Case studies

While preparing a financial forecast, the newly promoted CFO of a small and profitable but financially constrained ready-mix concrete company must choose between renegotiating debt obligations, postponing long overdue capital improvements that will prevent more costly future repairs, or reducing the dividend payment to a parent company that just recently purchased the firm.

After having negotiated major financial and operating decisions with its parent company, the CFO of this small ready-mix concrete subsidiary is asked to provide a valuation of the subsidiary. A one-year forecast of financial statements is provided along with information on long-term operating expectations and capital costs. This otherwise straightforward valuation exercise is enhanced by (1) the need to select between the parent- or comparable-firm costs of capital, (2) sufficient guidance to perform an illuminating sensitivity analysis, and (3) a sufficiently clear and rich context in which to illustrate the linkages between operating and financing choices. A teaching note and instructor and student Excel spreadsheets are available.

This case is used in Darden's FY Finance course, but it would be appropriate in any course introducing firm valuation. The case examines the 2012 decision by American Greetings (AG) to repurchase shares. Students can build a simple model of the company's future cash flows and derive an implied value. Because the company is arguably in a state of maturity or decline, a discussion of steady-state economics is particularly germane.

Set in September 1992, this exercise provides teams of students the opportunity to negotiate terms of a merger between AT&T and McCaw Cellular. AT&T, one of the largest U.S. corporations, was the dominant competitor in long-distance telephone communications in the United States. McCaw was the largest competitor in the rapidly growing cellular-telephone communications industry. Prior to the negotiations, AT&T had no position in cellular communications. This case and its companion (F-1143) are designed to allow students to be assigned roles to play. The case may pursue some or all of the following teaching objectives: exercising valuation skills, practicing strategic analysis, exercising bargaining skills, and illustrating practical aspects of mergers and acquisitions.

Examines the lease vs. buy decision for investments in technology. Addresses pivotal investment decision issues such as varying the length of the lease, the useful life of the equipment, and alignment with the company's overall financial strategy. The scenario is for a real financial services firm that has been disguised for confidentiality reasons. Presents an investment decision: should a company buy or lease technology with a relatively short useful life? The new controller at AMG, a Fortune 500 financial services firm, has been tasked with determining how to finance the acquisition of 7,542 new PCs to be rolled out over the next 12 months. This is a $6.7 million investment decision and the rollout schedule adds significant complexity to the solution. The controller must choose between buying or leasing the computers over 24- or 36-month time frames. Provides a framework for analyzing similar investment decisions. The key learning point is that leasing information technology can be cheaper than buying. This is contradictory to a car lease, which may be familiar from everyday experience. A new car has a potentially long useful life and can retain significant value after several years, hence, intuition is that buying should always be cheaper than leasing. Shows that this is not the case for information technology. Teaches the correct application of the mid-quarter convention within MACRS depreciation for technology, and the implications of operating vs. capital leases and off-balance-sheet financing. In the process, introduces the four tests for a capital lease. Finally, shows how creative analysis techniques can be used to simplify complex decisions. These techniques aid in arriving at a conclusion faster and with less effort.

To illustrate the fundamentals of lease vs. buy decisions in technology and how they differ from the typical capital equipment lease vs. buy decision. Topics covered include MACRS depreciation and off-balance-sheet financing for a complex leasing scenario staggered in time across multiple business units.

This case is one of a pair of cases used in a merger negotiation. It is designed to be used with “British Petroleum, Ltd.” (UVA-F-1263). One-half of the class prepares only the British Petroleum (BP) case, and one-half uses this case. BP and Amoco are considering a merger, and are in the process of negotiating a merger agreement. Macroeconomic assumptions, particularly forecasting future oil prices in an uncertain environment, and assumptions about Amoco's ability to reduce exploration and production costs make Amoco's future cash flows difficult to predict.

