Citi case competition (1st place) 2016

an ag em en t

Br

ui

n

As

se

tM

STRATEGIC ALTERNATIVES REVIEW

5/20/16

The Bottom Lines

an ag em en t

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Company Overview

Section II:

Industry Overview

Section III:

Leveraged Buyout Proposal

Section IV:

Valuation

Section V:

Merger Analysis

Section VI:

Q&A

Br

ui

n

As

se

tM

Section I:

2

n

ui

Br

an ag em en t

tM

se

As

COMPANY OVERVIEW

3

COMPANY OVERVIEW General Overview

Rodney C. Sacks – Chairman and CEO Hilton H. Schlosberg – President and CFO Thomas J. Kelly – Senior VP, Finance  

Description

 

Highlights

  

Develops and sells energy drink beverages in the United States and internationally Products include Monster Energy, NOS, Nalu, Java Energy, Muscle Monster, and more Provides carbonated energy drinks to full service distributors, retail grocery and specialty chains, wholesalers, and more Known for supporting many extreme sports events such as BMX, Motocross, skateboarding, snowboarding, and even eSports Employees – 2,214 Market Cap – $30,143.7 Net Income – $706.2

  

Enterprise Value – $27,180.5 Revenue – $2,776.0 EBITDA – $1,046.0

$ in millions, market data as of 5/19/16, LTM financial data of 3/31/16

Financial Summary

an ag em en t

Key Management

1985

 Monster embraces extreme action sports, alternative music and having fun to promote its products.  The company’s marketing and advertising platforms are focused on engaging consumers by exposing them to a fun and extreme lifestyle  Social media plays a key role in consumer marketing strategy, as Monster sponsors athletes and extreme events  Monster’s lifestyle marketing programs focus on expanding their brand awareness through relationships with key influencers, event promotions, and other outreach events

tM

Founded

Corona, California

se

Headquarters

Strategic Marketing and Branding

Key Metrics  Energy drinks are most popular among the largest segment of the United States population – millennials  The core market of Monster consists of 18-25 year old males, which make up 59% of the overall energy drink market  Energy drink consumption in the United States increased from 55% to 61% of millennials from 2014 to 2015  At the same time, there continues to be a decline in the popularity of energy shots for the third consecutive year

As

Monster’s revenue growth since Q1 2012 ($ in millions) Revenue

YoY Revenue Growth

20%

n

$900

$750

ui

15%

$600

10%

Br

$450 $300

5%

$150 $-

0% Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012

2013

2014

2015

Sources: 10-K, Mintel

4

BUSINESS SEGMENTS Product Overview

International Expansion

 

Where Monster Distributes

se

tM

 Monster’s main beverage offerings are categorized into: Monster Energy, Java Monster, Muscle Monster, Extra Strength, Rehab, Punch, and Juice Monster  The company’s ability to innovate and market its drinks to appeal to more consumers leads to strong revenue and earnings growth potential

The development and sustained profitability of Monster Energy’s brand internationally remains a key value driver for the company’s corporate growth International growth increased 31% from $141.0 million in Q1 2015 to $184.4 million in Q1 2016 Monster’s strategic partnership with Coca-Cola will help catalyze revenue and earnings growth by increasing distribution reach into new territories on a global scale  20 year distribution agreement with Coca-Cola Amatil brought Monster products to Australia and New Zealand earlier this month and plans to expand into China and India later this year

an ag em en t



What Monster Sells

As

Monster’s worldwide sales growth ($ in millions)

$2,392.5

ui

$1,569.5

$2,005.9

n

$1,859.6

$2,169.2

$240.6

$381.0

2010

2011

Br

$1,247.9

US

$513.9

$580.6

$657.9

$713.2

2012

2013

2014

2015

Outside of the U.S.

