Citigroup takes over EMI, loses £2.2bn

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
10,632
Location
Notts
EMI taken over by Citigroup in deal to write off debts

US banking giant Citigroup has taken over the ownership of EMI, the music company where it was the major creditor.

The bank had loaned money to Guy Hands' private equity firm Terra Firma to help it to buy the business in 2007.

But the £4.2bn takeover was a failure, with Terra Firma believing it massively overpaid for the company.

Now it has been forced to hand EMI over to Citi after not being able to keep up interest payments on the loans.
'Positive development'

EMI, which is home to artists including Lily Allen, The Beatles, Coldplay and Tinie Tempah said it would continue under the same management and that it was now completely separate from its previous owner.

Citigroup said it would eventually sell EMI.

Industry speculation suggests another record label would probably be the buyer - with Warner Music among the more likely candidates for the recorded music business. Meanwhile its publishing operation may be sold to another private equity firm, KKR, says BBC business editor Robert Peston.

Terra Firma and its backers have lost the entire £1.7bn they put into EMI.

Meanwhile Citigroup has written down what it is owed from £3.4bn to £1.2bn - which meaning that it has incurred a loss of £2.2bn.

Analysts had predicted Citi would eventually seize control, but developments have happened more quickly than most had expected.

Citi vice chairman Stephen Volk said EMI now had a strong balance sheet and "the ability to invest in and grow its business".

"This is a positive development for EMI, its employees, artists, songwriters and suppliers. EMI is an iconic business and we are completely supportive of both its management and its strategy," he added.

In a statement Terra Firma said it was "pleased that EMI's debt burden has been reduced through Citi agreeing to write down a substantial proportion of EMI's debt".
'Devalued'

In October, a New York judge dismissed a claim by Mr Hands that Citi had misled it over the acquisition.

He had argued he had not been informed that a rival bidder had already pulled out, resulting in his firm overpaying for the record company.

Last month Terra Firma said its lawyers had appealed against that decision. The US Court of Appeals will now have to decide if the appeal can go ahead.

Over the past two, Mr Hands has floated all manner of possible solutions to raise enough money to prevent the bank seizing control of EMI.

They included splitting EMI into two and even selling off assets such as the world-renowned Abbey Road studios.

But his best hope was to lease the North American rights to EMI's back catalogue to another of the Big Four major labels - but that aspiration collapsed amid arguments over price.

The purchase of EMI by the private equity firm brought it into conflict with some of its artists who said that financial matters were taking priority over creativity.

Radiohead, one of the label's biggest acts, left EMI saying the owners did not understand the music industry, with lead singer Thom Yorke later claiming music was being "devalued" by the involvement of a private equity firm treating bands "as simply part of their stock".

The Rolling Stones and Joss Stone were among others who left the label under Terra Firma's ownership.

From the BBC.

What a crazy saga. The 2007 acquisition will surely go down as one of the worst takeovers in history- why on earth would you invest £4.2 billion into a record company when it is likely that their takings are going to come under severe pressure from the changes in the industry (buying online, the rise of pirating, decline of cd's).

It was a ridiclously over-inflated price and has led to a huge writedown, incidentally Citigroup were one of the biggest beneficiaries of American governmental bailout funds.

A small contributor to one of the big reasons we're paying more tax!
 
Last edited:
Joke isnt it.

Similar story to Nokia.
They bought Symbian for loads of cash even though it was obvious Android was going to be the main mobile OS.

They lost loads of money, blagged a bailout from the EU and have now ditched Sybian and are using Windows Mobile.

Glad my tax paid for that amazing decision.

a more cynical person might think it wasn't an accident.
 
I dont see how it is.

Greed- lack of prudent fiscal management (massively over valuing assets and deals), taking silly risks on investments which are never going to pay off. Multiply this by a very large factor and you can see where things lead.
 
Greed- lack of prudent fiscal management (massively over valuing assets and deals), taking silly risks on investments which are never going to pay off. Multiply this by a very large factor and you can see where things lead.

