Boston Beer Company Essay Example

Boston Beer Company Essay Example Boston Beer Company Paper Boston Beer Company Paper To value Boston Beer Company using comparable companies, we have decided to look at two companies that are in the same industry as BBC and have recently gone public: Petes Brewery Company and Redhook Ale Brewery. Operation Structure Both Petes and BBC are contract brewers which allow them to take advantage from larger brewers excess capacity. Low transportation cost and overhead cost has always been the competitive advantages for contract brewers; at the same time, both companies have invested intensively in marketing and promotion. Unlike BBC and Petes Brewing Company, Redhook Ale Brewery owned and operated its own breweries. In addition, Redhook also established a strategic alliance with the biggest brewery company, Anheuser-Busch. Redhook is selling its beer through A-Bs powerful distribution network instead of investing in marketing and promotions. Obviously, Redhook and BBC have positioned themselves differently in the craft beer industry. Therefore, out of the two companies in craft beer industry that have gone public, we believe Petes Brewery Company will be a better comparable for BBC valuation than Redhook. Value-Drivers Due to consumers sophisticated tastes, specialty beers are much more welcomed than before. The craft beer industry has been growing intensively since 1990. BBC and Petes have experienced compound annual sales growth rate of 109% and 57%, respectively. We believe the value-driver for contract brewers are mainly brand identification and product quality. Both Petes and BBC have invested intensively in marketing and product distribution. These two factors have directly contributed to the increase in Net Sales for Petes and BBC. In addition, because contract brewing have greater manufacturing flexibility, it allows companies to incur lower capital and overhead cost, hence higher gross margin. We have adjusted both P/E and P/B ratios respect to IPO price. Since P/B was originally calculated using shareholders equity as of September 30, 1995. P/E was calculated based on P/B and annualized 3rd quarter ROEs which are 129. 3% and 8. 6% for Petes Brewing and Redhook, respectively. The adjusted P/E and P/B ratios turnout to be smaller than P/E and P/B dated on 11/20/1995, which is reasonable because IPO prices was much lower than the stock prices on 11/20/1995. From the table above, the enterprise value has a range from $418 million to $839 million. We believe the major value driver for both Boston Beer Company and Petes Brewing is Sales; therefore, we decided to use EV/Net Sales and EV/Gross Profit as our major valuation multiples. The EV for Boston Beer Company is approximately $430,280. 185. When we use multiple valuations, we have assumed that the capital structure for Petes and BBC is the same, which is reasonable because they are both contract brewers. They dont have their own brewery and their operation margins are similar. One potential problem arises after Petes gone public is change in its operating strategy. After Petes went public, company has invested all the IPO proceeds in constructing its own brewery in California. The capital structure for Petes could change due to this major investing in capital. Based on the enterprise values computed using DCF, APV and comparable multiples, we can calculate the IPO price by subtracting the total long-term debt from the enterprise value and dividing this difference by the number of common shares to be outstanding after initial public offering. A total long-term debt of $1,900,000 can be found from the long-term debt schedule in Exhibit 5 of the case, and the number of common shares to be outstanding after initial public offering on the first page of Exhibit 5 (Case) is 19,182,119. Consequently, the IPO prices determined by DCF, APV and comparable multiples are $13. 41, $11. 51(in base scenario) and $22. 43, respectively. DCF makes too many skeptical assumptions that are difficult to confirm. First, the terminal growth rate is hard to estimate, because the forecast growth rate of 31% from 1996 to 2000 is unlikely to sustain, so the assumption that the perpetual growth rate will be 7. 0% is largely by faith. Second, the capital structure of the company may not be consistent indefinitely, as a reduction of 10% in D/E ratio from 1994 to 1995 is evident. Several forecast accounting items are based on assumptions as well. Lastly, the beta comes from an educated guess, so the cost of equity used in WACC may not be accurate. APV shares many common assumptions as the DCF, such as the terminal growth rate and beta, but it is not sensitive to changing capital structure. Comparable multiples have the advantage of using companies from the same industry that just went public as benchmarks. However, Petes Brewing Company and Redhook Ale Brewery differ from Boston Beer Company in sales size, growth rate, and strategy. Boston Beer Companys annual sales exceed the other two by a large margin, and the growth rates of the three companies have significant differences. From a strategic standpoint, Redhook Ale Brewery has its own production line, Boston Beer Company insist on remaining a contract brewing, and Petes Brewing Company plans to use the proceeds from its recent IPO to construct a brewery of its own. Moreover, craft beer industry itself relies on proprietary recipe as a sales strength, which differs among different companies. On top of that, too few available comparable companies may result in an estimate that is not very reliable, as only Petes Brewing Company is used as a comparable company. Since using multiples is too sensitive to unique events and only one comparable company is available, DCF and APV will be more reliable methods to determine the IPO price than comparable multiples valuations. Moreover, APV is more flexible than both DCF and multiples and it can value BBC more precisely, because it doesnt have the D/E constraint. APV can be used to valuate company that have unstable D/E over time, which in this case is suitable for valuating Boston Beer Company. Therefore the IPO price should be set in the range of $7. 53 to $21. 694 for Boston Beer Company. The craft beer industry as a whole is overpriced, because the current rapid growth is not sustainable and numerous competitors are emerging. The growth assumptions made by analysts may be wrong, so investors may mistakenly believe that the craft beer industry may continue fast growth for the next five years. The craft beer industry is considered correctly priced at high P/E multiple only if the craft beer industry as a whole can experience such high growth rate for a long time, as in the early 1990s. However, the growth forecast contains a number of forward looking statements and may not be true. Also, the growth rate of 40% in craft beer industry is very unlikely to be sustainable indefinitely. The beer industry as a whole had experienced a stagnant growth of 0. 1% from 1991-1995, and analysts predicted no growth in future. If the industry as a whole is experiencing zero growth, growth of one firm actually means contraction of another firm. We see no evidence from this case that craft beer industry is superior or has competitive advantage over major producers or second tier producers in long term. For instance, major and second tier player has more financial resource available. It will be very hard for small firms to grab away the customers from large firms in long term. Just like a zero-sum game, the growth may finally disappear and the market reaches saturation. The market may be too optimistic for the future of the craft beer industry. Also, the market beliefs fail to consider the factors of competition. The rapid growth of existing craft beer companies spurred the founding of over 600 specialty beer companies. Since so many competitors emerged in such industries, it is possible that the competitors may compete away the profits in future, making the industry as a whole unattractive, dragging down the price or raising the cost. This potential risk may be and indicator that the industry is overpriced.

