Older business owners holding on longer to their businesses, potentially facing increased risks

Click here to view the original article.

By James S. Cassel
March 16, 2014

Untitled To sell or not to sell? That is the question weighing on the minds of many middle-market business owners as they approach what would have previously been their retirement years.

Years ago, when life expectancy was shorter, things were much simpler: When you reached your late 50s, you’d begin to think about selling your business and focusing on enjoying your golden years. But with many Americans now living well into their late 70s and 80s, it seems that a growing number hold onto their businesses longer, thinking they will need the income as well as the psychological stimulation as they age.

Making matters worse, the Great Recession of 2008 significantly hurt the retirement savings of many retirees, and left them without enough money to continue to sustain their lifestyles. While most have recovered the majority of their net worth by now, they still feel vulnerable. Although the solution might seem to be to continue holding onto the business for a few more years, there’s more to this equation than meets the eye, and holding on might pose more risks than rewards.

Most owners who sell their businesses will not be able to replace their business income through conservative investments. They believe their only option would be to keep their businesses as long as possible so they can continue to receive the profits and cash flow needed to maintain their lifestyles and maybe accumulate some wealth outside their businesses.

On another level, holding on is also an emotionally convenient decision to make. Many business owners consider their businesses an intrinsic part of their identities, and their desire to continue running their businesses extends well beyond sustaining their financial livelihoods. “I enjoy running my business, and working keeps me busy. I wouldn’t feel as fulfilled if I weren’t doing what I’ve been doing the past 20 years,” they worry.

The Guardian Life Small Business Research Institute reports in a study that although many business owners expect to live 20 years into retirement, less than half feel prepared enough for life after work. The trouble with this line of thinking is that it is driven by emotions and fear rather than by a pragmatic analysis of the numbers. Unfortunately for most business owners, there are some serious downsides to holding on too long.

Typically, for most business owners, the majority of their net worth is tied up in their businesses, so their assets are not properly diversified. They are tied, and fully committed in every sense, to their businesses. If bank loans come up for renewal, the owners generally still have to personally guarantee them, thereby prolonging their financial exposure.

Moreover, these aging business owners will continue to be exposed to all the usual risks of keeping up with new market entrants and competitive, innovative technologies that might cause them to lose market share, profits and value.

That said, it is critical to know when to consider selling. In my experience at Cassel Salpeter, I’ve seen many business owners turn down significant, fully valued offers. Years later, they regretted these decisions when circumstances required them to sell quickly due to major life events, and they no longer had the power of choosing the best deals or timing.

Or they were forced to sell when interest rates were higher or profit multiples in their industries were lower, and they could not get the maximum value for their businesses. I’ve seen many who had turned down strong offers to buy, only to be put out of business a few years later when new competitors entered the scene or the industry changed. If you owned a Blockbuster video franchise 10 years ago and held it until today, where would you be?

Determining when and how to sell your business is one of the most important strategic decisions you’ll make as a business owner. It is crucial to recognize when you should go to market and not just wait for unsolicited offers. Otherwise, you may end up having to sell your business at depressed values or on other people’s terms rather than your own terms. If you decide to wait, you should closely monitor the market and constantly evaluate your options.

It can be quite difficult to set aside the emotional considerations of parting with the “baby” that you have been nurturing for so many years and is such a large part of your business and personal lives. To help ensure that you make the most informed decisions and avoid the common pitfalls faced by many business owners, it is important to work with qualified, trusted advisers. who can help you take the steps that will have the most positive impact on both the company you are leaving behind and the years of life left ahead of you.

You can evaluate your options, which might include selling control to a family office or private equity firm so you can remain involved and get a second bite of the apple. Remember, the decisions you make now will have ramifications for generations to come. They should be made with cautious consideration of all of the facts and variables and should not be based on emotions or unrealistic expectations.

James S. Cassel is co-founder and chairman of Cassel Salpeter & Co. LLC. , an investment-banking firm with headquarters in Miami. that works with middle-market companies. www.casselsalpeter.com. He can be reached at jcassel@casselsalpeter.com

Family offices are seizing more opportunities in middle-market M&A, so keep an eye out for them

Click here to view the original article.

By James S. Cassel
February 16, 2014

Untitled

James Cassel
NEED A SMALL BUSINESS MAKEOVER?
If you would like a makeover, here’s what you need to do:
• Tell us why your business needs a professional makeover. No more than 250 words, please. Concentrate on one aspect of your business that needs help, and tell us what your problems are.
• You must be willing to share company information with our consultants so they can help you. (Businesses selected for makeovers will need to fill out a short financial form.)
• The makeover is open to anyone who has been in business at least two years. No start-ups.
• The business must be your primary source of income.
• Your venture must be in Miami-Dade or Broward.
• E-mail your request to ndahlberg@Miami Herald.com and put ‘Makeover’ in the subject line.

When middle-market business owners begin looking outward for potential investors or buyers, they often limit their searches to a lineup of the usual suspects: private equity firms, venture capitalists, strategic buyers, and so forth. But often overlooked alternative investors — family offices — can be a good fit for those seeking investment relationships with longer term horizons and less complicated approval processes. South Florida in particular has a growing group of family offices. Family offices primarily manage the family affairs of ultra-wealthy families and make investments and asset allocations on their behalf. Their duties can also extend beyond this to include managing philanthropic efforts, the family’s many homes and bills, and estate planning.

Cascade Investment was established to serve as Bill Gates’ family office, Michael Dell employs 80 people at his own MSD Capital, and Oprah Winfrey hired notable investment manager Peter Adamson in 2010 to run operations at her family office. According to a recent article in Forbes, single-family offices are arithmetically multiplying, and with the wealth or influence they control, they are probably exponentially multiplying. Moreover, single-family offices currently oversee a larger pool of investable assets than all the hedge funds today combined.

Traditionally, family offices have been primarily focused on managing assets through the selection of the right investment managers to conduct their asset allocations. Recently, however, driven by many factors including historically low yields in fixed-income markets as well as volatility in equity and commodity markets, family offices have begun to make more direct investments in mid-market businesses.

