  
1%	
  
Other	
  
18%	
  
Ownership	
  
It	
  seems	
  quite	
  likely	
  that	
  the	
  non-­‐individual	
  investors	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  strong	
  view/
percepOon	
  of	
  undervaluaOon	
  especially	
  given	
  the	
  monopoly	
  that	
  Conrail	
  holds	
  in	
  its	
  
markets.	
  This	
  may	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  situaOon	
  where	
  stage	
  2	
  remains	
  open	
  and	
  ‘Opt-­‐Out’	
  
clause	
  vote	
  is	
  unsuccessful	
  unOl	
  CSX	
  conOnues	
  to	
  bid	
  higher.	
  
We recommend that Conrail consider replacing
its management team and investigate options
It is unclear as to why Conrail, with its monopolistic position, seems eager to
be acquired in a closed process at a comparably lower valuation.
•  Both acquisition scenarios ( Conrail + CSX, Conrail + Norfolk Southern)
lead to substantially high marketshare and somewhat high Herfindahl-
Hirschman Index (HHI) values ;Purely on HHI index values, the Conrail-
Norfolk Southern deal may have a better chance at going through.
•  Given the role of Conrail’s unionized workforce, a split deal will offer better
terms of negotiation with the unions as neither CSX nor NS will have to
negotiate with a workforce larger than their current workforce in terms of
size. An optimally split deal will also help deal with Pennsylvania law
requirements.
•  Assuming zero synergies, and purely on current productivity terms, Conrail-
Norfolk Southern deal is a better option. If we tilt the scenario towards
operating scenarios similar to the acquiring firms, NS comes out even
stronger. Note that the synergy calculations at 20% reduction on operating
ratios are very optimistic considering the fact that no one operates at those
levels currently. 
A Hybrid deal where Conrail is not completely acquired by either CSX or
Norfolk Southern maybe best.
THANK	
  YOU	
  
ValuaOon	
  Scenarios	
  
Comparables	
  
Deal	
  Financing	
  Scenarios	
  
DPO-­‐DSO	
  Assessment	
  
AddiOonal	
  Synergies	
  
BNSF	
  Beta	
  

More Related Content

What's hot

Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case Analysis
Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case AnalysisAirbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case Analysis
Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case AnalysisNeeraj Mehra, CFA
 
cooper industry case study
cooper industry case study cooper industry case study
cooper industry case study Priyanka Jain
 
Presentation marriott study case cost of capital
Presentation marriott study case cost of capitalPresentation marriott study case cost of capital
Presentation marriott study case cost of capitalBm Hakim
 
Delta and singapore analysis
Delta and singapore  analysisDelta and singapore  analysis
Delta and singapore analysisRajendra Inani
 
Harvard Business Case - Super Project
Harvard Business Case - Super ProjectHarvard Business Case - Super Project
Harvard Business Case - Super ProjectKivanc Ozuolmez
 
American Home Products
American Home ProductsAmerican Home Products
American Home Productsarlen83
 
Ocean Carriers Presentation
Ocean Carriers PresentationOcean Carriers Presentation
Ocean Carriers PresentationJonathan Houston
 
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyThe New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyTANUSHREE BOSE
 
Chad Cameroon Pipeline
Chad Cameroon PipelineChad Cameroon Pipeline
Chad Cameroon PipelineDarshit Paun
 
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File Company
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File CompanyCooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File Company
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File CompanyBrayden Smith
 
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet Rishi Bajaj
 
Netscape IPO case study Analysis
Netscape IPO case study AnalysisNetscape IPO case study Analysis
Netscape IPO case study AnalysisTony Sebastian
 
Negotiation excercise vf
Negotiation excercise vfNegotiation excercise vf
Negotiation excercise vfAkshay Gautam
 
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside Project
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside ProjectDiamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside Project
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside ProjectJatin Jain
 
Presentation Case Tri Star - Final
Presentation Case Tri Star - FinalPresentation Case Tri Star - Final
Presentation Case Tri Star - FinalSpencer Cheung
 
Depreciation at delta & singapore airline (HBR)
Depreciation at delta & singapore  airline (HBR)Depreciation at delta & singapore  airline (HBR)
Depreciation at delta & singapore airline (HBR)Abhishek kyal
 

