Case Studies

Food Empire Holdings Limited (Food Empire) was a food and beverage brand owner and manufacturer of instant beverage products, frozen convenience food, confectionery, and snacks. Its main markets were Russia and Ukraine. When the political tensions between Russia and Ukraine erupted and their currencies depreciated in 2014, Food Empire’s bottom line was badly affected: its share price dropped 71 per cent in 30 months. In light of these developments, investors were not sure if they should sell their investments in Food Empire. Using financial statement analysis and various valuation concepts—including net tangible assets, dividend discount models, and peer multiples—it was hoped that the best course of action could be determined. For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In 2014, Alibaba—the Chinese e-commerce giant who, in September 2014, completed the largest initial public offering (IPO) in New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) history—was preparing itself for an additional round of capital fundraising. This time, Alibaba focused its efforts on a new, large bond issue. Its chief executive officer would lead Alibaba’s finance team in meetings with investors in Hong Kong, Singapore, and London to gather information about this pending bond issue. Although Alibaba was listed on the NYSE, an overwhelming majority of its revenues originated in China. Most U.S. investors had not heard of Alibaba until just a few months prior to its IPO in September 2014. Also, being a high-tech company, Alibaba was subject to the potential for large swings in valuations typical for the industry. Fluid valuations and matters related to country risk premia meant pricing the bond issue was going to be a challenge. How would Alibaba estimate the bonds’ pricing? Further, how should the firm determine the location and timing of the new bond issue? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In January of 2016, Singapore International Airlines Group (SIA) announced that it had secured more than 90 per cent stake in Tiger Airways Holdings Limited (Tigerair), and would take Tigerair private. Once the buyout offer closed on February 19, trading in Tigerair’s shares would be suspended because the free float had fallen below the minimum 10 per cent threshold. Tigerair had been suffering losses amounting to more than SG$600 million from 2012 to 2015. When SIA initiated the buyout offer, Tigerair’s shareholders wanted to use the discounted cash flow model, the discounted dividend model, and relative valuation to determine whether the buyout was a fair deal. For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

Jumbo Group Ltd. (Jumbo) was among Singapore’s leading food and beverage establishments. Founded in 1987, the group consisted of eight brands and operated 16 outlets—14 in Singapore and two in China. On October 28, 2015, Jumbo announced its initial public offering (IPO) of SG$22.06 million, consisting of two million retail shares and 86.23 million placement shares at SG$0.25 each. In this highly competitive market, the company’s chief executive officer and chairman was motivated to list Jumbo so it would have a bigger platform and better exposure to grow faster. He hoped a softer IPO market would attract more long-term investors. Jumbo was clearly profitable, but based on its past financial performance, what would be a reasonable valuation for each of its shares? The case covers valuation using the discounted cash flow model, weighted average cost of capital, discounted dividend model, and relative valuation, as well as the computation of underpricing. For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

On January 21, 2015, a trading halt was placed on the shares of Keppel Corporation (Keppel Corp) and Keppel Land Limited (Keppel Land). On January 23, 2015, Keppel Corp announced an offer to take its subsidiary, Keppel Land, private. At the time of the offer, Keppel Corp already owned 54.6 per cent of Keppel Land. The buyout offer used a two-tier pricing approach with a higher price paid if Keppel Corp acquired a threshold number of shares. Keppel Corp would have the right to receive any distribution that might be declared, paid, or made by Keppel Land on or after the purchase date. The offer was scheduled to close on March 12, 2015. On February 2, 2015, Keppel Land appointed KPMG Corporate Finance Pte. Ltd. as the financial adviser to the independent company directors regarding the offer. Minority shareholders of Keppel Land were interested in evaluating Keppel Corp’s offer and examining its motivations. This would require that they compute the premium and net present value of the company, as well as analyze the revenue and cost synergies of the buyout. For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In June 2015, the Toyota Motor Corporation’s annual shareholders’ meeting included a proposal regarding Toyota’s new share issue. Named “Model AA” shares after the company’s first passenger car, the shares would offer investors new hybrid securities. This proposal created a lot of controversy among existing shareholders. Although President Toyoda claimed that no one would be disadvantaged by these shares, it remained unclear how many shareholders had confidence in this assurance. The share issue, which would potentially comprise up to 5 per cent of Toyota’s total outstanding shares, would require the support of a two-thirds majority of shareholders. The new shares looked like ordinary shares with a “lock-up” period or preferred shares with voting rights. At the same time, Model AA shares resembled a convertible debt issue with voting rights (with a conversion ratio to be determined later). It was time to vote on the approval of Toyota’s new share issue, but the following questions lingered in the shareholders’ minds: What exactly was the difference between Model AA shares and ordinary shares? What was the difference between Model AA shares and bonds (or convertible bonds)? Finally, if the vote was approved, how should Model AA shares be priced? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