While most family offices are the result of a family selling its principal business, others were formed as a method of diversification by taking substantial capital out of the business to diversify its investment holdings. Some family offices may limit themselves to specific industries and business verticals with which they are familiar. For example, if the family sold a manufacturing company, it may impose that limitation and discipline on itself to only look outward to similar ventures where it has relevant experience to make direct investments. In turn, these family offices can be intimately knowledgeable partners in certain verticals.

Whatever the case, family offices represent strong potential sources of buyers and capital for organizations looking to expand or sell. Generally speaking, family offices don’t often have the same kind of time horizons as private equity firms. This is for fairly transparent reasons: Family offices take a longer term view of the businesses they buy. Those family offices that have acquired businesses with stable long-term growth have no reason to look toward fast-approaching liquidity events. It’s in their best interest to cultivate longer horizon investment relationships that will provide consistent returns. Selling a growing business would just require them to redeploy the assets and face all the inherent risks of making new investments.

Private equity firms, on the other hand, are not investing their own capital, and as a result, they typically acquire with a four- to seven-year time horizon in mind. They raise money with the expectation that they will invest during a five-year period and exits or sales will take place during the four to seven years after they acquire. The funds have a finite life. As private equity firms go to market periodically to raise their next fund, they need to show their historical returns in order to garner interest from potential investors.

Another important difference between family offices and private equity firms is that the former can be distinctly agile decision makers. Private equity firms are far more formal, have investment committees and require multiple rounds of approvals before definitive action may be taken. On the other hand, family offices generally boil down to one or two key decision-makers who can act and react nimbly with executive authority. Additionally, family offices don’t have stiff fund structures.

Multi-family offices have also become more prevalent in recent years, as have more robust options for those seeking to establish their own family offices. For example, GenSpring Family Offices, an affiliate of SunTrust Banks, provides highly customizable wealth management advice and service options for single-purpose and multi-function family offices, ranging from multi-generational sustainment to administrative management, and more.

Without a doubt, family offices offer key differentiators and benefits as prospective partners and buyers. Middle-market business owners seeking capital sources from flexible partners with a sharp focus on their industries and the proclivity to make long-term investments should keep family offices in mind along with private equity firms. Wondering how you can find and access them? It is not easy. Unlike private equity firms, they are harder to find, as many try to fly under the radar. However, as they get more active, they become more visible. Therefore, a good start is reaching out to trusted investment bankers, attorneys, accountants and other plugged-in advisors who can help get you connected.

James Cassel is co-founder and chairman of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC — www.casselsalpeter.com — an investment-banking firm with headquarters in Miami that works with middle-market companies. He can be reached at jcassel@casselsalpeter.com

 

 

2014: Maybe the happiest New Year in a while for middle-market M&A

To view original article click here.

By James S. Cassel
January 19, 2014

When it comes to middle-market mergers and acquisitions, 2014 is positioned to be quite a happy new year — the best one yet since 2008. For middle-market business owners seeking to sell their businesses, borrow money or raise capital, it looks like the stars may align to present attractive opportunities.

Typically, the M&A market gets bifurcated into large deals and small deals. In 2013, the large deal business came back but the middle market lagged. In 2014, we will see the large deal business continue while more small deals and middle-market deals begin to happen.

M&A last became bullish in 2006, and the market has since been hungry for another peak. Q4 2012 was particularly strong, and some middle-market analysts projected that 2013 would post record-breaking valuations for businesses, creating an ideal climate for exits and driving bidding wars. However, preliminary data show that the middle market lagged a bit in 2013, as the overall dollar value of deals closed in 2013 was only slightly higher than the dollar value of deals closed in 2012. According to a January 2014 S&P Capital IQ report, the dollar value of deals surged by 20.1 percent across the board between 2012 and 2013, predominantly driven by a few megadeals, but the number of deals actually slipped by 3.9 percent.

The end of 2012 was particularly strong due to the tax law changes. The slower deal volume can be attributed in 2008-2012 to a wide array of factors, including posturing in Washington over tax and estate issues, the slow debt market recovery, lack of job growth, and the stalled economy. Granted, this slow upward trend has been building since 2008, and early projections for 2014 indicate that this gradual increase will continue throughout the year. There could be pent up demand to sell.

In my experience at Cassel Salpeter, an investment banking firm that focuses on the middle market, several industries — namely healthcare, media, telecom and technology, financial services, insurance and real estate, retail, energy and manufacturing — enjoyed more concentrated deal-making opportunities. Companies with predictable cash flow were able to leverage multiples of four and five times cash flow, and companies with EBITDA in excess of $25 million gleaned even more. Calling 2013 a bad year or a good year all depends on where you happen to be standing, but across the board, it was a year of learning, and those lessons shed a telling light on what the market can expect from 2014.

In a recent KPMG survey of more than 1,000 M&A professionals, approximately 63 percent responded that their U.S. companies or clients will initiate at least one acquisition this year, and 36 percent expect their companies or clients will complete a divestiture. In a similar survey among 145 C-level executives, almost three quarters indicate that they expect their companies to make an acquisition in 2014 — almost double from last year. Are they righteously optimistic or kidding themselves?

The key drivers of this uptick in M&A confidence include: employment is improving; GDP has increased and is expected to be north of three percent in 2014; customer confidence has improved; home values are improving; the stock market is up; and interest rates remain relatively favorable. Despite the doom and gloom forecast that has been permeating some media, which is now finally subsiding, there is still a powerful notion of stability and safety in North America’s M&A markets. So, while regions like Western Europe and China might have some opportunities, the U.S. will undoubtedly attract dollars from investors seeking stability and growth.

Although 2014 might produce some megadeals, the middle market will be the main driver of M&A. According to the KPMG survey, approximately 77 percent of survey respondents say they expect their M&A deals to be valued under $250 million. This is an important detail: Middle-market executives have expressed confidence regarding their ability to access credit markets to finance deals, and simultaneously, a wide swath of companies are sitting on large reserves of cash, so these middle-market deals will become attractive targets for larger companies in the coming 12 months. The savvy ones have spent the past few years paying down lines of credit to prepare for the next bullish era of opportunities.