What's hot (20)

Cooper industries Case Study
Cooper industries Case StudyCooper industries Case Study
Cooper industries Case Study
 
Nike Cost of Capital
Nike Cost of Capital Nike Cost of Capital
Nike Cost of Capital
 
Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case Analysis
Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case AnalysisAirbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case Analysis
Airbus a3xx developing the worlds largest commercial jet Case Analysis
 
cooper industry case study
cooper industry case study cooper industry case study
cooper industry case study
 
Presentation marriott study case cost of capital
Presentation marriott study case cost of capitalPresentation marriott study case cost of capital
Presentation marriott study case cost of capital
 
Delta and singapore analysis
Delta and singapore  analysisDelta and singapore  analysis
Delta and singapore analysis
 
Harvard Business Case - Super Project
Harvard Business Case - Super ProjectHarvard Business Case - Super Project
Harvard Business Case - Super Project
 
American Home Products
American Home ProductsAmerican Home Products
American Home Products
 
AJC Case Analysis
AJC Case AnalysisAJC Case Analysis
AJC Case Analysis
 
Ocean Carriers Presentation
Ocean Carriers PresentationOcean Carriers Presentation
Ocean Carriers Presentation
 
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case StudyThe New York Times Paywall Case Study
The New York Times Paywall Case Study
 
Chad Cameroon Pipeline
Chad Cameroon PipelineChad Cameroon Pipeline
Chad Cameroon Pipeline
 
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File Company
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File CompanyCooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File Company
Cooper Industries Proposal to Acquire Nicholson File Company
 
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet
Airbus A3XX: Developing the World’s Largest Commercial Jet
 
Netscape IPO case study Analysis
Netscape IPO case study AnalysisNetscape IPO case study Analysis
Netscape IPO case study Analysis
 
Negotiation excercise vf
Negotiation excercise vfNegotiation excercise vf
Negotiation excercise vf
 
Enager Industries,Inc
Enager Industries,IncEnager Industries,Inc
Enager Industries,Inc
 
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside Project
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside ProjectDiamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside Project
Diamond Chemicals plc (A): The Merseyside Project
 
Presentation Case Tri Star - Final
Presentation Case Tri Star - FinalPresentation Case Tri Star - Final
Presentation Case Tri Star - Final
 
Depreciation at delta & singapore airline (HBR)
Depreciation at delta & singapore  airline (HBR)Depreciation at delta & singapore  airline (HBR)
Depreciation at delta & singapore airline (HBR)
 

Similar to Conrail – CSX Plays its first move in railroad consolidation

Risk & capital budgeting
Risk & capital  budgetingRisk & capital  budgeting
Risk & capital budgetinglubnasadiyah
 
What Is A Financial Model
What Is A Financial ModelWhat Is A Financial Model
What Is A Financial Modelttgoods
 
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDIThe Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDINorman Ehrentreich
 
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0Steven Quenzel
 
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical CompanyEastman Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical CompanyFranklin Monzon
 
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateStock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateSlideTeam
 
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateStock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateSlideTeam
 
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPS
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPSValue based management of Union pacific corp and UPS
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPSSayedSadullahSadat
 
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor Quality
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor QualityBitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor Quality
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor QualityRSky215
 
Finance for hackers
Finance for hackersFinance for hackers
Finance for hackersNick Owen
 
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPY
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPYBrunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPY
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPYJonathan Chang
 
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...Arthur Guan
 
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024Nihal Nishadul
 
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docx
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docxI will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docx
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docxscuttsginette
 
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)Nathan Judge
 
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...SlideTeam
 

Similar to Conrail – CSX Plays its first move in railroad consolidation (20)

Risk & capital budgeting
Risk & capital  budgetingRisk & capital  budgeting
Risk & capital budgeting
 
What Is A Financial Model
What Is A Financial ModelWhat Is A Financial Model
What Is A Financial Model
 
ACG-Valuation
ACG-ValuationACG-Valuation
ACG-Valuation
 
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDIThe Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI
The Asset Return - Funding Cost Paradox: The Case for LDI
 
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0
Final Presentation from Chester Group Rev 0
 