When Margaret A. Cargill passed away in 2006, her 17.5 per cent stake in Cargill went to Margaret A. Cargill Philanthropies (MAC). MAC lobbied for her stake to be liquidated. Cargill proceeded to shed its 64 per cent stake in Mosaic, North America’s second-largest fertilizer company, in exchange for Margaret Cargill’s stake in the company, in order to maintain control over the company. Like many second- and third-generation family businesses, Cargill’s current family owners were not actively involved in the day-to-day running of the company. Was spinning off Mosaic in the best long-term interests of Cargill? Were there other feasible ways in which Cargill could have better facilitated the liquidation of Margaret Cargill’s stake? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In September 2015, Susie reflected on the performance of her personal investment portfolio over the past seven years. Susie had invested in two exchange traded funds (ETFs): Lyxor ChinaH and Lyxor MSIndia. She was now considering Lyxor USDJIA as a third ETF to diversify her risk. This analysis would involve the concept of portfolio diversification and the application of the capital asset pricing model. In addition, Susie would need to calculate mean returns, standard deviations, covariances, correlations, betas, and required returns in order to fully assess the merits of her decision. Although Susie had been satisfied with her portfolio performance over the past seven years, the high growth in these two emerging markets had fizzled out lately. Should Susie diversify her portfolio or remain invested in China and India only? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

Following a turbulent 2014 for Standard Chartered Bank, the bank’s largest shareholder, Temasek Holdings, began showing indications that it was seriously considering offloading at least a portion of its massive shareholdings in Standard Chartered Bank. This case seeks to provide a fair valuation of Standard Chartered Bank’s intrinsic value, as well as rationalize the most appropriate way for Standard Chartered Bank to raise funds to satisfy the higher capital requirements under Basel III regulatory rules. Assuming that Standard Chartered Bank decided to hold on to its significant bank investments and to raise funds to satisfy the higher capital requirements, what could be some possible financing alternatives? Would it help to attract more bank deposits, raise debt, or go for a seasoned offering? What would be the impact of these financing alternatives? Finally, what would be a suitable recommendation on how to raise the funds if one took the valuation results into consideration? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)

In 2011, Suntech Power, the world’s largest solar panel manufacturer, found itself in a highly problematic position. Recent developments in the Chinese solar power industry had negatively impacted the company’s operations. As the industry had matured, the demand for Suntech Power’s products had become highly volatile. Changing policy regulations, the ambiguous financial structure of the firm and a shift in consumers’ perceptions of the product were only some of the issues that further compounded the problem. As a result of these changing dynamics within the global solar power industry, the company’s share price had plummeted by roughly 90 per cent. To remedy the problem, in May 2011, the founder and chief executive officer of Suntech Power hired a new chief financial officer and they faced the arduous task of turning the company around. How should they tackle changing political and economic conditions? What decisions needed to be made to maintain the position of the company in the global solar energy market? For NUS Business School: (Faculty only) To obtain a free copy of the case, please contact Ms Kwok Siew Geok (bizksg@nus.edu.sg)