Convertible Versus Straight Debt for a Growth Company
Apex Robotics, a high-growth unrated company with $80 million revenue and $6 million EBITDA, needs $150 million to fund a factory. It can issue 5-year straight notes at 9.5% or 5-year convertible notes with a 3.0% coupon and a 32% conversion premium over the current $20 share price. The straight notes would include a 3.0x leverage covenant; pro forma debt/EBITDA would be 4.1x. The convertible would be unsecured and covenant-lite but would dilute existing shareholders by about 12% if fully converted. The company has 40 million shares outstanding and $10 million cash. Investment bankers indicate convertible demand is strong but the stock is volatile, with 60% implied volatility. The CFO wants to minimize cash interest and avoid covenant restrictions but is worried about dilution and accounting.
1. Compare the cash interest burden and leverage covenant impact of the two alternatives.
Read the worked answer
Straight notes: annual cash interest = 9.5% × $150 million = $14.25 million. Pro forma debt/EBITDA = 4.1x, which exceeds the 3.0x leverage covenant. Unless the company obtains a waiver or adds equity, the straight notes are not executable on the stated terms. The covenant breach is structural, not a marginal miss.
Convertible notes: annual cash interest = 3.0% × $150 million = $4.50 million. Cash interest savings versus straight debt = $9.75 million per year. The convertible is covenant-lite, so the 3.0x leverage covenant does not apply. Dilution: conversion price = $20 × 1.32 = $26.40; new shares = $150 million ÷ $26.40 = 5.68 million; post-conversion dilution = 5.68 ÷ (40 + 5.68) = 12.4%. The convertible preserves cash and avoids the covenant breach but transfers upside to convertible holders and creates potential EPS dilution.
2. Advise on which instrument better fits the company's situation, addressing dilution, accounting, and investor demand.
Read the worked answer
The convertible is the better fit on the stated facts. The straight notes fail the 3.0x leverage covenant at 4.1x pro forma, and the $14.25 million cash interest bill is heavy for a company with only $6 million of EBITDA. The convertible cuts cash interest to $4.5 million and avoids the covenant, which matters for a growth company with volatile earnings.
The trade-offs should be managed explicitly. Dilution is about 12.4% if fully converted, and the 60% implied volatility means convertible investors will value the embedded option highly; the company may be able to negotiate a lower coupon or higher conversion premium, but not both without cost. Accounting under current U.S. GAAP generally treats most convertible debt as a single liability unless the conversion feature requires separation, so reported interest expense may be close to the coupon plus amortized issuance costs. For diluted EPS, the if-converted method can create dilution when the stock price exceeds the conversion price. A capped call could reduce dilution but consumes cash. Recommendation: proceed with the convertible, size the capped call only if the dilution is unacceptable, and retain a straight-debt alternative only with an equity cure or covenant waiver.