Kem presentation final
Kem presentation finalKem presentation final
Kem presentation final
 
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical CompanyEastman Chemical Company
Eastman Chemical Company
 
KMT Sample 7.16
KMT Sample 7.16KMT Sample 7.16
KMT Sample 7.16
 
doc
docdoc
doc
 
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateStock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate PowerPoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
 
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide TemplateStock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
Stock Pitch For Real Estate Powerpoint Presentation Ppt Slide Template
 
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPS
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPSValue based management of Union pacific corp and UPS
Value based management of Union pacific corp and UPS
 
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor Quality
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor QualityBitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor Quality
Bitcoin, Transaction Fees and The Cost of Poor Quality
 
Finance for hackers
Finance for hackersFinance for hackers
Finance for hackers
 
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPY
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPYBrunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPY
Brunswick (BC) Pitch - Jonathan Chang - FINAL COPY
 
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...
Wachovia wells fargo presentation Jian Arthur Guan, Jan Lam Wong, and Tip Piu...
 
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024
Investment Banking and Capital Markets- Ivey MBA 2024
 
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docx
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docxI will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docx
I will send the excel spread sheet.. References have to have a web a.docx
 
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)
RMP initiation report (6 Apr 15)
 
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...
Stock Pitch For Mailing Shipping Services PowerPoint Presentation PPT Slide T...
 

More from Deepak Alse

Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?
Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?
Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?Deepak Alse
 
Concept Development for Salon Industry
Concept Development for Salon IndustryConcept Development for Salon Industry
Concept Development for Salon IndustryDeepak Alse
 
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-Release
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-ReleaseFOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-Release
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-ReleaseDeepak Alse
 
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeep
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeepATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeep
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeepDeepak Alse
 
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft Project
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft ProjectQuick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft Project
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft ProjectDeepak Alse
 
Four Slides of Me!
Four Slides of Me!Four Slides of Me!
Four Slides of Me!Deepak Alse
 

More from Deepak Alse (6)

Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?
Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?
Netflix, the next port of entry - Should India be an option?
 
Concept Development for Salon Industry
Concept Development for Salon IndustryConcept Development for Salon Industry
Concept Development for Salon Industry
 
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-Release
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-ReleaseFOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-Release
FOUNDER CEO VERSUS SUCCESSOR CEO-Final-Release
 
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeep
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeepATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeep
ATT-DTV-MergerReport-DeepakJasdeep
 
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft Project
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft ProjectQuick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft Project
Quick and Easy Guide to Planning & Scheduling with Microsoft Project
 
Four Slides of Me!
Four Slides of Me!Four Slides of Me!
Four Slides of Me!
 