5 Types of Conciseness Solutions

5 Types of Conciseness Solutions 5 Types of Conciseness Solutions 5 Types of Conciseness Solutions By Mark Nichol Various syntactical constructions signal the potential for verbal economy. In each example below, one or more words are easily omitted, as shown in the revision that follows the discussion about each sentence. 1. This is another step toward bringing the country’s privacy-protection regime in line with those of other international jurisdictions. In this sentence, nominalization, or transformation of a verb into a noun, results in an unnecessarily complicated syntax and an excessive word count. To reverse this process, convert â€Å"in line† to a form of align and replace the verb bringing with it: â€Å"This is another step toward aligning the country’s privacy-protection regime with those of other international jurisdictions.† 2. This contact would typically be someone who is in charge of managing privacy compliance. Here, the sentence is rendered slightly less wordy by omitting the unnecessary phrase â€Å"who is†: â€Å"This contact would typically be someone in charge of managing privacy compliance.† (â€Å"That is/are† is also often extraneous, as in â€Å"However, it is emerging technology-related challenges that are the foremost challenges for survey respondents,† which can be reduced to â€Å"However, emerging technology-related challenges are the foremost challenges for survey respondents.†) 3. There are a number of technical provisions that apply to providers of electronic communication services. This sentence includes an expletive (that term, in grammatical contexts, refers to the use of the weak phrase structure â€Å"There is/was/are/were† (or one beginning with it, followed by one of the listed verbs). This telltale phrase, and the corresponding that, are easily, productively omitted: â€Å"A number of technical provisions apply to providers of electronic communication services.† 4. The agency is analyzing the different types of alternative data available. Here, the superfluous adjective different (the idea is already implied in types) is omitted: â€Å"The agency is analyzing the types of alternative data available.† (Currently is another almost always extraneous modifier.) 5. Pinpoint which data to monitor for the purpose of helping continuously improve the department’s performance. Delete useless phrases such as â€Å"for the purpose of,† which may appear to strengthen a sentence but only clutter it (and change the phrase â€Å"of helping† to â€Å"to help†): â€Å"Pinpoint which data to monitor to help continuously improve the department’s performance.† (This sentence can also be inverted to â€Å"To help continuously improve the department’s performance, pinpoint which data to monitor.†) Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Style category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:44 Resume Writing TipsWhat’s the Best Way to Refer to a Romantic Partner?