Sources: 10-K

5

HISTORICAL FINANCIALS For the year ending December 31,

$1,303.9

2012A

2013A

2014A

2015PF

$1,703.2 30.6%

$2,060.7 21.0%

$2,246.4 9.0%

$2,464.9 9.7%

$2,722.6 10.5%

623.7 680.2 52.2%

808.9 894.3 52.5%

995.0 1,065.7 51.7%

1,073.5 1,172.9 52.2%

1,125.1 1,339.8 54.4%

1,090.3 1,632.3 60.0%

Operating expenses Operating income % margin

332.4 $347.8 26.7%

513.5 $380.8 22.4%

586.8 $478.9 23.2%

590.1 $582.8 25.9%

660.6 $679.2 27.6%

900.1 $893.7 32.8%

Depreciation & amortization EBITDA % margin

11.8 $359.6 27.6%

17.1 $397.9 23.4%

20.6 $499.5 24.2%

22.8 $605.6 27.0%

25.7 $704.8 28.6%

30.9 $924.5 34.0%

Adjustments Adj. EBITDA % margin

(0.8) $358.8 27.5%

(1.4) $396.4 23.3%

(4.3) $495.1 24.0%

(22.7) $582.9 25.9%

(4.9) $699.9 28.4%

(83.2) $841.3 30.9%

$40.8 1.8%

$28.0 1.1%

$35.6 1.3%

As $12.6 1.0%

$25.6 1.5%

$42.9 2.1%

ui

n

Capital expenditures % revenue

se

Cost of sales Gross profit % margin

tM

Total revenue % growth

2011A

an ag em en t

2010A

 High adjustment required due to change in previous accounting purchase estimates resulting from Coca Cola energy drink acquisitions

Br

 Large change in operating expense due to distributor termination costs from strategic partnership with Coca Cola

 Consistently improving EBITDA margins starting 2011 from increased operating efficiency, even after acquisition of Coca Cola’s energy brands

6

n

ui

Br

an ag em en t

tM

se

As

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

7

ENERGY DRINK MARKET Increasing Market Share Worldwide

 The global energy drinks market was worth $8 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $12 billion by 2020 at a CAGR of 6.9% over the forecasted period  Increased regulatory oversight and health concerns force energy beverage companies to thoroughly test ingredients, leading to lower average margins within the industry

U.S. Sales of Energy Drink Beverages ($ in billions) $15 $10

$8.1

$10.7

$9.4

$13.5

$12.2

tM

$5

 According to Nielsen reports for the 13 weeks through March 2016, the energy drink industry increased by 7.1% compared to the same period a year ago  Sales of Monster grew 10.8% in the 13-week period, while Red Bull only grew by 4.1% and Amp’s sales declined 8.1%  Monster’s market share increased 1.2 points in dollar points over the same period last year, while Red Bull decreased 1.6 points to below Monster’s market share  Rockstar’s market share increased by 0.5 points while Amp’s declined by 0.2 points  Including coffee into the energy drinks industry, sales increased 20.6%, with Java Monster increasing 18.4%

an ag em en t

General Overview

Monster International Market Share for Q1

$2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

25%

20%

se

Competitive Landscape

15% 10%

As

U.S. Energy Drink Brand Market Share 2015 1%

5%

0%

8%

44%

Monster

ui

46%

n

Red Bull

Rockstar

Br

Amp

Great Britain

Sweden

Belgium

Norway

France

Germany

South Africa

Ireland

Spain

Greece

Chile

Brazil

South Korea

Japan

50%

40% 30% 20% 10%

0%

2015

2016

Sources: IBISWorld, Statista, Nielsen

8

INDUSTRY COMPETITORS Publically Traded Non-Alcoholic Drink Manufacturers Profitability

3-Yr Growth Rates

EBITDA Margin 27.6% 19.2% 24.7% 12.0%

Median

57.4%

Monster Beverage Corporation

60.8%

(2.9%) (1.5%) 1.7% 19.4%

(2.7%) 0.3% 6.0% 21.6%

22.0%

0.1%

3.1%

$94,186

0.62

14.0x

27.8x

7.9%

31.7%

11.1%

37.7%

9.9%

23.3%

$27,180

0.77

26.0x

42.4x

15.9%

21.9%

19.6%

13.3x 19.7x

24.5x 39.0x

Beta 0.60 0.64 0.58 1.13

EV/ P/E Ratio EBITDA 18.0x 26.8x 14.0x 28.8x 12.6x 22.3x 20.3x 43.9x

ROA

ROE

ROC

7.0% 8.8% 10.1% 5.8%

26.9% 38.3% 36.5% 14.9%

8.8% 13.3% 17.1% 7.3%

se

25th 75th

Return Metrics

Enterprise Value $217,526 $168,672 $19,701 $9,755

Revenue EBITDA

tM

The Coca-Cola Company Pepsico, Inc. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. The WhiteWave Foods Company

Gross Margin 60.2% 55.3% 59.5% 34.3%

Company Name

Valuation Metrics

an ag em en t

($ in millions)

