MENU
Voyager Inc., a primarily internet-based media company, is buying The Daily, a media company with exposure to newspapers, television, and the internet.
Voyager's acquisition of The Daily is The company's second major acquisition in its history. The previous acquisition was at the height of the merger boom in the year 2000. Voyager purchased the Dragon Company at a premium to net asset value, thereby doubling the company's size. Voyager used the pooling method to account for the acquisition of Dragon; however, because of FASB changes to the Business Combination Standard, Voyager will use the acquisition method to account for the Daily acquisition.
Voyager has made an all-cash offer of $45 per share to acquire The Daily. Wall Street is skeptical about the merger. While Voyager has been growing its revenues by 40% per year, The Daily's revenue growth has been less than 2% per year. Michael Renner. the CFO of Voyager, defends the acquisition by stating that The Daily has accumulated a large amount of tax losses and that the combined company can benefit by immediately increasing net income after the merger. In addition, Renner states that the New Voyager will eliminate the inefficiencies of the internet operations and thereby boost future earnings. Renner believes that the merged companies will have a value of $17.5 billion.
In the past, The Daily's management has publicly stated its opposition to merging with any company, a position management still maintains. As a result of this situation, Voyager submitted their merger proposal directly to The Daily's board of directors, while the firm's CEO was on vacation. Upon returning from vacation, The Daily's CEO issued a public statement claiming that the proposed merger was unacceptable under any circumstances.
Voyager used the pooling of inierests method when accounting for the 2000 acquisition of Dragon, rather than the acquisition method it would use today. Which of the following is least likely a feature of the pooling of interests method?
Credit risk in a swap is generally highest in rhe middle of the swap. At the end of the swap there are few potential payments left and the probability of either party defaulting on their commitment is relatively low. Therefore, Widby's first comment is incorrect. It Jacobs wants to delay establishing a swap position, a swaption would potentially be an appropriate investment. However, Jacobs should buy a receiver swaption, not a payer swaption. In a payer swaption, Jacobs would pay the fixed-rate and receive the equity index return. The swap underlying a payer swaption would not offset Jacobs's current position. (Study Session 17, LOS 6l.f,i)