So bad business practice and nothing to do with us paying more tax.
 
Joke isnt it.

Similar story to Nokia.
They bought Symbian for loads of cash even though it was obvious Android was going to be the main mobile OS.

They lost loads of money, blagged a bailout from the EU and have now ditched Sybian and are using Windows Mobile.

Glad my tax paid for that amazing decision.

a more cynical person might think it wasn't an accident.


Even if Android is ahead of Symbian, both iOS and RiM are not. (in terms of units shipped). So not necessarily the worst idea. Compared to the same time last year, the amount of phones Nokia shipped using Symbian was up by 30%. (Yes, the amount Android increased was far higher, but just because one is successful, does not mean the other is not.)

It cannot have been 'obvious' that Android would be better since the OS is only a couple of years old. It was only in last quarter of 2010 that Android overtook Symbian.

Source -

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/17433c60-2d31-11e0-9b0f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1ClN3CXJl
 
Last edited:
Greed- lack of prudent fiscal management (massively over valuing assets and deals), taking silly risks on investments which are never going to pay off. Multiply this by a very large factor and you can see where things lead.

Thats not the point you made, the point you made states that this specific incident is a contributer to the increases UK tax payers have had to make, I dont see how it is.
 
"its backers have lost the entire £1.7bn they put into EMI"

gees I was pig sick I lost £1 in the vending machine earlier... but 1,700,000,000 i'd be at the very least 1.7billion times more pig sick
 
I guess Apple will buy them, they have billions of spare cash in the bank.

By buying a large label they can force other labels to do what they want.
 
Ok, so this specific incident hasn't resulted in British citizens paying more tax, it was just an illustration of some of the crazy decision making at very large financial institutions, and the fact that we're quite often paying for it- the acquisition of ABN AMRO by a consortium involving RBS (with a £10bn stake) being another example, one which we actually are paying for.
 
To be clear though Citigroup hasn't decided to buy anything - it was a lender to Guy Hands when his vehicle bought the record company - EMI couldn't pay the bills so Citigroup foreclosed on the debts. A write-down is inevitable given the relatively poor performance of the sector and the probable premium paid at acquisition. Citigroup would not have made the loan at the time unless it thought there was sufficient return in the investment and cash flow in it to meet payments at the valuation. So perhaps not a great decision, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Citigroup is desperate for cash at the moment so will sell EMI for what it can get at a reasonsable current value - pretty good business sense there really.
 
When in doubt blame the banks.

Actually some of the banks have faced some serious allegations when it comes to large takeovers, in that they have either acted for both seller and buyer or had some financial benefit outside of their fee that an increased purchase price would trigger.

I can easily see the validity of Guys Hands argument, that Citibank failed to disclose that the other bidder had pulled out, therefore increasing the purchase price and their percentage of the deal. Just because it's been thrown out by a judge doesn't mean there isn't a bit of truth behind the accusation, just that it can't be proven in court.
 
To be clear though Citigroup hasn't decided to buy anything - it was a lender to Guy Hands when his vehicle bought the record company - EMI couldn't pay the bills so Citigroup foreclosed on the debts. A write-down is inevitable given the relatively poor performance of the sector and the probable premium paid at acquisition. Citigroup would not have made the loan at the time unless it thought there was sufficient return in the investment and cash flow in it to meet payments at the valuation. So perhaps not a great decision, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Citigroup is desperate for cash at the moment so will sell EMI for what it can get at a reasonsable current value - pretty good business sense there really.

Agreed, key point being though that they thought there was sufficient return in the investment. As you say though, hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it was still a shocking decision.

Investors are often too sheepish, they get caught up in hype and the zeitgeist of the city. They should stick to their investing principles rather than swinging too far between optimism and pessimism when times foster it.
 
Fusion, could you give a link for that source please? It's quite interesting and very relevant to my dissertation :)
 
Music Industry & Piracy, there was a thread I started a few months ago asking for survey participants regarding their actions for obtaining music, both legally and illegally. If you're really interested you can have a read of if when it's finished?
 
Back
Top Bottom