As

Monster Beverage’s strong financial performance positions the company for future growth  Impressive top-line growth over past three years indicates flexibility to use earnings for product expansion

ui

n

 Return metrics showcase efficient use of company/shareholder resources and strong bottom-line profitability

Br

 High EBITDA margins relative to industry help justify Monster’s higher valuation metrics

9

an ag em en t

Br

ui

n

As

se

tM

LEVERAGED BUYOUT PROPOSAL

10

TAKE-PRIVATE STRUCTURE LBO Financing

Pro Forma Capitalization Table Amount

Cash from balance sheet $250 million revolver First lien term loan Second lien term loan Senior notes Sponsors equity Total sources

$2,175.4 – 2,315.0 1,050.0 – 28,644.8 $34,185.2

– 7.2% 3.3% – 89.5% 100.0%

Cash

$250 million revolver First lien term loan Total first lien debt

Existing debt Second lien term loan Senior notes Total debt Sponsor's equity Total capitalization

tM

Amount

$250.0 – 33,813.7 121.5

LTM 12/31/15PF operating statistics Adj. EBITDA Net cash interest expense Capital expenditures

As

Cash to balance sheet Refinance existing debt Equity purchase price Financing fees, OID & other expenses

12/31/2015

L + 375 bps L + 425 bps

L + 800 bps 9.5%

$250.0 – 2,315.0 $2,315.0 – 1,050.0 – $3,365.0

28,644.8 $32,009.8

$841.3 217.3 35.6

$34,185.2

n

Total uses

– 2.8x 4.0x 4.0x 38.0x 38.0x

Rate

se

Uses

Cum. EBITDA % of Total Multiple Capitalization

an ag em en t

Sources

Br

ui

Transaction financing derived from precedent LBOs within the beverage industry

LTM 12/31/15PF credit statistics First lien debt / Adj. EBITDA Total debt / Adj. EBITDA Net debt / Adj. EBITDA Adj. EBITDA / Net cash interest expense Total debt / Total capitalization

2.8x 4.0x 3.7x 3.9x 10.5%

Heavy capital infusion required to fund transaction due to a 21% purchase premium on one-month, unaffected share price and high company valuation

11

TRANSACTION SUMMARY Fiscal year ended December 31,

2015PF

2016E

2017E

2018E

2019E

2020E

$2,723 10.5%

$3,033 11.4%

$3,327 9.7%

$3,637 9.3%

$3,964 9.0%

$4,313 8.8%

Gross profit % margin

$1,632 60.0%

$1,911 63.0%

$2,146 64.5%

$2,382 65.5%

$2,616 66.0%

$2,846 66.0%

$925 (83) $841 30.9%

$1,171 – $1,171 38.6%

$1,326 – $1,326 39.9%

$1,476 – $1,476 40.6%

$1,629 – $1,629 41.1%

$1,773 – $1,773 41.1%

$841 (217) (36) (223) (16) $349

$1,171 (217) (39) (349) (16) $549 549

$1,326 (188) (43) (420) (15) $660 1,208

$1,476 (164) (55) (486) (16) $756 1,964

$1,629 (125) (59) (559) (17) $869 2,832

$1,773 (55) (65) (640) (19) $994 3,827

$250

$250

$250

$250

$250

$712

EBITDA Plus: Adjustments Adj. EBITDA % margin

– 2,315 $2,315

Second lien term loan Senior notes Total debt % paydown % net paydown

$1,050 – $3,365

– 383 $383 83.5% 93.6%

– – – 100.0% 100.0%

– – – 100.0% 100.0%

$1,040 – $2,816 16.3% 17.6%

$1,029 – $2,157 35.9% 38.8%

$1,019 – $1,401 58.4% 63.0%

$533 – $533 84.2% 90.9%

– – – 100.0% 100.0%

ui

Adj. EBITDA / Net cash interest expense (Adj. EBITDA - capex) / Net cash interest expense Free cash flow / Total debt

– 1,128 $1,128 51.3% 57.5%

Br

Credit statistics First lien debt / Adj. EBITDA Total debt / Adj. EBITDA Net debt / Adj. EBITDA