On the subject of credit, interest rates will remain low for at least the first six months of the year, maybe longer. Simply put, it’s ideal to borrow now, because if and when the Federal Reserve reduces its stimulation, interest rates may begin to move. A small uptick will produce minimal impact, but more significant increases could shake things up.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t money out there, particularly in the private equity markets and strategic buyers. Private equity firms are flush with cash and credit availability as are companies. Companies are looking to buy, and the convalescence of factors like cash reserves and increased consumer confidence will produce a favorable environment in 2014 for companies looking to make acquisitions. In addition, we can also expect that this will be a good year for initial public offerings, particularly for technology, financial services and health care ventures.

The unknown is not whether there are buyers but whether there are sellers willing to sell. At some point, aging business owners will make the difficult decision and take the plunge. As with all things, time will tell how the New Year will treat the middle market’s M&A sector, but insights from last year and new developments in the market are promising a healthy and strong 2014.

James Cassel is co-founder and chairman of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC, an investment-banking firm with headquarters in Miami that works with middle-market companies. www.casselsalpeter.com

American Banker: Florida Likely to Experience More M&A in 2014

Click here to view the original article.

By Jackie Stewart
January 2, 2014

Much like Florida’s weather, the forecast for bank consolidation in the state is bright. Mergers in the state picked up last year and some industry observers believe the pace of acquisitions could accelerate in 2014. Interest from foreign investors, along with regulatory pressures, could prompt more banks to sell.

“I fully expect there to be a flurry of activity in the coming year,” says Bowman Brown, a partner at Miami law firm Shutts & Bowen. Small banks in Florida are “under tremendous pressure so a very large number … are thinking in terms of acquisition or disposition.” Through Dec. 12, Florida had 13 deals last year, or nearly twice the activity that took place a year earlier, according to KBW. Nationwide, M&A is on pace to be relatively flat compared to a year earlier, in terms of the number of deals.

The bulk of Florida’s deals involved banks in the southern part of the state. South Florida has roared back since the financial crisis, as evidenced by several new construction projects, says James Cassel, chairman and co-founder of Miami investment banking firm Cassel Salpeter.

“For a while when I looked out [my office window] there were maybe 20 cranes and then there was a time there was just one,” Cassel says. “Now we are on our way back up to 20. South Florida is a growing, thriving market.”

The Miami area’s recovery involves an influx of investment from foreign groups based in Spain and South America. Citizens from countries like Brazil frequently visit south Florida, and Miami continues to serve as an important place for international trade, says Fernando

Alonso, a partner at Miami law firm Hunton & Williams. So it makes sense for foreign banks to seek out acquisitions to expand in the region.

In early 2013, Chilean bank Banco de Credito e Inversiones agreed to buy the $4.7 billion- assetCity National Bank of Florida from Spain’s Bankia. Banco Sabadell in Spain agreed
to buy JGB Bank in Doral, Fla., and Lloyds Banking Group’s international private banking business in Miami.

Similar acquisitions could take place next year, industry observers say.

“Miami has shown it is a resilient market, not just domestically but also with strong foreign investor influence and strong infrastructure from international trade,” says Carl Fornaris, co-chair of the financial regulatory and compliance practice at the firm at Greenberg Traurig. “You will see continued interest in south Florida.”

Pricing has firmed up, with at least five banks selling for more than tangible book value. Valuations should continue to rise next year, especially around Miami, as banks have fewer problems, industry experts say. As the number of community banks declines, buyers might be willing to pay more for the institutions that remain, Fornaris says.

Foreign interest in southern Florida could influence activity elsewhere in the state, says Alonso, who worked with Sabadell on the JGB and Lloyds deals.

“It is not unusual to look up the coast for other potential targets,” he says. “I do think Florida can and does work in many ways as a unified market. I don’t think it has in the past, but it is becoming more of a natural expansion for those already in south Florida.” There were a handful of deals across the rest of Florida in 2013, and industry observers are hopeful that more will take place next year. Real estate prices have recovered enough to allow banks to sell foreclosures at better prices, says Thomas Rudkin, a principal at FIG Partners. Stronger community banks are also looking for ways to grow in existing or adjacent markets, especially in areas like Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville, he adds.

Buyers could include other Florida banks or institutions in nearby states such as Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas, Rudkin says.

For instance, John W. Allison, chairman of Home BancShares in Conway, Ark., has indicated an ongoing interested in Florida’s banks. The $387 million-asset

FirstAtlantic Bank in Jacksonville was also looking for deals, President and CEO Mitchell Hunt said last year.

Sellers will likely include smaller banks that are finding it difficult to compete as the cost of regulation rises, though this is not a unique issue for Florida, industry experts say. Some banks could opt to sell if they struggle to raise new capital, Rudkin says.

Banks with significant market share “are the ones that are seriously looking to raise capital because they have the market presence to do well,” Rudkin says. “Others have a more difficult process ahead of them.”

HCBF Holding in Fort Pierce, Fla., which bought BSA Financial Services in St. Augustine, Fla., last year, would like another deal, possibly along Florida’s east coast or the central part of the state near existing markets, says Chairman and CEO Michael Brown Sr. The $621 million-asset company has access to enough capital for a bigger deal, he says. HCBF would prefer to buy a bank with a clean balance sheet, though it is willing to consider one with some troubled assets. HCBF’s first acquisition was a failed bank, so Brown feels like his management team has the expertise to work out problem loans. “Clearly the operating environment has improved in Florida,” Brown says. “We still have the regulatory challenges, so we are likely to see the same pace of deals next year. Not everyone who talks to suitors is really ready to sell, though. There are a lot of conversations.”

Sun Sentinel: South Florida banks expect to grow in 2014

Click here to view the original article.

By Donna Gehrke-White
December 31, 2013

Fl-First-Southern-president 2a

Boca Raton-based First Southern Bank has a new location on Las Olas Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale. (Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel / July 26, 2013)

No South Florida bank went under in 2013 and earnings reports were robust throughout the banking sector. That’s good news, and there’s more to come in 2014, with a healthier banking sector freer to lend more to both businesses and consumers.

