Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructuring (BUST10149)
Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit
Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructuring (BUST10149)
Group project
Fall, 2023
Based on a deal you can select from a list of deals provided in the attached excel file, which has been announced in 2011 by a U.S. listed corporation to acquire another U.S. listed target, provide an analysis and discussion on the following 4 topics. To avoid the possibility that a deal will be analysed by more than one groups, one member of each group should email me the group’s deal choice, and only upon my confirmation you can proceed on the analysis. The 4 topics are:
a) Background and motives: Provide background information for both merging firms and discuss the main motives of your deal. Evidence from the relevant literature is essential to support your argument(s). [25%]
b) You are then required to link characteristics of your deal to evidence from prior studies on known factors that influence the likelihood of M&A success. How could these factors affect the structure and payoff of your deal? What payment method would you recommend financing your deal and why (not necessarily the one actually used)? [25%]
c) Valuation: Now you need to offer a recommendation about the target firm’ valuation, and the maximum premium to be offered (not necessarily the one actually offered). Clearly demonstrate assumptions, calculations and scenarios. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of the chosen method(s). [30%]
d) Recommendations: Finally, based on the analysis of the above 3 topics, provide your recommendations to the board and include any other information you may think is important for the decision making. [20%]
Clearly state the Deal Number, the Announcement Date, the Name of the Acquirer, and the Name of the Target of your deal.
All calculations must be fully explained. Relevant information can be obtained from the annual reports of the acquiring and target firms. You are advised to visit the websites of merging firms, Refinitiv and WRDS. Relevant sources need to be cited clearly.
This group project should be approximately 3,000 words in length (excluding references and appendices).
This project should be submitted before 14:00 on Thursday, 16th Nov, 2023.
|
|
|
Fail |
Satisfactory for Diploma/Fail for Masters |
Good |
Very Good |
Excellent |
|
|
Mark range |
(0-39) |
(40-49) |
(50- 59) |
(60-69) |
(70- 100) |
|
1 |
Relevance to set question |
Scope: irrelevant material predominates; demonstrates minimal attention to context and audience.
Purpose: purpose and focus of the piece are not clear to the reader. |
Scope: may include omissions and/or irrelevant material; demonstrates some attention to context and audience. Purpose: an attempt is made to state purpose of the piece but with lack of focus. |
Scope: mostly focused on the assigned task(s) with little irrelevant material; demonstrates awareness of context and audience. Purpose: features a clear statement of purpose that nevertheless fails to fully address the assigned task(s). |
Scope: consistently focused on the assigned task(s); fully aware of context and audience.
Purpose: features a clear statement of purpose that fully addresses the assigned task(s). |
Scope: consistently focused on the assigned task(s) in an organised and coherent way; thorough and competent understanding of context and audience. Purpose: features an excellent and comprehensive statement of purpose. |
|
2 |
Approach |
Concepts and theories: missing and / or incorrect. Method: missing or not clearly discussed; unable to apply. |
Concepts and theories: basic and maybe incorrect. Method: some attempt to outline methods with limited ability to apply. |
Concepts and theories: somewhat complete and correct. Method: outlined in a step-by-step fashion; methods may appear routine and applied uncritically. |
Concepts and theories: mostly complete and correct. Method: outlined in a coherent fashion; methods may appear routine with some argumentation for choices made. |
Concepts and theories: complete and correct. Method: fully outlined in a critical fashion with clear argumentation for choices made. |
|
3 |
Quality of argument |
Quantitative: patchy knowledge of appropriate techniques for analysis; disorganised solution to a problem.
Qualitative: limited / no coherence; concepts are irrelevant and / or poorly applied. |
Quantitative: some knowledge of key concepts and techniques, but unable to consistently apply this knowledge; may include unsubstantiated assertions. Qualitative: arguments maybe weak or lack clarity, some statements may be unsubstantiated; more emphasis on description than critical analysis. |
Quantitative: demonstrates knowledge of key concepts and techniques; evidence of elementary applications.
Qualitative: arguments are clear, but evaluation of sources and use of theoretical concepts in critical analysis are limited. |
Quantitative: demonstrates knowledge of key concepts and techniques; evidence of application in simple settings.
Qualitative: ability to think clearly and critically evaluate ideas, to bring different ideas together and to draw sound conclusions. |
Quantitative: excellent knowledge and understanding of methods underlying the answer; demonstrates application of methods to complex settings. Qualitative: competent thought in critically evaluating and integrating evidence and ideas; deals confidently with complexities and subtleties of the arguments. |
|
4 |
Depth of analysis |
Analysis: characterised by irrelevance, brevity and / or superficiality. Content: no / little use of appropriate and relevant content in the work. |
Analysis: makes omissions and / or includes irrelevant material.
Content: uses some appropriate and relevant content to develop simple ideas in some parts of the work. |
Analysis: applies knowledge with good evidence of integration and synthesis of material. Content: uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work. |
Analysis: evidence of appraisal, and very good indication of synthesis.
Content: uses appropriate, relevant and compelling content to explore ideas with the context of the discipline. |
Analysis: sophisticated synthesis coupled with evidence of independent insight. Content: uses appropriate, relevant and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject. |
|
5 |
Originality and creativity |
Presentation: reworking of other people’sideas and / or graphics. Content: no evidence of original thought. |
Presentation: somewhat original, but not particularly thoughtful / creative. Content: limited evidence of original thought. |
Presentation: original, may include some thoughtful / creative elements. Content: able to state original ideas. |
Presentation: original, features |
2023-10-26