– 1,777 $1,777 23.2% 26.1%

n

$250 million revolver First lien term loan Total first lien debt % paydown % net paydown

se

Capitalization Cash

As

Adj. EBITDA Less: Net cash interest expense Less: Capital expenditures Less: Cash taxes Change in working capital Free cash flow Cumulative free cash flow

tM

Free cash flow

 Revenue projections are derived by consolidating multiple analyst estimates  Expert perception indicates maturity as shown by plateauing growth projections

an ag em en t

Total revenue % growth

2.8x 4.0x 3.7x

1.5x 2.4x 2.2x

0.9x 1.6x 1.4x

0.3x 0.9x 0.8x

– 0.3x 0.2x

– – NM

3.9x 3.7x

5.4x 5.2x

7.0x 6.8x

9.0x 8.7x

13.0x 12.6x

32.2x 31.0x

10.4%

19.5%

30.6%

53.9%

163.0%

 High debt paydown due partially to effective free cash flow growth, but also from low debt incurred during proposed buyout

 Leverage is consistent with recent leveraged buyouts within the beverage industry (2.5x – 4.0x)  High interest coverage ratio indicates the capacity for the company to pay off debt immediately over time

NM

12

SPONSOR RETURNS Fiscal year ending December 31, Full year Adj. EBITDA Exit mulitiple Enterprise value

40.2x

Less: Total debt Plus: Cash Equity value

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

$1,170.7 40.2x $47,037.0

$1,325.9 40.2x $53,270.6

$1,476.4 40.2x $59,320.6

$1,629.1 40.2x $65,455.7

$1,772.5 40.2x $71,215.8

$1,923.2 40.2x $77,269.1

$2,077.0 40.2x $83,450.7

($2,156.9) 250.0 $51,363.7

($1,401.3) 250.0 $58,169.2

($532.8) 250.0 $65,172.9

– 711.5 $71,927.3

– 1,830.4 $79,099.5

– 3,042.0 $86,492.7

51,363.7 $51,363.7

58,169.2 $58,169.2

65,172.9 $65,172.9

71,927.3 $71,927.3

79,099.5 $79,099.5

86,492.7 $86,492.7

($2,816.4) 250.0 $44,470.6

Sponsor cash flow Cash outflow Cash inflow, different exit years Total cash flows

($28,632.2) 44,470.6 $44,470.6

tM

($28,632.2)

an ag em en t

2015

IRR given different exit years MOIC given different exit years

55.1% 1.6x

20.2% 2.5x

18.4% 2.8x

17.1% 3.0x

40.2x

41.2x

42.2x

16.4%

20.2%

20.8%

21.4%

22.0%

22.6%

18.9%

19.6%

20.2%

20.8%

21.4%

22.0%

21.4%

19.0%

19.6%

20.2%

20.8%

21.4%

23.9%

18.4%

19.0%

19.6%

20.2%

20.8%

26.4%

17.9%

18.5%

19.1%

19.7%

20.2%

Purchase Premium

As

39.2x

ui

$71,927.3

Purchase Multiple

38.2x

n

$37,166.1

Br

$3,365.0

22.8% 2.3x

IRR Sensitivity Analysis

$71,927.3

$33,801.1

26.6% 2.0x

se

5 Year Exit Structure

33.9% 1.8x

–

Purchase

Net Debt

Exit

Equity

13

n

ui

Br

an ag em en t

tM

se

As

VALUATION

14

INTRINSIC VALUATION DCF Model

WACC Calculation 2014A $674.2 260.9 25.7 28.0

(+/-) Changes in Working Capital Unlevered Free Cash Flows Discounted Unlevered Free Cash Flows

2015PF $810.4 313.6 30.9 35.6

2016E $1,137.4 440.2 33.4 39.4

2017E $1,289.3 498.9 36.6 43.3

2018E $1,436.4 555.9 40.0 54.5

2019E $1,585.5 613.6 43.6 59.5

2020E $1,725.1 667.6 47.4 64.7

(16.0) 476.1 476.1

(16.0) 675.2 612.1

(15.4) 768.2 631.5

(16.3) 849.7 633.2

(17.4) 938.6 634.2

(18.8) 1,021.4 625.6

2020E EBITDA

Market Risk Premium

5.8%

Risk-Free-Rate

2.6%

Cost of Equity

10.3%

tM

Sensitivity Analysis

2

3

4

5

$631.5

$633.2

$634.2

$625.6 $3,136.6 $15,199.8 $18,336.3 $2,175.4 -

se

1

ui

n

As

$612.1

Exit Multiple

10.3%

Br

Implied Equity Value Shares Outstanding Implied Share Price

1.33

* Monster’s lack of debt effectively makes WACC equal to cost of equity

14.0x $24,815.1

WACC

Discounted Free Cash Flows Sum of Discounted Cash Flows Discounted Terminal Value Implied Enterprise Value (+) Cash (-) Debt