“Things are getting better,” said Richard Brown, chief economist of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. that last oversaw the closing of a South Florida bank in October 2012 when Tamarac‘s First East Side Savings Bank went under.

Banks in Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties in 2013 got a welcome gift from the real estate sector, which shot up in double-digt value early in the year.

“The real estate market turned on a dime,” he said.

That helped banks trying to unload foreclosed properties while it kept some homeowners from dropping over the edge into foreclosure, FDIC’s Brown said.

While conditions still aren’t up to pre-recession levels, South Florida banks are much healthier than they were in the dark days when the entire state led the nation in bank closings in 2010, according to Brown and FDIC spokesman David Barr.

“The banking industry has made an unbelievably quick rebound in South Florida,” said Raul Valdes-Fauli, president and CEO of South Florida-based Professional Bank. “So much so, that I fear we may have missed a few steps and might be setting ourselves up for another downturn.

“We all need to be cognizant of that.”

Still, his bank increased its “loan books 45 percent in the past 12 months,” Valdes-Fauli said. “The bank overall has grown in 2013, and we project healthy growth for next year, too.”

Many other South Florida banks have been growing. Boca Raton-based First Southern Bank, for example, expanded into downtown Fort Lauderdale’s financial district in May to cater to small businesses.

Overall, the number of bad loans continued to drop at South Florida banks, said Karen Dorway, president of the Coral Gables-based research company, Bauer Financial.

“We are very optimistic,” about an even better year ahead, she said.

Her company gave its highest award of five stars to several South Florida banks — including the largest, Miami Lakes-based BankUnited — and the newest — Broward Bank of Commerce — that opened its doors in 2009 in Fort Lauderdale. Broward Bank was the state’s No. 1 success story in lending to small businesses, with the help of federal money, according to a U.S. Treasury report published in October.

In December, BankUnited was named among the top 10 banks in the country, ranked as No. 8 by Forbes. It also was named the top-performing, publicly-owned mid-sized bank in America by Bank Director magazine.

“South Florida has really led Florida out of the recession. We expect it to get better,” Kanas said in an interview. “We see continued improvement in the South Florida market.”

Part of the bank’s expected growth will be in new accounts and giving out more loans, he said.

New commercial loans at BankUnited, including real estate loans and leases, grew to $4.5 billion in the third quarter that ended Sept. 30, jumping about 20 percent — or $762 million.

Since September, BankUnited has continued its upward lending, giving out in December, for example, a $60 million loan that will reduce costs and free up money for ongoing improvements to the Lauderdale Marine Center in Fort Lauderdale, a 50-acre boatyard and marina, one of the nation’s largest.

“We’ll grow loans probably in excess of a billion dollars over a quarter,” Kanas said. “We expect to see dramatic growth.”

South Florida’s economy should grow more in 2014 as other banks increase their lending to businesses, said South Florida banking analyst Ken Thomas.

That will help add more jobs to the area as companies get the money to expand, he said.

Regulations on commercial lending haven’t tightened as much as they have on mortgages, Thomas added. That’s more of an incentive for banks to focus on lending to small businesses, although Thomas expects them also to give out more mortgages.

Local banks should also make more profits in 2014 as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates. “We know rates are going up,” Thomas said. “That’s even better news for banks’ spreadsheets” as the banks will make more money from new loans’ higher interest payments, he said.

Still, South Florida banks aren’t at their healthiest pre-recession level, he and other analysts said. That may take another two years or so.

“The banks in South Florida are in pretty good shape but there are a handful that could use a little help,” said James Cassel, chairman and co-founder of Cassel Salpeter & Co., an independent South Florida investment banking firm.

 

Handle your employees with care. Though oft said, the dictum remains true: employees really are your firm’s most valuable assets.

Click here to view original article.

By James S. Cassel
December 31, 2013

No matter what size or type of business you own, your success depends largely on the people who comprise your team. The decisions you make in all phases of the employment cycle — recruiting, hiring, training, retaining, evaluating, and promoting, laying off or firing — are critical.

Based on my experience over the years helping middle-market business owners, I believe that they often don’t give the necessary attention to many basic principles. Employment decisions are often made by the wrong people, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, and without the proper considerations. Here’s some practical advice I have found helpful.

Recruiting, interviewing and hiring. This process begins before you even look at the first résumé. First, you should identify what characteristics you need in your prospective hires and carefully determine who within your firm should become involved in the process of creating job descriptions, screening résumés and conducting interviews. While the CEO of a mid-size firm may not be directly affected by a bad entry-level hire, such a hire might create tremendous burdens for other team members.

Southwest Airlines famously hires for attitude and trains for skills. Despite the company’s ongoing success, other firms often underestimate the importance of personality of potential employees. Consider conducting a well-regarded personality test (such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) at some point in the recruitment process. You can conduct these internally or use an outside provider. Who conducts the interview is important, but who conducts the test is not as important.

The hiring process can be an even trickier proposition for family-owned businesses — especially when it involves making decisions like going beyond the bloodline to bring in the best candidates at senior levels. Automaker Ford was managed on and off again by Ford family members until 2006, when the company made the strategic decision to bring in Alan Mulally, a former executive with Boeing, as Ford’s president and CEO. Although these decisions might be difficult for some families, such moves can bring great value to the businesses. In the case of Ford, the hiring of Mulally has been largely credited with returning Ford to profitabilityand avoiding bankruptcy.

Training. Although training is vital to employee retention and business growth, it is often overlooked by many middle-market business owners who are focused too tightly on day-to-day operations. Consider exploring options like online courses or sending employees to outside conferences for training. You can also bring trainers in house on a contract basis.

Larger companies may have access to more comprehensive resources that enable them to train internally. Technological solutions such as MindTickle that gamify and socialize employee training can keep businesses of any size competitive.

However, while game-style technological solutions may be useful for training entry-level staff members, they may fail to stimulate more senior executives or encourage them to stay at the leading edge of their fields. Therefore, it’s helpful to identify high-level industry conferences and events where upper-level management may connect with their peers and get inspired from the nexus of knowledge.

