Barrett, The Honors College Thesis/Creative Project Collection
Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University proudly showcases the work of undergraduate honors students by sharing this collection exclusively with the ASU community.
Barrett accepts high performing, academically engaged undergraduate students and works with them in collaboration with all of the other academic units at Arizona State University. All Barrett students complete a thesis or creative project which is an opportunity to explore an intellectual interest and produce an original piece of scholarly research. The thesis or creative project is supervised and defended in front of a faculty committee. Students are able to engage with professors who are nationally recognized in their fields and committed to working with honors students. Completing a Barrett thesis or creative project is an opportunity for undergraduate honors students to contribute to the ASU academic community in a meaningful way.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Finance
Description
This thesis is a Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) Pitchbook for the Boston Beer Company (SAM) to acquire the Craft Brew Alliance (BREW). This thesis includes a background on the beer industry, the craft beer industry, SAM and BREW. As well, the thesis includes an analysis of the reasons for the acquisition, potential risks and downsides, a valuation analysis including all of the potential and realistic synergies, conclusions and a recommendation to SAM to acquire BREW before a larger company does.
ContributorsZulanas, Charles (Author) / Simonson, Mark (Thesis director) / Aragon, George (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Leveraged buyouts have gone in and out of popularity over the last four decades. The first wave began in the 1980's with the rising popularity of junk bonds, followed by years of economic downturn, and then a rise and respective fall from the dot com era. However, in the 2000's, attitudes were high and a period of low interest rates, covenant-lite loans, and relaxed lending conditions gave rise to some of the largest leveraged buyouts in US history. As the name implies, leveraged buyouts are predominantly structured with debt, around 70% of the total transaction value. Private equity firms execute leveraged buyouts on companies in strong industries, who have proven, stable cash flows, with the intent of cutting costs, divesting unneeded assets, and making the chain more efficient. After a time period of five to seven years, the private equity firm exits the deal through an initial public offering of the target company, a sale to another buyer, or dividend recapitalization. The Blackstone Group is one of the largest private equity firms in the US, and, with the favorable leveraged buyout conditions, especially in the real estate market, it wanted to build its real estate portfolio with an acquisition of Hilton Hotels & Resorts. At the time of consideration, Hilton was one of the largest hotel companies in the world, but was beginning to lag compared to its competitors Marriott and Starwood. After months of talks, Hilton agreed to be bought out by Blackstone at $47.50/share, for a total purchase price of $26bn. Blackstone had injected $5.7 of its own equity into the deal. The Great Recession caused a lot of investors to worry about Hilton's debt obligations, and Blackstone was able to restructure a significant portion of the debt to benefit both themselves and their creditors. As new CEO, Christopher J. Nassetta was able to strengthen Hilton by rearranging management, increasing franchising fees, expanding its capital-lite segments, and building more rooms internationally, Hilton was able to grow quicker than its competitors from 2007-2013 while minimizing operating expenses. On December 2, 2013, Hilton went public on the NYSE as HLT. Its enterprise value increased from $26bn to $33bn, and Blackstone was able to achieve an internal rate of return of 19%, while continuing to own 75% of Hilton's shares.
ContributorsNelson, Corey Mitchell (Author) / Simonson, Mark (Thesis director) / Aragon, George (Committee member) / School of Accountancy (Contributor) / Department of Finance (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Since the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA) up until the most recent election in 2012, presidential campaign funds have risen over five hundred percent. While money has always been an essential and critical part of any political campaign, this rise has been drastic and continues to increase at a higher rate with every election cycle, even when the numbers are adjusted for inflation. The purpose of this paper is to examine this continuous increase in cost of presidential campaigns and to analyze the different pieces that have contributed to this rise. The main pieces include two Supreme Court cases: Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the rise and fall of federally regulated public funding and the various pieces of a presidential campaign that have considerably higher ticket prices with each election cycle. This paper first goes through both Buckley and Citizens, describing what each Supreme Court decision did and how they effected how much money can be spent in a presidential campaign and by whom. The paper then examines each presidential election since the passage of FECA in 1974 through the last election with President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012. Each election cycle is broken down to show how much money was spent by each candidate and the Republican and Democratic National Committees, whether or not the money was received through public funds or raised privately, and subsequently the percentages of where the money was spent. While the examination of the Court cases helps to understand why so much money can be donated and contributed directly to campaigns or spent on behalf of a presidential candidate, the breakdown of where the money is spent including advertising, travel, staff salaries etc. helps to show why a presidential campaign costs over five hundred percent more today than it did forty years ago. By understanding this increase, how it was caused and where the money is going, it is more feasible to comprehend whether or not campaign finance reform should be proposed and if so, how it should be brought about.
ContributorsColby, Mikaela Nicole (Author) / Critchlow, Donald (Thesis director) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05