Conrail – CSX Plays its first move in railroad consolidation

  • 1. Conrail – CSX Plays its first move Alse, Deepak Bade, Pavan Driscoll, Matthew Tsurumoto, Craig
  • 2. Conrail gives CSX leverage and control •  Economies of scale & scope and Market Control with more than 60% of market should lead to pricing power •  A strategic synergy exists with its intermodal business; CSX needs this deal to consolidate its access to East Coast Ports •  In the post-NAFTA scenario, CSX can cross leverage its intermodal and shipping container business to generate higher levels of utilization as well as lower operating costs for the post merger entity. This is critical because post-NAFTA, there will be higher international trade that may land in one country’s ports but act as raw-material or provide finished goods for another country. A 3%  average growth rate for revenues is most reasonable given past trends. But, we have to remember that NAFTA will substantially increase the level of traffic and expand the size of the market for both railroads and trucking.  •  Since this was 1996, a positive impact from the rise of ecommerce could have been factored in. Note : Claimed synergies in the case are lower than those claimed by BNSF for its Union Pacific acquisition; a deal that’s half the valuation.
  • 3. Operations & Productivity Improvements •  Conrail has higher ‘Revenue per Mile of Track Operated’ , ‘Revenue per Carload Originated’ and ‘ Revenue per Ton Originated’ but it lags on ‘Revenue per Employee’ •  This indicates a situation where –  Conrail has substantial pricing power in terms of revenues –  Conrail’s profitability is hurt largely by •  Lower employee productivity •  Higher basis costs per employee on account of location(NE has a higher cost of living) •  A shift towards moving Conrail’s employee productivity to the levels at CSX will generate millions in savings. •  Increase in DPO to reduce NWC needs. –  Conrail DPO at 13 days is 1/5th of that for Norfolk Southern. –  An increase of 40 days will free up $350M in working capital
  • 4. The valuations indicate offer is at top end Valuation in various scenarios Factor Aggressive Base Worst Case Enterprise Value $8,953 $8,576 $6,605 Implied Price Per Share $67.85 $63.69 $41.91         We used the Beta of BNSF(BNI) – The other behemoth of similar size. The cash offer for 40% of shares is approximately $3.3 Billion in value . CSX has less than 700M USD on its balance sheet but a low D/E ratio. We can definitely load the target with entire amount in debt at the risk of taking the target D/E ratio to 0.79.
  • 5. Sensitivity Analysis – Base Case SensitivityAnalyses Dollars inmillions,exceptpershare Equity Value as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC Share as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC WACC Terminal Growth Rate WACC Terminal Growth Rate $9,057.33 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% $100.08 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 7.20% $7,473.1 $8,298.3 $9,306.0 $10,564.5 $12,180.4 7.20% $82.58 $91.7 $102.8 $116.7 $134.6 8.20% $5,582.6 $6,115.3 $6,744.5 $7,499.1 $8,420.6 8.20% $61.7 $67.6 $74.5 $82.9 $93.0 9.20% $4,231.7 $4,593.6 $5,011.0 $5,497.6 $6,072.3 9.20% $46.8 $50.8 $55.4 $60.7 $67.1 10.20% $3,087.8 $3,329.7 $3,603.0 $3,914.2 $4,271.9 10.20% $34.1 $36.8 $39.8 $43.3 $47.2 11.20% $2,359.8 $2,537.0 $2,734.7 $2,956.4 $3,206.9 11.20% $26.1 $28.0 $30.2 $32.7 $35.4 Implied EV, range: $3,329.70 $6,115.30 Implied price per share, range: $36.79 $67.57 Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC WACC EBITDA Multiple WACC EBITDA Multiple $9,057.33 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 -31254.13% 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 7.20% $8,200.0 $9,217.1 $10,234.2 $11,251.3 $12,268.4 7.20% $90.61 $101.8 $113.1 $124.3 $135.6 8.20% $7,658.4 $8,618.1 $9,577.8 $10,537.6 $11,497.3 8.20% $84.6 $95.2 $105.8 $116.4 $127.0 9.20% $7,150.4 $8,056.5 $8,962.6 $9,868.7 $10,774.8 9.20% $79.0 $89.0 $99.0 $109.0 $119.1 10.20% $6,673.7 $7,529.6 $8,385.5 $9,241.5 $10,097.4 10.20% $73.7 $83.2 $92.7 $102.1 $111.6 11.20% $6,226.0 $7,035.0 $7,843.9 $8,652.9 $9,461.8 11.20% $68.8 $77.7 $86.7 $95.6 $104.6 Implied EV, range: $7,150.37 $10,774.81 Implied price per share, range: $79.01 $119.06