Workplace: Inspiring and training your employees is great, but employees also want good working conditions, compensation and benefits. More than ever, job applicants are looking beyond salary and are paying attention to the fine print related to health insurance, 401(k) plans, paid vacations and other provisions. Unfortunately, many businesses fail to provide competitive benefits packages because they don’t have the in-house human resources departments necessary to manage these benefits as well as the costs. Options like professional employer organizations that outsource human resources administration, payroll, benefits administration and other functions can enable middle-market businesses to provide the same or better benefits to their employees as larger companies — and do so at more reasonable costs.

Evaluating. Continuously examine your team all the way up the ladder, from the entry-level to the C-suite. Incentivize strong performance and enforce training to respond to sub-par performance. In so doing, you can reap maximum productivity out of your team long after the initial hiring.

When it becomes clear that a bad hire has been made or you have a problem with an employee, it’s to everyone’s benefit — including the employee’s —to end the relationship as soon as possible.

James Cassel is co-founder and chairman of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC, an investment banking firm with headquarters in Miami. www.casselsalpeter.com

 

 

Forbes: BankUnited 8th best bank in U.S.

Click here to view original article.

By Donna Gehrke-White
December 20, 2013

Forbes named South Florida-based BankUnited, which expanded into New York this year, as one of the top 10 banks in the country.

BankUnited moved up this year from Forbes’ tenth spot to #8 this year, noted bank spokeswoman Mary Harris. “We were really excited about that,” Harris said.

It was the only Florida bank in the top 10 list. Other top banks are based in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Hawaii and Missouri.

Forbes listed BankUnited as having $14 billion in assets while enjoying an almost 12 percent return on total equity. Only 0.5 percent of its loan portfolio was non-performing.

The bank has had a swift turnaround since the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. took it over in 2009 during the Great Recession and appointed new owners led by longtime banking executive John Kanas and Palm Beach billionaire Wilbur Ross.

The FDIC took over much of BankUnited’s bad loans, allowing the new owners — “excellent management” — to focus on improving the bank’s performance, said James Cassel, chairman and co-founder of Cassel Salpeter & Co., an independent South Florida investment banking firm.

In four years, BankUnited, which now is based in Miami Lakes, has added branches in Florida; this year it moved into New York with branches established in Manhattan, Long Island and Brooklyn. It has 39 branches in Broward and Palm Beach counties.

John Kanas, BankUnited chairman, president and CEO, said the bank will be loaning more in 2014 as it adds deposits. On Monday, BankUnited announced it had closed on a $60 million loan to refinance the Lauderdale Marine Center in Fort Lauderdale.

“We expect to see dramatic growth,” Kanas said.

Frederick’s Of Hollywood To Be Taken Private

Click here to view original article.

By Sarah Pringle
December 19, 2013

More than 19 months after hitting the auction block and managing to steer clear of another bankruptcy, Frederick’s of Hollywood Group Inc. has agreed to be taken private in a deal that values the once-flourishing lingerie company at almost $11 million.

A consortium, comprised of New York hedge fund Harbinger Group Inc. subsidiary HGI Funding LCC and other common and preferred shareholders, has agreed to acquire the outstanding shares not already owned by the group for $0.27 a share, Frederick’s revealed on Thursday.

The agreement represents a 50% premium over Frederick’s closing price of $0.18 on Sept. 27, the day before the consortium made its initial $0.23 per share offer.

The group, which together holds 88.6% of Frederick’s common stock, will essentially be paying just $1.2 million for the approximately 4.5 million shares it doesn’t currently own. The agreement values Frederick’s at about $10.6 million.

Frederick’s, based in Hollywood, Calif., had already effectively handed control of the company over to Harbinger Group earlier this year, when an affiliate of HGI Funding, Five Island Asset Management LLC, acquired its Series B convertible preferred stock for $10 million.

Frederick’s, which was formed in 1947 by the creator of the pushup bra, Frederick Mellinger, put itself on the block on May 7, 2012, when it hired Allen & Co. LLC as financial adviser to evaluate its options after receiving a number of inquiries related to various transactions.

Less than two years earlier, Frederick’s had initiated a strategic review for its wholesale unit Movie Star Inc., which was ultimately sold to Dolce Vita Intimates LLC on Oct. 28, 2010, for an unknown price.

The outlook for Frederick’s still wasn’t looking very optimistic about two months ago, when, on Oct. 25, Mayer Hoffman McCann PC expressed substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

The accounting firm pointed to the once-bankrupt company’s recurring losses and negative cash flows from continuing operations, as well as its working capital and a shareholders’ deficiency.

As of Oct. 26, Frederick’s had cash and cash equivalents of just $250,000, while total debt amounted to about $24.9 million. The company has posted losses during 13 of the past 14 quarters, most recently reporting a $7.28 million loss for the first quarter ended Oct. 26.

Still, Frederick’s shareholders seemed to be enthused by the intimate apparel retailer’s latest attempt to turn the company around, which has failed over the past several years to keep up with others in the space including its mainstream rival Victoria’s Secret, which operates as part of L Brands Inc., formerly known as Limited Brands Inc.

Shares, trading on the over-the-counter market under the symbol FOHL, advanced about 30.7% midday on Thursday to $0.26, from $0.20 the previous day. Shares have climbed about 44.4% since the day prior to the consortium’s initial offer on Sept. 27.

Thursday’s agreement, which requires shareholder approval representative of at least two-thirds of the company’s outstanding stock, calls for Frederick CEO Thomas Lynch to continue serving as chief executive for three years following the merger.

Though Frederick’s appears to have escaped bankruptcy for now, that wasn’t the case 13 years ago. Frederick’s declared Chapter 11 on July 3, 2000, and on Jan. 7, 2003, the reorganized company emerged from bankruptcy controlled by a secured lender group headed by Crédit Agricole Indosuez. At the time, it had $65 million in assets and $70 million in debt.

It wasn’t until Jan. 29, 2008, that Frederick’s began trading as a public company on the New York Stock Exchange as it completed a reverse-stock merger with Movie Star and FOH Holdings Inc., its parent company at the time. Frederick’s was eventually delisted by the NYSE because of non-compliance with stockholders’ equity requirements.

