I85PREP
⌘ K
CMA Part 2 study materials
CMA Part 2 study resources

Halcyon Foods: The 'Debt Is Cheaper' Buyback

CMA Part 2 · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Halcyon Foods: The 'Debt Is Cheaper' Buyback

Halcyon Foods has market value of equity of $800 million and debt of $200 million (6% coupon, eight years remaining). Equity beta is 1.20, the risk-free rate is 4.0%, and the market risk premium is 6.0%. The marginal tax rate is 25%. EBIT last year was $90 million and is expected to stay flat; the business is cyclical and EBIT fell 30% in the last downturn. Management proposes issuing $200 million of new 7% debt and using the proceeds to repurchase stock, arguing the WACC will fall because debt is cheaper than equity. The bank has signaled that the rating would likely drop from BBB to BB. The indenture caps total debt at 45% of total capitalization. The board wants a recommendation before the next earnings call.

1. Compute Halcyon's current WACC at market weights.

Read the worked answer

Cost of equity (CAPM): Ke = 4.0% + 1.20 × 6.0% = 11.20%

After-tax cost of debt: 6.0% × (1 − 0.25) = 4.50%

Weights (market values): E = $800M, D = $200M, V = $1,000M → wE = 0.80, wD = 0.20

WACC = 0.80 × 11.20% + 0.20 × 4.50% = 8.96% + 0.90% = 9.86%

Sanity check on the capital structure in use: EBIT/interest currently = 90/12 = 7.5× coverage, which is consistent with a BBB rating.

2. Re-estimate the WACC after the proposed recapitalization, allowing the equity beta to re-lever. Does the 'debt is cheaper' argument hold?

Read the worked answer

Step 1 - Unlever the current beta (Hamada): βU = 1.20 / [1 + (1 − 0.25)(200/800)] = 1.20 / 1.1875 = 1.011

Step 2 - Re-lever at the new structure (D/E = 400/600 = 0.667): βL = 1.011 × [1 + (1 − 0.25)(0.667)] = 1.011 × 1.500 = 1.516

Step 3 - New costs:

  • Ke = 4.0% + 1.516 × 6.0% = 13.09% (up 189 bp)
  • Kd(after tax) = 7.0% × 0.75 = 5.25%

Step 4 - New WACC: 0.60 × 13.09% + 0.40 × 5.25% = 7.85% + 2.10% = 9.95%

Conclusion: the argument fails. WACC goes from 9.86% to 9.95% - slightly higher. Debt is cheaper per dollar, but the shareholder-required return on the now-riskier equity rises more than enough to offset it, and the coupon itself rose from 6% to 7% because of the downgrade. Beyond this, the calculation still ignores expected financial distress costs, which the BB rating is pricing, so the true post-recap WACC is higher still.

Also quantify the risk, not just the cost:

  • Interest after: (200 × 6%) + (200 × 7%) = $26M
  • Coverage at base EBIT: 90/26 = 3.46× (from 7.5×)
  • Coverage in the −30% EBIT scenario: 63/26 = 2.42× - thin for a cyclical firm at BB.
  • Covenant headroom: debt/cap = 400/1,000 = 40% vs a 45% cap. But if the equity value falls below $489M (400/(400+E) = 45%), the indenture is breached. A 39% equity decline would do it - precisely the kind of decline a BB cyclical can experience in a downturn.

3. State your recommendation to the board and describe the analysis or structuring changes that would make a shareholder return of capital defensible.

Read the worked answer

Recommendation: reject the $200M debt-funded repurchase as proposed.

Key points to the board:

  1. No WACC benefit. The re-levered WACC is 9.95% versus 9.86%; the tax shield at this leverage does not pay for the added risk, and distress costs make the true figure worse.
  2. A repurchase at fair market price is a zero-NPV financing transaction. It does not create value; it only reallocates it and concentrates it. Value has to come from operations.
  3. Covenant and ratings fragility. Coverage falls to 2.42× in a downside year, and the debt/cap covenant trips if equity value falls about 39%. A cyclical business should not pre-commit to fixed charges at the top of its cycle.

Structuring changes that could make a distribution defensible

  • Right-size it: limit new debt so that downside coverage stays at, say, ≥ 3.0×. At $26M of interest that ratio requires EBIT of $78M; at the downside EBIT of $63M, maximum interest is $21M - i.e., only about $100M of incremental debt, not $200M.
  • Fund from operating cash flow or asset sales rather than leverage.
  • Use a flexible instrument: an accelerated repurchase plus a modest, sustained buyback authorization rather than a one-time levered transaction.
  • Pre-negotiate covenant headroom with the lender before drawing, and model the rating agency's likely metrics (FFO/debt, coverage), not just the indenture.
  • Stress-test formally at −30% and −45% EBIT and disclose the results to the board alongside the WACC analysis, so the decision is made on risk-adjusted grounds rather than on a misleading cost-of-capital comparison.