📰 With No Big Deal Safe, Investment Bankers Move to Safeguard Fees

Estimated read time: 3 minutes

Hey 👋!

Welcome back to another issue of Finance Focus.

Today’s article focuses on how investment bankers are adopting new strategies to safeguard and boost their fee revenues amid increasing regulatory and political challenges.

As major deals face heightened scrutiny, banks are adjusting their fee structures to ensure they’re compensated even when deals fall through.

This shift reflects the resilience and adaptability of the sector, as banks seek to navigate the complexities of modern deal-making.

Here’s the article. Scroll down to read my key takeaways and thoughts on the topic.

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here!

Scroll all the way to the bottom to:

1. See the 3 ways I can help you.

2. Submit 1-click feedback on todays newsletter (doing this helps me improve the newsletter for you).

📰 With No Big Deal Safe, Investment Bankers Move to Safeguard Fees

TL;DR: Investment bankers are changing how they charge fees to ensure more revenue even if deals are blocked by regulators. They’re seeking a larger share of breakup fees (penalties paid if a deal fails to close) and charging higher rates for fairness opinions (professional evaluations of a deal's fairness).

This shift comes as regulatory scrutiny and political opposition to mergers increase, making it harder to close deals. Banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley are adjusting their strategies to maintain profitability amid these challenges.

Key Takeaways:

1. Fee Adjustments: Investment bankers are pushing for fees on deals even when they are halted by regulators. They seek up to 25% of breakup fees (penalties paid if a deal fails to close) and have raised fairness opinion (professional evaluations of a deal's fairness) fees to 20-25% of success fees. This change aims to ensure bankers get paid despite increased deal failures.

2. Regulatory Challenges: Increased regulatory actions in the US and Europe have led banks to adjust their fee structures. US antitrust regulators filed 50 enforcement actions against mergers in a year, the highest in over 20 years, while the European Commission has also increased its scrutiny, issuing several prohibition decisions against deals.

3. Political Risks: Political opposition and economic protectionism add complexity to closing deals. For example, US officials have expressed concerns over Nippon Steel’s $14.9 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel due to opposition from labour unions, illustrating the additional hurdles deals face beyond regulatory approvals.

4. Breakup Fee Examples: Banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley have negotiated higher cuts of breakup fees in recent deals. For instance, in JetBlue's failed bid for Spirit Airlines, Barclays and Morgan Stanley secured about 25% of the termination fee. Similarly, in GTCR’s deal for Worldpay, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs also took a higher cut as announcement fees.

5. Increased Fairness Opinion Fees: The fees for fairness opinions, which are paid even if a deal doesn’t close, have risen significantly. This reflects the higher risk and scrutiny in the current M&A environment, with banks seeking to cover more of their advisory costs upfront.

Personal Thoughts:

1. Resilience in Revenue Strategies: The proactive adjustment in fee structures by investment bankers demonstrates their resilience and strategic foresight in maintaining revenue streams amid regulatory and political challenges. This approach ensures that banks can still secure revenue even when deals fail due to external factors.

2. Market Adaptation: The increased scrutiny by regulators necessitates a more dynamic and adaptable approach by banks, highlighting the evolving nature of the M&A landscape. These adjustments in fee structures show how banks are responding to the new realities of heightened regulatory scrutiny and political risks.

3. Client Impact: Higher fees, even for failed deals, could strain client relationships and affect deal-making dynamics. This underscores the importance of clear communication and value justification by banks to maintain client trust and ensure that clients understand the necessity of these fees in the current environment.

4. Economic Implications: Political and regulatory hurdles not only impact individual deals but also reflect broader economic protectionism trends, which can have significant implications for global M&A activities. The challenges faced by deals like Nippon Steel’s acquisition of U.S. Steel illustrate how geopolitical considerations are increasingly influencing business transactions.

5. Strategic Insights: For investors and companies, understanding these fee adjustments provides valuable insights into the complexities and risks involved in contemporary deal-making. It highlights the importance of strategic planning and regulatory navigation to successfully close deals in a challenging environment.

That’s all for today. In case you missed it: 📰 BlackRock Highlights 'Barbell Effect' as Investors Return to Fixed Income

See you tomorrow!

Afzal

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here!

Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help you:

1. Finance Fast Track™ is my online community helping 16-21 year olds break into the competitive world of finance. Inside I host weekly calls, Q&As, courses and more. Click here to learn more and/or join.

2. Level up your finance and banking knowledge with my in-depth Career Guides. You’ll also get my Goldman Sachs CV and Cover Letter for free with Plus or Premium.

3. Promote yourself or your business to 5,500+ subscribers by sponsoring this newsletter.