Still, the lingerie company remains far from the value it once was, with a market capitalization of just $7.9 million as of Dec. 18. On Sept. 15, 2009, the company was worth about $64.93 million, representing its highest value over the last five years.

Miami-based Cassel Salpeter & Co. LLC’s James Cassel is providing financial advice to Frederick’s on the transaction, while Paul Lucido and Eric Schwartz of New York-based Graubard Miller are serving as legal advisers.

HGI Funding retained Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP as legal adviser.

 

Transitioning your business to your family? Take the right steps to ensure a smooth succession plan for your business

To view original article click here.

By James S. Cassel
November 17, 2013

James S. Cassell

James S. Cassell

When transitioning businesses to their family members, many business owners are surprised to come face-to-face with something they never expected to surface in their families: the ugly side of business. Beyond the serious financial consequences and other damages that can hurt their businesses, previously harmonious families can be torn apart, often irreconcilably. In my experience, I have seen a lot, and I can tell you much of this can be avoided by taking the right steps in advance.

Many business owners think their families are above all this — they don’t need to develop succession plans or to put systems in place because everyone “loves each other” and “things will naturally fall into place.”

I saw a previously harmonious family get torn apart by animosity after the father left the business to his children without leaving any kind of voting trust or shareholder agreement. Ultimately, the one child who had been actively involved in running the business the entire time had serious issues with the siblings who were trying to tell him what to do despite the fact they knew nothing about the business. This rift damaged not only the business operation but also the family’s financial wellbeing. If the father had handled the issues with better communication and documentation before he passed away and if a partnership or clear voting/shareholder rights had been established, this crisis could have been minimized or prevented.

We were also involved with helping another business in which the two partners gave the business to their children who then gave it to each of their children with the hopes of keeping it “all in the family.” However, much to their dismay, the third generation did not get along. A simple buy-sell agreement could have helped them vent their differing views without destroying the successful business. Both wanted to own the business, but neither wanted to sell it to the other. The end result was liquation of a great business and financial loss to both families. Sometimes it is better to sell than transition.

In both cases, these families sought help when it was too late. Based on my experience navigating these complex issues, the following are some of the common pitfalls and key steps to help ensure your family’s best interest is protected when considering transitioning your business to your family members:

•  Inter-family issues: Begin by thinking about what you want to accomplish. Write it down. Sit down with your family members, and really work through these emotional issues with all key family members, including those who will be involved and those who may not be involved in the business who will be affected. Do this well in advance of your intent to turn over the business so that it becomes a “planning conversation” rather than the actual allocation of roles, responsibilities and assets. This will greatly diffuse the intense emotions and drama often connected with business transitions.

If you have multiple children, which ones are most appropriate to take over the business, and which ones should not be involved? If you have step-children, daughters-in-law or sons-in-law, how would you deal with them in the transition? If your family is not able to do it alone, consider getting a private equity firm as a partner or other professional management. Sometimes it helps to bring in a business coach.

•  Tax issues: It’s critical to consult with tax advisors upfront to protect your financial interests. Get them involved before the transition is structured. A good tax advisor can save you and your family significant sums of money and many heartaches during the transition process. This can be done in conjunction with your estate planning.

•  Allocation of control and assets: It’s important to think through who will own and run your business and to get buy-in upfront in this decision rather than trying to impose it upon your family members and employees later.

Consider what your role be during and after the transition. If you have other children and they are not in the business or won’t be part of the ownership, how do you allocate other assets so it’s equitable, and should it be equitable? What are the ramifications of transitioning to active versus non-active family members? When you are transitioning the business to family and you have long-term employees, should those employees get rights or ownership and how do you deal with the heir-apparent?

•  Valuation work: Work with qualified consultants to do valuation work to decide on the value for your business beforehand. This could affect your taxes. This also can help ensure you protect the maximum value for your business and allocate the business assets appropriately.

•  Outside capital: If you need outside capital, where will it come from? Do you establish an Employee Stock Ownership Plan to do it or do you bring a private equity firm, as there are some that focus on transitioning for family businesses?

Often, the business has been good to the family. But if not properly handled, the strong emotions and complex dynamics that come into play the moment a business is transitioned can become overwhelming and cause unexpected damage. Most business owners fall into this trap because they mistakenly assume this would never happen in their families. Without a doubt, it’s critical to talk with your family beforehand, get help from qualified attorneys, investment bankers, tax advisors and other experts, and put the right systems and documents in place. This type of strategic action and planning can help ensure you make sound decisions together, as a family, that will protect your most valuable assets: your business and your loved ones.

James Cassel is co-founder and chairman of Cassel Salpeter & Co., LLC, an investment-banking firm with headquarters in Miami that works with middle-market companies. www.casselsalpeter.com

 

 

Boutique Appeal: Against the backdrop of department store consolidation, retailers and investors seek specialty shops

To view original article click here.

By Allison Collins
November 8, 2013

To protect themselves from fickle consumers and uncertain economic times, retailers are using acquisitions of specialty shops as a form of insurance. Deals such as Gap Inc.’s (NYSE: GAP) $130 million purchase of retail chain Intermix Holdco Inc. in January allow middle-market companies to break into new segments of the market. (For more, see the video below with Hadley Mullin of TSG Consumer Partners.)

Through September, 2013 has been a big year for department store deals, with about $9 billion in deal value according to data from Dealogic and provided by investment bank Robert W. Baird & Co. The year through September has seen nearly $21 billion in total retail M&A activity, which includes department store deals.

The third quarter was especially strong for U.S. retail and consumer transactions, rising 112 percent from the same quarter in the previous year, according to PwC.

“I see more opportunities in the specialty retail space than I do in the department store space,” says Al Ferrara, a partner at BDO USA LLP. Deals are coming from private equity firms that bought a retailer three to five years ago and are looking to exit, or the stores themselves, which may be looking to move into a specialty niche through acquisition, Ferrara says.

