ESOP Feasibility: Testing Price Against Debt Service Coverage
Harlan Supply is an S corporation industrial distributor with revenue of $28.0 million and EBITDA of $2.80 million. The owner, age 61, has no family successor and proposes to sell 100% of his stock to a newly formed ESOP for $14.0 million. The bank has offered an $11.0 million term loan at 7.5% with a seven-year amortization, subject to a minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.35x, and requires the $3.0 million balance as a subordinated seller note. Pro forma annual cash flow requirements are: maintenance capex $450,000, working capital growth $150,000, and estimated cash taxes of $250,000 (the ESOP trust's share is tax-exempt, but the company must fund taxes attributable to the taxable shareholders). EBITDA is expected to remain flat at $2.80 million. The trustee has asked whether the transaction is feasible at that price and, if not, what structure would work.
1. Compute annual debt service and the debt service coverage ratio, and state whether the transaction is feasible as proposed.
Read the worked answer
Bank term loan payment. $11.0M at 7.5% over seven years: payment factor = 0.075 ÷ (1 − 1.075⁻⁷) = 0.18883, so annual debt service = $2,077,000. Add interest-only seller note at 6% = $180,000, for total debt service of $2,257,000.
Cash available for debt service. EBITDA $2,800,000 − capex $450,000 − working capital $150,000 − cash taxes $250,000 = $1,950,000. Note that this deliberately excludes any ESOP repurchase obligation, which is a further claim on the same cash.
Coverage. Against bank debt alone: $1,950,000 ÷ $2,077,000 = 0.94x. Against total debt service: 0.86x. Both are below the 1.35x covenant and below 1.0x, meaning the company cannot pay principal and interest out of operating cash flow at all - it would have to draw on its revolver in year one.
Conclusion: the transaction is not feasible as structured. The binding constraint is leverage and amortization, not necessarily price: at 5.0x EBITDA the $14.0M price sits within a plausible 4.5x–5.5x range for a distributor of this size. The trustee should be told that the valuation question and the financing question are separate, and that a defensible price can still be an unbankable deal.
2. Determine the maximum supportable bank debt at the required coverage and evaluate whether a stand-by seller note can close the gap.
Read the worked answer
Maximum debt service = cash available ÷ 1.35 = $1,950,000 ÷ 1.35 = $1,444,000.
Maximum loan, same terms (7.5%, seven years) = $1,444,000 ÷ 0.18883 = $7.65 million.
Gap to fund: $14.0M price − $7.65M bank debt = $6.35 million, versus the $3.0 million seller note contemplated. Even if the seller note is fully subordinated and placed on stand-by (no principal or interest during the bank loan term, so it is excluded from the coverage test), the seller would have to accept roughly $6.35 million of paper - more than double what has been discussed, and more than most sellers will take given the retirement timeline.
Judgment points. A stand-by note is not free: the seller bears refinancing risk at the end of the bank term, and the trustee must determine whether the note's terms constitute adequate consideration. Also note that the $250,000 tax estimate is soft - in an S corporation ESOP the tax burden depends on the ESOP's ownership percentage and any distributions used to fund repurchases, so the cash available figure should be stress-tested both ways. If cash available falls to $1.8M, maximum debt drops to about $7.06M.
3. Recommend a workable structure and identify the ongoing obligations the trustee must plan for.
Read the worked answer
Restructure on three levers, not one:
- Extend amortization to ten years. Payment factor at 7.5% over ten years = 0.14568. A $11.0M loan would require $1,602,000 (1.22x - still short); a $9.5M loan requires $1,384,000 (1.41x - passes).
- Reduce price to roughly $11.7M–$12.3M (4.2x–4.4x EBITDA), with $9.5M bank debt plus a $2.5M–$2.8M seller note on stand-by. This preserves a defensible valuation while making the deal bankable.
- Seller note terms: interest-only during the bank term, subordinated, no balloon that forces a refinancing into a rising-rate market without a tested covenant cushion.
Ongoing obligations the trustee must model. Repurchase liability accrues as participants vest and diversify; with, say, 5% annual turnover, 30% vesting after three years, and a flat share value, annual repurchases begin modestly and grow - but they compete directly with the debt service computed above. The company must also maintain a share price updated annually by an independent appraiser, satisfy the adequate-consideration and fiduciary requirements of ERISA, and avoid promising participants a liquidity they cannot fund. Recommendation to the trustee: approve a transaction at the reduced price with ten-year amortization, and require an annual repurchase-obligation study as a condition of the plan.