WACC Calculation Levered Beta

1,772.5

Exit Multiple Implied Terminal Value

Year

an ag em en t

Year Adjusted EBIT (-) Tax Expenses (+) Depreciation & Amortization (-) Capital Expenditures

$98.9 12.0x 13.0x 14.0x 15.0x 16.0x

8.3% $95.3 $101.0 $106.7 $112.5 $118.2

9.3% $91.7 $97.2 $102.7 $108.2 $113.6

WACC 10.3% 11.3% $88.4 $85.2 $93.6 $90.2 $98.9 $95.2 $104.1 $100.2 $109.3 $105.2

12.3% $82.2 $87.0 $91.8 $96.5 $101.3

$20,511.7 207.5 $98.9

15

VALUATION SUMMARY Share Price Based on Various Valuation Methods

Equity Comps

$64.41

DCF

an ag em en t

$148.46

$90.36

$108.20

tM

$90.20

$125.74

$152.60

n

As

se

LBO

$113.08

$160.50

Br

ui

LTM Spread

$0

$25

$50

$75

$100

$125

$150

$175

Current Trading Price

16

n

ui

Br

an ag em en t

tM

se

As

MERGER ANALYSIS

17

DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE OVERVIEW General Overview

Larry D. Young – President and CEO Martin M. Ellen – CFO and Executive VP Angela A. Stephens – Senior VP  

Description

 

Highlights

  

Manufacturer and distributor of non-alcoholic beverages in the United States, Canada, and Mexico Offers flavored carbonated soft drinks and non-carbonated beverages, including ready-to-drink teas, juice drinks, water, and mixers The company sells its flavored carbonated drinks primarily under the Dr. Pepper, Canada Dry, 7UP, A&W, Crush, Sunkist soda, and Squirt brands Operates through over 100 distribution centers in the US and owns over 30 leading beverage brands Employees – 19,000 Market Cap – $17,131.9 Net Income – $789.0

  

Enterprise Value – $19,700.8 Revenue – $6,318.0 EBITDA – $1,562.0

$ in millions, market data as of 5/19/16, LTM financial data of 3/31/16

Financial Summary

an ag em en t

Key Management

2008



With a brand heritage spanning over 200 years, Dr. Pepper Snapple’s portfolio includes over 50 brands and hundreds of flavors of soft drinks, juices, teas, and mixers 13 of Snapple branded drinks are ranked number 1 and number 2 in their specific beverage categories

tM

Founded

Plano, Texas



se

Headquarters

Representative Brands

Key Metrics  Currently involved in sponsorships with Pittsburgh Penguins, San Francisco Giants, and Chicago Bears  Heavily involved in philanthropic causes concerning youth wellness and environmental conservation, leading them to winning a “Civic 50” award  Declared dividend of $0.53 as of May 18, 2016  DOT award winning supply chain service

As

Snapple’s revenue growth since Q1 2012 ($ in millions) Revenue

YoY Revenue Growth

5.0%

n

$1,800

ui

$1,500 $1,200

2.5%

Br

$900 $600

-%

$300 $-

-2.5%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1

2012

2013

2014

2015

Sources: 10-K, Mintel

18

MERGER MODEL Post-Merger Analysis

Transaction Assumptions

Combined Income Statement

Per Share Purchase Price:

$112.52

an ag em en t

Transaction Overview Equity Purchase Price:

$21,239

% Cash: % Debt:

12.0% 48.0%

Cash Used: Debt Issued:

$2,549 $10,195

% Stock:

40.0%

New Shares Issued:

0.5%

Debt Interest Rate:

Foregone Cash Interest Rate: Revenue Synergy %: Cost Synergies % OpEx:

10.0% 22.5%

2017E $9,863

Revenue Synergies: Cost of Goods Sold: Revenue Synergy COGS: Gross Profit:

$641 $3,813 $320 $5,947

$654 $3,926 $327 $6,264

Operating Expenses: OpEx Synergies:

