百思买（Best Buy）创始人迪克•舒尔策日前暗示，有意以每股24-26美元的价格收购这家陷入困境的电子产品零售商，交易估值最高可达88亿美元。

    即便是下限每股24美元，也比百思买上周五收盘价高出36%。那么，为什么周一我写这篇稿子时百思买股价只涨了约14%？是不是有什么新的交易策略，比如，将22%设为最高价差？

    我唯一能想到的是，交易员们并不真地相信会出现这样的收购。或者，至少收购价不会是每股24-26美元。

    一个主要原因是舒尔策没有明确说明将如何筹集到这88亿美元。舒尔策在致百思买董事会的一封信中写道：“交易资金来源将包含私募股权公司投资，我个人约10亿美元的股权投资以及债务融资。”

    舒尔策补充说，他“已经与几家在零售领域有丰富经验的一流私募股权公司进行了洽谈，”他在瑞士信贷（Credit Suisse）的银行家们“对于实现必要的债务融资非常有信心”。

    听起来不错，但这些绝不是主动收购要约通常提供的那类细节。比如，那些“一流私募股权公司”有没有表明交易兴趣？只有会谈并没有太大意义。”事实上，我在写这篇文章前也和“几家在零售领域有丰富经验的一流私募股权公司进行了会谈”，但是目的只是为写这篇文章做准备。显然，这些私募股权公司不会支持我收购本地购物中心的那间移动电话柜台，更别提收购百思买了。

    当然，我不是暗示舒尔策在编造买盘兴趣。我只是在试图解释为何市场对此反应平淡。

    或许有少数交易员知道，有一项明尼苏达州法律禁止舒尔策不经董事会批准便组建投资者财团——这项规定可追溯到当初莱恩•里吉奥试图购买塔吉特百货公司（Target Corp.）前身的时候。另外，我在私募股权界的消息人士也认为，短期内不会宣布任何出资承诺。换言之，即便舒尔策今天获得了董事会批准，也不太可能明天就宣布私募股权公司的名字。就算下周也不可能。

    让人迟疑的还有前面提到的债务融资并未落实。瑞士信贷有信心，这不错，但为什么没有拿到一些人的书面承诺？明尼苏达州法律并没有明令禁止为放贷人提供保障，大银行可能会要求放贷的前提是获批股权投资交易的签署。而且，如果大型私募股权公司不能获得协议融资，它们还愿意进行此项交易吗？有可能，但它也再次解释了，为什么现在百思买的股价没有达到25美元左右。

    最后，这基本上不太可能吸引竞购（从而推高售价）。限于规模和投资行业侧重，有可能参与这项收购的私募股权公司也不多，可能总共也就是10家，包括贝恩资本（Bain Capital Partners）、里奥纳德•格林合伙公司（Leonard Green & Partners）、KKR集团（Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.）和德克萨斯太平洋投资集团（TPG Capital）。或许舒尔策需要联手其中两、三家，才能筹集到约30亿美元的股本（包括他自己的10亿美元）。他不选择的那些公司可能出价更低，如果是这样，它们为什么它们要联合起来出更高的价格呢？

    假如百思买最终真的被私有化，所有这些可能都不重要。但这有助于解释为什么今天似乎没有多少人赌百思买会被收购。

    译者：早稻米

    Best Buy (BBY) founder Dick Schulze today indicated an interest in buying the troubled electronics retailer for upwards of $8.8 billion, or between $24 and $26 per share.

    At the low end, that would represent around a 36% premium to Friday's closing price for Best Buy stock. So why are shares up only around 14% as of this writing? Is there some sort of new trading strategy where 22% is the margin maximum?

    All I can figure is that traders don't really believe this deal is going to happen. Or at least not at $24-$26 per share.

    One big reason may be that Schulze hasn't specifically explained how he's going to come up with the $8.8 billion. In a letter to the company's board of directors, he writes that "the transaction would be financed through a combination of investments from private equity firms, my equity investment of approximately $1 billion, and debt financing."

    Schulze adds that he has "had conversations with several premier private equity firms with deep experience in retail," and that his bankers at Credit Suisse (CS) are "highly confident that it can arrange the necessary debt financing."

    That's all well and good, but it's hardly the type of specificity that usually accompanies unsolicited buyout offers. For example, did those "premier private equity firms" indicate an interest in doing the deal? Just having conversations with them doesn't mean too much." In fact, I had "conversations with several premier private equity firms with deep experience in retail" earlier today, as prep for writing this story. Pretty sure they wouldn't back my takeover attempt for the mobile phone kiosk at my local mall, let alone Best Buy.

    To be clear, I'm not suggesting that Schulze is making up buy-side interest. I'm just trying to explain the lack of market excitement.

    Chances are that few traders understand the Minnesota law Schulze believes prevents him from putting together an investor consortium without prior board consent -- a rule dating back to when Len Riggio tried to take over what is now Target Corp. (TGT). Moreover, my private equity sources don't think that any sponsorship commitments are imminent. In other words, even if Schulze got board approval today, it's highly unlikely that he'd be announcing private equity names tomorrow. Or even next week.

    Adding to the hesitance is the aforementioned lack of committed debt financing. It's all well and good that Credit Suisse is confident, but why not get it in writing from someone? There's no Minnesota law against securing lenders, and a bulge-bracket bank could make the deal conditional on an approved equity sponsor being signed. Moreover, will big private equity firms be willing to do the deal if they can't get covenant-lite financing (which they can't)? Possible, but again goes to explain why Best Buy shares aren't currently trading in the mid-$20s.

    Finally, there is virtually no chance for this to become a competitive process (thus bumping the sale price higher). There is a very limited universe of potential private equity firms for this deal, based on size and sector focus. Maybe 10 total, including Bain Capital Partners, Leonard Green & Partners, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and TPG Capital. Chances are that Schulze will need to partner with two or three of them, in order to fund the $3 billion or so of equity (including his own $1 billion). Those he doesn't choose were likely lower on price, so why would they band together to offer more?

    None of this necessarily matters in terms of Best Buy ultimately being taken private. But it does help explain why so few people today seem to be betting on such an outcome.