The Arbor City Community Foundation (ACCF) was a medium-sized endowment established in Illinois in the late 1970s through the hard work of several local families. The vision of the ACCF was to be a comprehensive center for philanthropy in the greater Arbor City region. ACCF had a fund balance (known collectively as “the fund”) of just under $240 million. The ACCF board of trustees had appointed a committee to oversee investment decisions relating to the foundation assets. The investment committee, under the guidance of the board, pursued an active risk-management policy for the fund. The committee members were primarily concerned with the volatility and distribution of portfolio returns. They relied on the value-at-risk (VaR) methodology as a measurement of the risk of both short- and mid-term investment losses. The questions in Part (A) of the case direct the students to analyze the risk inherent in both one particular asset and the entire ACCF portfolio. For this analysis the students need to calculate daily VaR and monthly VaR values and interpret these figures in the context of ACCF's risk management. In Part (B) the foundation receives a major donation. As a result, the risk inherent in its portfolio changes considerably. The students are asked to evaluate the risk of the fund's new portfolio and to perform a portfolio rebalancing analysis.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Calculating daily and monthly VaR by two different methods, the historical and the parametric approach; Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Understanding the role of diversification for managing risk; Evaluating the impact of portfolio rebalancing on the overall risk of a portfolio.

The Arbor City Community Foundation (ACCF) was a medium-sized endowment established in Illinois in the late 1970s through the hard work of several local families. The vision of the ACCF was to be a comprehensive center for philanthropy in the greater Arbor City region. ACCF had a fund balance (known collectively as “the fund”) of just under $240 million. The ACCF board of trustees had appointed a committee to oversee investment decisions relating to the foundation assets. The investment committee, under the guidance of the board, pursued an active risk-management policy for the fund. The committee members were primarily concerned with the volatility and distribution of portfolio returns. They relied on the value-at-risk (VaR) methodology as a measurement of the risk of both short- and mid-term investment losses. The questions in Part (A) of the case direct the students to analyze the risk inherent in both one particular asset and the entire ACCF portfolio. For this analysis the students need to calculate daily VaR and monthly VaR values and interpret these figures in the context of ACCF's risk management. In Part (B) the foundation receives a major donation. As a result, the risk inherent in its portfolio changes considerably. The students are asked to evaluate the risk of the fund's new portfolio and to perform a portfolio rebalancing analysis.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Calculating daily and monthly VaR by two different methods, the historical and the parametric approach; Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Understanding the role of diversification for managing risk; Evaluating the impact of portfolio rebalancing on the overall risk of a portfolio.

The Arbor City Community Foundation (ACCF) was a medium-sized endowment established in Illinois in the late 1970s through the hard work of several local families. The vision of the ACCF was to be a comprehensive center for philanthropy in the greater Arbor City region. ACCF had a fund balance (known collectively as “the fund”) of just under $240 million. The ACCF board of trustees had appointed a committee to oversee investment decisions relating to the foundation assets. The investment committee, under the guidance of the board, pursued an active risk-management policy for the fund. The committee members were primarily concerned with the volatility and distribution of portfolio returns. They relied on the value-at-risk (VaR) methodology as a measurement of the risk of both short- and mid-term investment losses. In its report for the investment committee, the ACCF risk analytics team recommended the daily VaR at 95% confidence as a measure for short-term risk and reported the corresponding numbers. It is now the task of the investment committee to interpret these figures. The case questions guide the executive students to a critical evaluation of both the reported VaR figures as well as of the VaR methodology.

Understanding the concept of value at risk (VaR); Interpreting the results of VaR calculations; Evaluating the appropriateness of VaR calculations; Critical discussion of the VaR methodology.

In August 2005, an investment manager of a hedge fund is considering purchasing an equity interest in a start-up biotechnology firm, Arcadian Microarray Technologies, Inc. The asking price is $40 million for a 60 percent equity interest. Managers of the firm are optimistic about the firm's future performance; the investment manager is more conservative in his expectations. He calls on the help of an analyst with her firm to fashion a counterproposal to Arcadian's management. The tasks for the student are to apply the concept of terminal value, interpret completed analyses and data, and derive implications of different terminal-value assumptions in an effort to recommend a counterproposal. Very little numerical figure-work is required of the student.