Gap’s Intermix purchase underscores that idea. By buying Intermix, a group of clothing stores that sell women’s luxury apparel, the company enters an entirely new space. When Gap made the acquisition, Intermix operated 32 boutiques across North America. Gap says it is seeking to expand the brand’s network of stores and enhance the company’s website. Stores are scheduled to open soon in Chestnut Hill, Mass., Brooklyn, N.Y., and Bellevue, Wash.

cs media clip pic 1

“Smart companies are trying to bulletproof themselves by having concepts at different price points and target audiences; therefore, if one should face headwinds, you have the others,” says Jane Hali (pictured), vice president of custom research for London-based trend forecasting agency WGSN Group Inc., about the Intermix deal.

Gap has businesses at all ends of the market. It has Old Navy at the low end; Gap in the middle; Banana Republic  in the middle but above Gap; Athleta, which gives them a specialization in a specific market; and Piperlime, a pure e-commerce business. The acquisition of Intermix adds a specialty store, with a very select assortment of clothes, to Gap’s holdings. The deal was Gap’s first since 2008, when it paid $150 million for Athleta, which sells exercise clothes. The company bought Banana Republic in 1983.

In October, rumors swirled that suit chain Men’s Wearhouse Inc. (NYSE: MW) may bid for shoemaker Allen Edmonds Corp. in a move that could strengthen the chain. That news came around the same time that Houston-based Men’s Wearhouse rejected a $2.3 billion takeover offer from Jos. A. Bank Clothiers Inc., which also operates a chain of retail stores. If that deal had not been rejected it would have expanded Jos. A. Bank’s product offerings into tuxedo rental and casual wear. In July 2012, Men’s Wearhouse acquired men’s clothier Joseph Abboud through a $97.5 million deal for its owner, JA Holding Inc.

Specialty retailers have also attracted the interest of private equity firms.

Private Equity Involvement

In October, London-based private equity firm Permira Funds agreed to buy the parent company of Dr Martens, R Griggs Group Ltd., for about $486 million. Dr Martens makes apparel, shoes and accessories sold in 63 countries. Permira has also invested in Hugo Boss AG and Valentino.

Private equity firm Apax Partners closed a $1.1 billion deal for apparel chain Rue21 Inc. in a take-private transaction in October. Apax, headquartered in New York and London, has a history of investing in retail companies. In November 2012, the firm paid $570 million to buy Cole Haan from Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE). Before that, the firm invested in Takko, a value fashion retailer in Europe in 2011, and Spyder Active Sports Inc., which makes performance wear, in 2004. Apax also invested in Phillips-Van Heusen Corp. in 2003 and Tommy Hilfiger Corp. in 2006, and has exited both investments.

In April, New York private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. LP (NYSE: KKR) announced the purchase of a majority stake in Paris-based SMCP Group, a clothing retailer. SMCP’s brands include Sandro, Sandro Men, Maje and Claudie Pierlot. SMCP had opened 69 stores in North America during the 18 months before that sale was announced.

New York private equity firm Sycamore Partners said it would buy Hot Topic Inc. for about $600 million in March. Hot Topic is a mall and web-based retailer that sells music and pop-culture influenced apparel, accessories, music and gifts. The company also owns Torrid, which sells clothing for women size 12 and up, and Blackheart, which sells lingerie and beauty products. Sycamore is also invested in apparel chain Talbots.

In January, Boston private equity firm TA Associates completed a majority investment in Dutch LLC, which is the parent company for fashion lines Joie, Equipment and Current/Elliot. Those brands are sold in high-end department stores, including Saks, Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and Barney’s.

TA, which acquired a 60 percent stake in the company, plans to focus on building out retail locations for the companies and developing an e-commerce site for Current/Elliot, TA Associates principal James Hart tells Mergers & Acquisitions in an interview.

In December 2012, Los Angeles private equity firm Leonard Green & Partners LP bought a 25 percent stake in the Topshop apparel chain from British billionaire Philip Green for $805 million. Leonard Green also co-owns J. Crew. The firm had previously invested in David’s Bridal, but sold the chain to Clayton Dubilier & Rice in October 2012 for $1.05 billion.

“Specialty retailers are able to appeal to a very specific segment of the market that broader generalists are finding it more difficult to appeal to,” says Maud Brown, a managing director at Bahrain private equity firm Investcorp, which owns retailers Sur La Table and Paper Source. Investcorp also owns SourceMedia, Mergers & Acquisitions’ publisher.

“The department store model has been challenged for many years. Various department stores have tried to reinvent themselves, but the brands – be they specialty retailers or brands themselves – are trying to get a direct relationship with their end customer,” Brown says.

Many brands that are sold through department stores have opened brick-and-mortar locations. A significant portion of those companies have both wholesale and retail models, so they still work with and sell their products in department stores, as well as in their own locations, Hali says.

“The only way for the manufacturers to have full distribution is really to open their own stores, and that is what many of them are doing,” Hali says.

Peter Millar, a high-end men’s apparel line, has opened two stores and has plans for more.

The company, which aims to outfit 35- to 50-year old men for the office, weekend, golf course and tailgate, recently opened a store in South Hampton, N.Y., and another location in Palm Beach, Fla. Peter Millar is sold in Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom stores, as well as through smaller retailers.

“I suspect in the next 18 months we’ll have four more locations,” says CEO Scott Mahoney. For Peter Millar, the retail locations are a chance to express and market the essence of the brand. The company is considering locations in New York, Chicago, Charleston, Austin, Dallas and other places, but “it’s not going to be a 50-store play,” Mahoney says.

This is not the first time we have seen this phenomenon. In the 1990s, when the outdoor apparel space exploded, North Face, which makes outdoor performance-wear, began opening stores, says Robert W. Baird & Co. managing director Joe Pellegrini (pictured).

cs media clip pic2“They can control their own destiny better when they have their own store,” says James Cassel, chairman of Miami investment bank Cassel Salpeter & Co., but that does not mean they will pull out of the larger stores.

E-commerce gives brands another way to increase customer awareness, which can generally help sales. “Department stores like the idea that their brands have full online businesses — it makes the brands more important to the customer and top-of-mind,” says Hali.

Brands are seeing a higher percentage of revenue that comes from more than just department store sales, according to Pellegrini. “Having a well-positioned website only raises the awareness level of the brands,” Pellegrini says. “They’re seeing a higher percentage of their revenues being derived from an omnichannel approach, which includes direct sales and online.”

