Articles

Does the fulcrum security move when enterprise value changes?

A worked capital structure at three enterprise values. The break migrates from the first lien to the subordinated notes without a single document changing.

Julian R. Sterling · from The Distressed Debt Investor

Yes. And it can move two tranches on a swing in enterprise value that a committee paper would round away. That is the whole reason a recovery model has to be built so the break falls out of the arithmetic instead of being typed in by hand.

The fulcrum security is the tranche at which value stops covering claims: the layer above it is paid in full, the layer below it is paid nothing, and it takes the remainder. Its recovery is therefore the only one in the structure that is a partial number, and the only one that is sensitive to the valuation. Everything senior is a par claim. Everything junior is a zero.

Which means the fulcrum is not a property of the capital structure. It is a property of the capital structure and one number you do not know.

A structure, and three valuations

Take the following stack. The amounts are chosen so that the recoveries below come out as whole figures; nothing about the mechanism depends on them.

Claim	Priority	Amount
DIP facility and administrative claims	Superpriority	$100M
First lien term loan	Secured	$350M
Senior unsecured notes	Unsecured	$250M
Subordinated notes	Contractually subordinated	$150M
Total claims		$850M

Now distribute enterprise value down the stack, in order, until it runs out.

Recoveries after the $100M of superpriority claims are paid in full at every value shown. The three highlighted valuations — $450M, $600M and $750M — are the ones the worked example in the book runs.

Enterprise value	First lien	Senior unsecured	Subordinated	Fulcrum
$350M	71c	0	0	First lien
$450M	par	0	0	First lien
$550M	par	40c	0	Senior unsecured
$600M	par	60c	0	Senior unsecured
$700M	par	par	0	Senior unsecured
$750M	par	par	33c	Subordinated
$800M	par	par	67c	Subordinated

What the table is actually saying

Read the senior unsecured column downwards. Between $450M and $700M of enterprise value it is the fulcrum, and its recovery travels from nothing to par. That is a 250-point move in the recovery of a single instrument driven by a 55 percent move in the valuation — and valuations of stressed businesses are routinely argued over a range wider than that.

Now read the subordinated column. At $700M it is worthless. At $750M it recovers 33 cents. A 7 percent increase in enterprise value takes an instrument from a zero to a position with a thesis attached to it.

The asymmetry that matters: the claims above the fulcrum do not move at all across this entire range. Their recovery is insensitive to the number everyone is arguing about. All the sensitivity in the structure is concentrated in one instrument — the one you were thinking of buying.

Why this has to be a formula, not a judgement

It is possible to identify the fulcrum by inspection: total the claims, compare with your valuation, find the layer where the running total crosses it. Analysts do this on paper all the time and get the right answer.

The problem is that the answer is only right for one valuation. Build the model that way and the fulcrum is an assumption you have hardcoded, sitting in a label somewhere, silently wrong the moment anyone changes the multiple. Build it as a waterfall that re-derives the break from whatever enterprise value is in the input cell, and the label moves by itself. You type one number and watch the fulcrum migrate.

That difference sounds like modelling hygiene. It is not. It changes what you can see. A hardcoded fulcrum answers “which tranche breaks at my valuation?” A derived one answers a more useful question: how far can I be wrong before I own the wrong instrument?

Three things that move the fulcrum without touching the valuation

• Administrative and professional fees. They are paid ahead of everything and they are not small. Every dollar of fee leakage reduces the value available to pre-petition claims one for one, which pushes the break upward through the stack.
• New money. A DIP facility is superpriority. It does not merely rank ahead of the existing claims; it subtracts from what they can reach. A $100M DIP in the structure above moves the break up by the equivalent of $100M of lost enterprise value.
• Structural seniority you did not model. Debt at an operating subsidiary is satisfied out of that subsidiary's assets before anything reaches the holding company. Two instruments described as “senior unsecured” can sit on opposite sides of the break because of where they were issued.

Each of these is a reason the fulcrum found in a screen turns out not to be the fulcrum in the case. None of them requires anyone to change their view of what the business is worth.

The practical test

Before sizing a position on a fulcrum thesis, run the valuation across a range wide enough to be embarrassing — not plus or minus five percent, but the range an opposing expert would actually argue. Then look at what you own at each end. If the instrument is the fulcrum throughout, the thesis is about recovery. If it flips to par at one end and zero at the other, the thesis is about the valuation, and it should be sized like a valuation call rather than a credit one.

Also on this site

• What an 80-cent recovery is actually worthComposition and time do more damage to a recovery than the headline number suggests. Two arithmetic steps most screens skip.
• How the GP catch-up is actually solvedMost write-ups state the catch-up formula then hardcode the answer. Set it as a solve and it moves on its own when the carry rate does.
• Two routes to the same NAVFive findings in one quarter-end close, and not one of them was a modelling error. Every one was a control that did not exist.
• When the promote stops clearingCarried interest is not proportional to performance near the hurdle. It is a step function, and $2m of headroom is what stands between a promote and none.
• European vs American waterfall, and the clawbackThe same deals, the same total profit, two calculation orders — and a $9M promise to repay that is only as good as the entity that made it.