Ronald Kahn
We’ve always been a big proponent of unitranche debt. With senior cash flow debt still difficult to come by, unitranche facilities have proven to be a very attractive alternative financing technique. We’ve been pleased by the larger hold sizes of unitranche providers compared to senior debt providers. Fewer parties in the capital structure often results […]
Two weeks ago, many of us gathered in New York to attend the Symposium on Middle Market and Mezzanine Finance, an annual event where many of the leading providers of junior capital convene to discuss the state of the market.
Interestingly, the attendees were rather upbeat. Yes, participants were realistic and conceded that leverage levels had risen dramatically, particularly in the last two months and, for larger middle market transactions, are approaching 5.0x total debt to EBITDA. They also acknowledged that pricing had declined during this same period with mezzanine pricing, even on smaller deals, hovering around 14%, and unitranche pricing declining 100-150 bps.
We’ve seen it before. In fact, every time the financing pendulum swings in one direction or another, the talk starts – “Is mezzanine a dinosaur?” It happened when CLOs emerged and cash flow senior debt providers dipped lower in the capital structure, minimizing the need for mezzanine debt. It happened again when second lien debt entered the middle market and became a competing product. It happened (and continues to happen) when BDCs became a new source of financing and it’s happening once again as unitranche loans gain in popularity and crowd out mezzanine debt. In fact, mezzanine’s demise has been predicted so many times, I hate to bring it up. Yet this time seems a little different because more and more mezzanine funds realize they need to morph into one of two models.
We’ve seen it before. In fact, every time the financing pendulum swings in one direction or another, the talk starts – “Is mezzanine a dinosaur?” It happened when CLOs emerged and cash flow senior debt providers dipped lower in the capital structure, minimizing the need for mezzanine debt. It happened again when second lien debt […]
When we last left off, our valiant private equity firm had just signed a letter of intent to buy their favored widget company for 7.0x EBITDA and was off trying to find the financing. The company, with $300.0 million in sales and $20.0 million of EBITDA, did have a few blemishes. It had some customer concentration, 2009 was a down year (but who didn’t after the throes of a recession), and 2010 earnings were after $3.0 million in adjustments for the elimination of some unprofitable business lines and a plant closing. But with a substantial equity contribution and a good backlog heading in to 2011, the PEG was confident that obtaining 3.0x senior debt and 4.0x total debt was a cake walk. Or so they thought!!
Are middle market senior lenders really back? Newspapers and industry publications say they are. You hear of certain private equity funds that claim they’ve been accessing senior debt. You may even get calls from some lending officers offering their wares. Yet for all the hoopla that senior lending has returned, we believe that senior debt for middle market companies (defined as those with EBITDA less than $50.0 million) is still limited and only available to the best credits. Yes, there is an ample supply of asset based senior debt. Obtaining senior debt based upon collateral values is now easier than it has been in several years and some asset based lenders are even starting to offer overadvances, something unheard of even six months ago.