  • 6. Sensitivity Analysis – Aggressive Scenario Sensitivity Analyses                     Dollars in millions, except per share                                                                       Equity Value as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC           Share as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC                                                           WACC   Terminal Growth Rate         WACC   Terminal Growth Rate       $8,952.57 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%   $121.17 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 6.88% $11,048.9 $11,974.9 $13,112.0 $14,542.0 $16,394.4   6.88% $122.09 $132.3 $144.9 $160.7 $181.2 7.88% $14,124.2 $15,682.1 $17,700.3 $20,418.4 $24,276.6   7.88% $156.1 $173.3 $195.6 $225.6 $268.2 8.88% $14,124.2 $15,682.1 $17,700.3 $20,418.4 $24,276.6   8.88% $156.1 $173.3 $195.6 $225.6 $268.2 9.88% $11,048.9 $11,974.9 $13,112.0 $14,542.0 $16,394.4   9.88% $122.1 $132.3 $144.9 $160.7 $181.2 10.88% $7,532.8 $7,937.3 $8,405.2 $8,952.6 $9,601.6   10.88% $83.2 $87.7 $92.9 $98.9 $106.1                             Implied EV, range: $11,974.88     $24,276.60     Implied price per share, range: $132.32     $268.25                           Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC       Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC                                                       WACC   EBITDA Multiple         WACC   EBITDA Multiple       $10,965.78 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5   -$355.29 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 6.88% $8,725.4 $9,799.6 $10,873.8 $11,948.0 $13,022.2   6.88% $96.41 $108.3 $120.2 $132.0 $143.9 7.88% $8,153.6 $9,167.0 $10,180.5 $11,193.9 $12,207.4   7.88% $90.1 $101.3 $112.5 $123.7 $134.9 8.88% $7,617.4 $8,574.1 $9,530.8 $10,487.4 $11,444.1   8.88% $84.2 $94.7 $105.3 $115.9 $126.5 9.88% $7,114.4 $8,018.0 $8,921.5 $9,825.1 $10,728.6   9.88% $78.6 $88.6 $98.6 $108.6 $118.5 10.88% $6,642.2 $7,496.0 $8,349.9 $9,203.7 $10,057.5   10.88% $73.4 $82.8 $92.3 $101.7 $111.1                             Implied EV, range: $7,617.41     $11,444.11     Implied price per share, range: $84.17     $126.45
  • 7. Sensitivity Analysis – Worst Case Scenario SensitivityAnalyses Dollars inmillions,exceptpershare Equity Value as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC Share as a function of: Terminal Growth & WACC WACC Terminal Growth Rate WACC Terminal Growth Rate $5,213.58 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% $26.54 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 9.02% $5,518.6 $6,124.9 $6,865.4 $7,790.0 $8,977.4 9.0% $60.98 $67.7 $75.9 $86.1 $99.2 10.02% $4,100.1 $4,491.4 $4,953.5 $5,507.8 $6,184.6 10.0% $45.3 $49.6 $54.7 $60.9 $68.3 11.02% $3,080.3 $3,346.0 $3,652.5 $4,009.8 $4,431.7 11.0% $34.0 $37.0 $40.4 $44.3 $49.0 12.02% $2,326.5 $2,514.8 $2,728.1 $2,033.6 $3,252.8 12.0% $25.7 $27.8 $30.1 $22.5 $35.9 13.02% $1,743.0 $1,880.2 $2,033.6 $2,206.1 $2,401.6 13.0% $19.3 $20.8 $22.5 $24.4 $26.5 Implied EV, range: $2,514.76 $4,491.38 Implied price per share, range: $27.79 $49.63 Equity Value as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC Share Price as a function of: EBITDA Multiple & WACC WACC EBITDA Multiple WACC EBITDA Multiple $2,401.58 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 -$241.57 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 9.02% $6,457.8 $7,253.6 $8,049.3 $8,845.1 $9,640.8 9.0% $71.36 $80.1 $88.9 $97.7 $106.5 10.02% $6,936.0 $7,779.9 $8,623.7 $9,467.5 $10,311.4 10.0% $76.6 $86.0 $95.3 $104.6 $113.9 11.02% $6,936.0 $7,779.9 $8,623.7 $9,467.5 $10,311.4 11.0% $76.6 $86.0 $95.3 $104.6 $113.9 12.02% $6,457.8 $7,253.6 $8,049.3 $8,845.1 $9,640.8 12.0% $71.4 $80.1 $88.9 $97.7 $106.5 13.02% $5,588.9 $6,297.7 $7,006.5 $7,715.3 $8,424.1 13.0% $61.8 $69.6 $77.4 $85.3 $93.1 Implied EV, range: $6,936.03 $10,311.36 Implied price per share, range: $76.64 $113.94
  • 8. On multiples, however, we are closer to the lower end. 0.0   50.0   100.0   150.0   200.0   EPS-­‐Based   Book  Value  based   TEV  Based   Offer  Price   TEV as a multiple of EBIDTA shows the lowest error ( std.dev/mean value). Offer price is at median on this multiple – But at a lower multiple compared to the $4 Billion BNSF deal. However, none of the recent deals are of a similar size(8+ Billion USD)