For middle market brands, experts agree that increased size could help companies work more easily with large department store conglomerates.

In October, Hanes Brands Inc. acquired Iselin, N.J.-based Maidenform Brands Inc. for $583 million. The deal gave Hanes ownership of Maidenform, Flexees, Lilyette, Self Expressions and Sweet Nothings, adding to the brands it already owned: Playtex, Bali, Just My Size, Hanes, Barely There, Wonderbra, Champion and L’eggs.

“They have more leverage” with department stores, Hali says, since they are larger as a combined company. That deal also resulted in production synergies, as Hanes owns many manufacturing facilities. Before the deal, Maidenform had been using a third-party manufacturer.

PVH Corp. (NYSE: PVH) also gained leverage with stores when it bought Warnaco Group Inc. In that deal, which closed in February, the company picked up the rest of the jeans and underwear portions of Calvin Klein (it already owned the rest), as well as Speedo, Body Nancy Ganz/Bodyslimmers, Warner’s and Olga. PVH also owns the Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, Izod and Arrow lines.

Aside from PVH, several brand owners have scooped up more companies to increase their portfolios.

In September, Paris-based clothing and accessories company Kering bought a minority stake in luxury brand Altuzarra, which is sold at Barney’s, on Net-a-Porter.com, Bergdorf Goodman and other stores. Kering develops apparel and accessories for luxury and lifestyle brands, including Gucci, Bottega Veneta, Saint Laurent, Alexander McQueen, McQ, Balenciaga, Brioni, Christopher Kane, Stella McCartney, Sergio Rossi, Boucheron, Girard-Perregaux, JeanRichard, Qeelin, Puma, Volcom, Cobra, Electric and Tretorn. The company was known as Pinault-Printemps-Redoute or PPR until June, when it changed its name to Kering.

In August, Authentic Brands Group LLP, which is backed by private equity firm Leonard Green, picked up Spyder Active Sports Inc. for an undisclosed amount. The Boulder, Colo.-based ski and snow outfitter sells jackets, snow pants and cold-weather accessories. Spyder was added to Authentic Brands’ portfolio, which already included brands Judith Leiber, Andrienne Vittadini and Viking.

In July, LVMH Moet Hennessey Louis Vuitton SA said it would buy Italian cashmere company Loro Piana SpA for about $2.6 billion, following the company’s 2011 deal for Bulgari SpA. The Loro Piana purchase expands LVMH’s depth in the luxury goods segment, where it already owned Louis Vuitton, Celine, Kenzo, Marc Jacobs, Emilio Pucci, Thomas Pink and others.

In February, Iconix Brand Group Inc. (Nasdaq: ICON), which owns Ed Hardy, Rocawear and Candie’s, bought London denim label Lee Cooper for $72 million. Also that month, Iconix said it would buy sportswear and denim label Buffalo David Bitton from Buffalo International LLC for $76.5 million in cash. Those deals follow a November 2012 acquisition of soccer-related product manufacturer Umbro, which Iconix bought from Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) for $225 million. New York-based Iconix licenses clothing brands to retailers and manufacturers.

Vida Shoes International Inc., a New York footwear brand owner, acquired Andre Assous Co., an Oceanside, N.Y.-based footwear company known for espadrilles in January. Vida licenses shoes for Baby Phat, Carter’s, Osh Kosh, Esprit, Sag Harbor South Pole and Unionbay and other companies.

Department Store Consolidation

Middle market companies and brands face increased pressure from department stores as consolidation continues.

In November, Hudson’s Bay Co. closed a $2.9 billion deal for Saks Inc. That deal brought together Hudson’s Bay’s namesake stores in Canada, Home Outfitters, which is a home goods store; Lord & Taylor, a department store that sells apparel, home good and small appliances; and Saks and Saks Off 5th, the chain’s group of outlet stores.

“There is going to be more pressure from the larger retail conglomerates for there are fewer stores for the brands to sell to,” says Hali.

In addition to the Saks deal, Neiman Marcus Inc. changed hands.

Ares Management LLC and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board bought luxury retailer Neiman Marcus for about $6 billion in October. Neiman owns high-end retailer Bergdorf Goodman.

Neiman, a Dallas-based chain, was last purchased by TPG Capital and Warburg Pincus in a 2005 leveraged buyout. The private equity firms filed paperwork with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering in June, but ultimately decided to sell instead. TPG and

Warburg Pincus reportedly paid about $1.2 billion for the department store in 2005.

In a previous wave of department store mergers, we saw Macy’s Inc. (NYSE: M), then known as Federated Department Stores (after R.H. Macy & Co. agreed to a merger in 1994), merge in 2005 with the May Department Stores Co., owner of Filene’s, the Jones Store, Kaufmann’s and other stores, to create a combined company with more than 1,000 stores.

In 2006, the company sold Lord & Taylor to Purchase, N.Y.-based private equity firm NRDC Equity Partners LLC, which owned Hudson’s Bay. Macy’s owns luxury retailer Bloomingdales.

With so few department stores, it is unlikely that we will see further consolidation in the space, experts say, but potential targets could include Dillard’s, and possibly J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP).

Large department store deals can make it difficult for smaller brands to get into the stores, according to Baird’s Pellegrini.

“They are going to be far pickier and demanding of the vendors,” Pellegrini says of large department stores.

As retailers grow larger and more sophisticated, they tend to want to work with fewer vendors, and with those that have a similar level of infrastructure sophistication.

“There are a lot of young up-and-coming companies with great brands and products, but to service a large base of department stores, making sure the right inventory is on the shelf is difficult,” says Pellegrini.

What happens first when you integrate an acquisition is vendor rationalization: “The more you buy from certain vendors, the higher the discount,” says Cynthia Cohen (pictured), CEO of Strategic Mind share, a consulting firm for retailers. Cohen is also on the board of directors at apparel chain Bebe. If department stores consolidated buying, it could lead to some of the clothing lines being dropped, Cohen says.

“If they consolidated buying, that gives the stores more power, but department stores and good brands understand they are partners and they both need to be in business. One can’t put the other out of business. It’s sort of like shooting themselves in the head,” says Cassel.