$3,214 $549

$3,347 $560

$148 $14 $0 $854 $0

$154 $14 $0 $854 $0

$2,266 ($10) ($13) ($765) $1,478 $572

$2,455 ($10) ($13) ($765) $1,667 $645

$906

$1,022

Depreciation of PP&E: Depr. of PP&E Write-Up: Amortization of Intangibles: Amort. of New Intangibles: Stock-Based Compensation:

tM

se

(12.5%) (6.6%) (0.6%) 5.5% 11.8% 18.2% 24.7% 31.3%

(9.2%) (3.2%) 2.8% 9.0% 15.3% 21.7% 28.3% 34.9%

(5.8%) 0.2% 6.3% 12.5% 18.8% 25.3% 31.9% 38.6%

(2.4%) 3.6% 9.7% 16.0% 22.3% 28.8% 35.4% 42.2%

1.0% 7.0% 13.2% 19.5% 25.9% 32.4% 39.0% 45.8%

4.4% 10.5% 16.6% 23.0% 29.4% 35.9% 42.6% 49.4%

As

(15.9%) (10.1%) (4.1%) 2.0% 8.3% 14.6% 21.1% 27.7%

n

(19.3%) (13.5%) (7.5%) (1.4%) 4.7% 11.1% 17.5% 24.1%

50.0%

Expense Synergies % Seller OpEx: 21.0% 23.0% 25.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31.0% 33.0% (24.0%) (20.7%) (17.4%) (14.1%) (10.7%) (7.4%) (4.1%) (18.3%) (15.0%) (11.6%) (8.3%) (4.9%) (1.6%) 1.8%

ui

125.00 120.00 115.00 110.00 105.00 100.00 95.00 90.00

19.0% (27.4%) (21.7%)

Br

Per Share Purchase Price

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

17.0% (30.7%) (25.1%)

7.5%

Revenue Synergy COGS %:

Sensitivity Analysis – Accretion/Dilution 5.0% $ 135.00 $ 130.00

57,086

2016E $9,441

Combined Revenue:

7.8% 13.9% 20.1% 26.4% 32.9% 39.5% 46.2% 53.1%

Operating Income: Interest Income / (Expense): Foregone Interest on Cash: Interest Paid on New Debt: Pre-Tax Income: Income Tax Provision: Net Income: Earnings Per Share (EPS): Diluted Shares Outstanding: Accretion / Dilution: Accretion / Dilution %:

$3.42 264,586

$3.86 264,586

$0.16 5.0%

$0.16 4.4%

19

FINAL RECOMMENDATION Accretion/Dilution Analysis

Leveraged Buyout Analysis

2016E $9,441

2017E $9,863

Revenue Synergies: Cost of Goods Sold: Revenue Synergy COGS: Gross Profit:

$641 $3,813 $320 $5,947

$654 $3,926 $327 $6,264

Operating Expenses: OpEx Synergies:

$3,214 $549

$3,347 $560

$148 $14 $0 $854 $0

$154 $14 $0 $854 $0

$2,266 ($10) ($13) ($765) $1,478 $572

$2,455 ($10) ($13) ($765) $1,667 $645

$906

$1,022



$3.86 264,586



Net Income: Earnings Per Share (EPS): Diluted Shares Outstanding: Accretion / Dilution: Accretion / Dilution %:

$3.42 264,586

Cash from balance sheet $250 million revolver First lien term loan Second lien term loan Senior notes Sponsors equity Total sources

$2,175.4 – 2,315.0 1,050.0 – 28,644.8 $34,185.2

– 2.8x 4.0x 4.0x 38.0x 38.0x

tM

Uses

As

se

Cash to balance sheet Refinance existing debt Equity purchase price Financing fees, OID & other expenses

Total uses

– 7.2% 3.3% – 89.5% 100.0%

Amount $250.0 – 33,813.7 121.5

$34,185.2

Accretive projection achieved by issuing 40% more stock Leverage ratio would be increased to over triple industry median Shareholders would not allow merger to go through

n

Operating Income: Interest Income / (Expense): Foregone Interest on Cash: Interest Paid on New Debt: Pre-Tax Income: Income Tax Provision:

The optimal LBO requires almost 90% equity from Monster, leaving them with the task of raising almost $30 billion

Amount

ui

Depreciation of PP&E: Depr. of PP&E Write-Up: Amortization of Intangibles: Amort. of New Intangibles: Stock-Based Compensation:



Sources

$0.16 5.0%

$0.16 4.4%



Br

Combined Revenue:

Cum. EBITDA % of Total Multiple Capitalization

an ag em en t

Combined Income Statement

Based on multiple valuation methods and projections, we advise Monster Beverage Corporation to continue its current operations

20

n

ui

Br

an ag em en t

tM

se

As

THANK YOU

21