  • 9. However, offer structure is convoluted Stage119.7% (17.86M Shares) at $92.50 Stage2 20.3% at $92.5 after Conrail Shareholders approve deal Stage3 1.85619:1 CSX:Conrail Stock Swap The Pennsylvania Law requiring bidders holding 20% or more of company’s stock to offer all shareholders same price unless target shareholders explicitly vote to nullify the provision. CSX is attempting to use its first mover advantage and positive engagement with the management team to achieve two objectives Makes it easier for CSX to control offer price by combining with a stock swap. Control the total cost of the deal by utilizing a swap against lower valued CSX shares after 35% control is achieved.
  • 10. Impact of Clauses in Agreement Clause Impact to Conrail Impact to CSX No Talk Clause – Six month (no talk from Conrail) Difficult to assess – It seems the board and management are friendly so that talk clause seems more like a fiduciary cloak. Prevents a bidding war – Positive control over the negotiations. Breakup Fee - $300M – Conrail to pay to CSX if no transaction occured Adds $300M to valuation expectations if another bidder emerges Gets $300M if no deal occurs Poison Pill Suspended Prevented by executing share dilution to retain control( It seems like the board and management don’t desire to do this). Prevents loss of value from discounted shares hurting market value of Conrail equity. Lock-up Options – 15.96M newly issue common shares at $92.50 – Options granted by Conrail to CSX Guaranteed influx of cash if options are exercised. Financial impact depends on more the stock price moves after deal is announced. Allows CSX to acquire 10-20% at a fixed price even if Conrail shareholders don’t tender the required number of shares.
  • 11. A Conrail shareholder should wait and watch.. •  Due to the blended nature, and the expected drop in stock price of CSX , we will have impact to value of holdings during the stock swap •  As an individual shareholder, it does not makes sense to sell against the first stage $92.50 cash offer. Multiples for comparable transactions indicate that the offer is not in line with other transactions. •  In adopting a ‘wait and watch’ mode till the second stage for additional 20% opens up, there is an opportunity to let the non- individual shareholders negotiate for a better deal.
  • 12. Principal Agent Problem Details provided in the case indicate that the Conrail management failed to fulfill its duties as an agent of its owners and stakeholders. By agreeing to a set of clauses that limit Conrail’s ability to find the highest valuation for the firm and by issuing options fixed at CSX’s offer price in stage 1, the management team seems to have placed its own interests ahead of those of Conrail.
  • 13. Individual investors are a small segment of owners Non  Taxable   48%   Tax-­‐Paying   34%   Individuals   17%   Insiders   1%   Other   18%   Ownership   It  seems  quite  likely  that  the  non-­‐individual  investors  will  have  a  strong  view/ percepOon  of  undervaluaOon  especially  given  the  monopoly  that  Conrail  holds  in  its   markets.  This  may  lead  to  a  situaOon  where  stage  2  remains  open  and  ‘Opt-­‐Out’   clause  vote  is  unsuccessful  unOl  CSX  conOnues  to  bid  higher.  
  • 14. We recommend that Conrail consider replacing its management team and investigate options It is unclear as to why Conrail, with its monopolistic position, seems eager to be acquired in a closed process at a comparably lower valuation. •  Both acquisition scenarios ( Conrail + CSX, Conrail + Norfolk Southern) lead to substantially high marketshare and somewhat high Herfindahl- Hirschman Index (HHI) values ;Purely on HHI index values, the Conrail- Norfolk Southern deal may have a better chance at going through. •  Given the role of Conrail’s unionized workforce, a split deal will offer better terms of negotiation with the unions as neither CSX nor NS will have to negotiate with a workforce larger than their current workforce in terms of size. An optimally split deal will also help deal with Pennsylvania law requirements. •  Assuming zero synergies, and purely on current productivity terms, Conrail- Norfolk Southern deal is a better option. If we tilt the scenario towards operating scenarios similar to the acquiring firms, NS comes out even stronger. Note that the synergy calculations at 20% reduction on operating ratios are very optimistic considering the fact that no one operates at those levels currently.  A Hybrid deal where Conrail is not completely acquired by either CSX or Norfolk Southern maybe best.