In: Finance
Please give me the correct answer:
Jacobs Engineering Group had its target price increased
by analysts at KeyCorp from $82.00 to $86.00 in a research note
issued to investors on Wednesday, Benzinga Ratings Tables reports.
The firm currently has an "overweight" rating on the construction
company's stock. KeyCorp's price target indicates a potential
upside of 7.69% from the company's current price. Other research
analysts have also issued research reports about the company. MKM
Partners lifted their price target on Jacobs Engineering Group to
$87.00 and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report on Tuesday,
February 26th. ValuEngine upgraded Jacobs Engineering Group from a
"hold" rating to a "buy" rating in a report on Monday, February
25th. Cowen set a $82.00 price objective on Jacobs Engineering
Group and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report on Wednesday,
February 20th. Citigroup set a $83.00 price objective on Jacobs
Engineering Group and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report on
Wednesday, February 20th. Finally, Robert W. Baird set a $83.00
price objective on Jacobs Engineering Group and gave the stock a
"buy" rating in a report on Wednesday, February 20th. Two equities
research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and
fifteen have issued a buy rating to the company's stock. Jacobs
Engineering Group has a consensus rating of "Buy" and a consensus
target price of $84.55.
The case above reports that two of the equities research analysts
have rated the stock with a “hold” rating. If the two equities
research analysts are right, what results must have found about the
value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock?
1. Two equities research analysts found that the current market price of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above the book value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.
2. Two equities research analysts found that the current market price of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is equal to the intrinsic value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.
3. Two equities research analysts found that the current book of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above the intrinsic value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.
4. Two equities research analysts found that the intrinsic value of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above to the current common stock price of Jacobs Engineering Group.
5. none of the answers is correct.
Benchmark, the Silicon Valley venture firm and early
investor in Uber, has sued former CEO Travis
Kalanick.
In a Delaware Chancery Court filing, originally identified
by Axios’ Dan Primack, the suit alleges that Kalanick committed
fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Both
Kalanick and Benchmark hold Uber board seats.
Accusing Kalanick of being “selfish” by packing Uber’s
board with “loyal allies,” Benchmark alleges that the ousted CEO
broke the law by trying to pave the way.
The board of directors and corporate managers work together and at
times, because they know each other well, there could be an
entrenchment among them. As the alleged claim is true CEO Travis
Kalanick committed fraud, breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty to benefit himself, what kind of problem in a
corporation describes the situation the best?
1. managers benefiting themselves rather than the shareholders of the company is called “fiduciary problem.”
2. managers benefiting the shareholders of the company rather than themselves is called “corporate governance.”
3. managers benefiting the shareholders of the company rather than themselves is called “agency problem.”
4. none of the answers is correct.
5. managers benefiting themselves rather than the shareholders of the company is called “agency problem.”
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of EQT Corporation (“EQT” or the “Company”). The
investigation concerns whether EQT and certain of its officers
and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful
business practices.
On June 19, 2017, EQT announced entry into an agreement to
acquire Rice Energy Inc. (“Rice”) for total consideration of $6.7
billion (the “Acquisition”). EQT touted the purported benefits of
the proposed merger, telling its shareholders that the Acquisition
would result in $2.5 billion in synergies, including $100 million
in cost savings in 2018 alone. On July 3, 2017, activist investor
JANA Partners LLC (“JANA”), in several letters citing detailed
evidence, asserted that the Rice merger synergies were “grossly
exaggerated” and that according to JANA’s expert analysis, “it
would be impossible for EQT to support its claimed synergy drilling
plan.” Nonetheless, EQT repeatedly denied JANA’s assertions and
reassured investors of the merits of the Acquisition. EQT and Rice
shareholders thereafter approved the Acquisition. After the
Acquisition closed in November 2017, EQT continued to tout the
“significant operational synergies” or the merger that would
purportedly allow EQT to become “one of the lowest-cost operators
in the United States.” On March 15, 2018, just five months after
the Acquisition closed, EQT announced the sudden and unexpected
resignation of Steven T. Schlotterbeck as the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer. Then, on October 25, 2018, EQT reported
surprisingly bad third-quarter financial results caused by a
significant increase in total costs, which were $586.2 million
higher than in the same period of the prior year. Moreover, EQT
disclosed that its estimated capital expenditures for well
development in 2018 would increase by $300 million, to $2.5
billion, as a result of “inefficiencies from higher activity
levels, the learning curve on ultra-long horizontal wells, and
service cost increases.” As a result, EQT reduced its full-year
forecast for 2018. These disclosures were at odds with EQT’s prior
representations concerning the purported synergies of the
Acquisition.
On this news, EQT’s stock price fell $2.79 per share, or
12.65%, to close at $19.24 per share on October 25,
2018.
Which one of the goals will be appropriate for Steven T.
Schlotterbeck as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer to
follow?
1. Shareholders wealth maximization.
2. Short-term profit maximization.
3. Sales and net income maximization.
4. Free cash flow maximization.
5. none of the answers is correct.
When Ultra Petroleum Corp. emerges from bankruptcy
protection in the coming weeks, as expected, the natural gas
producer's chief executive is on track to be rewarded with roughly
$35 million worth of its stock, more than 10 times his annual
compensation in recent years.
Michael Watford, the CEO, and other employees at the
Houston company are sharing 7.5% of the Ultra's new shares, a
fairly typical cut awarded to managers of companies emerging from
bankruptcy protection to incentivize them to stick around. Bankrupt
companies usually issue new stock when they emerge from bankruptcy,
replacing their old shares.
What's unusual in Ultra's case is the size of the pie from
which that slice is coming: The company's postbankruptcy equity
value has been set at about $4 billion, meaning that its employees
are due some $300 million of stock, 40% of it to be doled out the
day its new shares are launched, according to court filings and
people familiar with the matter. The rest would be distributed at
the discretion of its board.
While Ultra Petroleum Corp. emerges from bankruptcy protection,
Michael Watford, the CEO of the company, will be rewarded with
roughly $35 million worth of its stock. Do you think this is
consistent with the firm’s goal?
1. The amount of the award is outrageous, and it is inconsistent with the sales maximization goal.
2. none of the answers is correct.
3. There's more to Uber IPO flop than meets the eye: It’s clear now
that Uber Technologies Inc’s initial public offering will be left
with a less than five-star review. The stock remains below its IPO
price, and many people have heaped fault on the bankers who told
executives that Uber could be worth $120 billion.
4. Even though the amount awarded is outrageous, the incentivizing top managers with bonuses is consistent with the shareholders wealth maximization goal.
5. Even though the amount awarded is outrages, the incentivizing top managers with bonuses is consistent with the shareholders sales maximization goal.
6. The amount of the award is outrageous, and it is inconsistent with the shareholders wealth maximization goal.
First question:
The correct answer is option 2. Two equities research analysts found that the current market price of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is equal to the intrinsic value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.
The "HOLD"rating usually signals that the stock is sufficiently price and the market price is nearly equal to its intrinsic value. Hence, there is nearly no upside by investment. Hence, the HOLD rating.
------------------------
Second question:
The correct answer is the option 5. managers benefiting themselves rather than the shareholders of the company is called “agency problem.”
An agency problem commonly exists between the Shareholders and the managers, if the goals are not aligned.
------------------------
Third question
The correct answer is option 1. Shareholders wealth maximization.
This should be the primary goal of the CEO
-----------------------------
Fourth question
The correct answer is the last option: 4. Even though the amount awarded is outrageous, the incentivizing top managers with bonuses is consistent with the shareholders wealth maximization goal.