In 2007 the financial crises changed the financial environment in Europe creating a credit crunch that rallied companies from financing primarily through banks to other types of financing in particularly corporate bonds. The rally is an on-going process cheered by banks under pressure from new legislation and accelerated by investors seeking higher performance than provided by government interests. With the above in mind the assignment choses two global breweries (Carlsberg A/S and Heineken N.V.) as they are very much alike but the market prices their CDS’ differently and they are furthermore rated differently by the credit rating agencies. The assignment investigates the perceived differences through a comparative credit analysis seeking to understand the effects of a greater use of corporate bonds from a corporate finance perspective. Carlsberg A/S is selected due to its Danish heritage and the position as the number four biggest breweries in the world. On the other hand Heineken N.V. is chosen for its resemblance with Carlsberg A/S. Furthermore the brewery is established in Europe, which makes the company in the same position as Carlsberg A/S with regards to the steadier use of corporate bonds. The assignment takes its vantage in the classical corporate finance theory of Miller and Modigliani, Trade-Off theory to explain the fundamentals of debt financing. Thereafter credit analysis (“Altman Z-score”, “Beaver, McNichols and Rhie’s score”, Moody’s rating model and the “Petersen and Plenborg credit analysis model”) is presented. Due to the presented tools a modified version of the “Petersen and Plenborg analysis model” is made to establish the structure of the assignment as shown below. Exposure at default seeks a higher understand of types of financing especially corporate bonds and their covenants. In addition to the covenants of the two companies are investigated as the section concludes that Carlsberg A/S has the greatest number of covenants. Probability of default is explored through a strategic analysis, an assessment of the company’s financial health and a simulation of the future cash flows to evaluate the two companies’ ability to service their debts. To compare the two companies strategic advantages wide range of tools are used such as PESTEL, bench-mark analysis, SWOT, Porters Generic Strategies and Anshoff’s Growth Matrix. Furthermore the financial health of the two companies is compared through the formerly introduced tools when the credit analysis was modified. The The main conclusion of this part of the credit analysis is that Heineken N.V. is bigger in every matter even though Carlsberg A/S uses its resources intelligent and with best efforts. Furthermore Heineken N.V.’s use of different debts instrument such as German Schuldscheins, European EMTN corporate bonds and American 144A/Reg S corporate bonds enables the company to achieve a low WACC providing a better financing within project with low net present values, which Carlsberg A/S is unable to exploit due to its higher WACC. Within the probability of recovery the assets of Carlsberg A/S and Heineken N.V. are explored showing that the intangible assets of both companies are booming due to the growth through years of acquisitions. The findings of the assignment justify the differences in pricing and credit rating between the two companies.
|Educations||Graduate Diploma in Finance, (Diploma Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||106|