After reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.
Attention: Intentional misstatements or omissions of fact constitute Federal criminal violations (see 18 U.S.C. 1001).
The undersigned agree that this Schedule 13D, dated March 27, 2017, relating to the Common Stock, par value $0.001 of DigitalGlobe, Inc. shall be filed on behalf of the undersigned.
Mr. Jeffrey R. Tarr
President and Chief Executive Officer
DigitalGlobe, Inc.
1300 W. 120th Ave
Westminster, CO 80234
Dear Jeff:
Edenbrook Capital, LLC currently owns 260,125 shares of DigitalGlobe, Inc. (the "Company" or "DGI"), representing approximately 0.4% of the outstanding common stock of the Company. While our ownership stake in DGI is not significant as a percentage of the total size of the Company, this position is a meaningful portion of our assets under management. As such, on behalf of our investors, we feel compelled to declare our belief that the recently announced acquisition of the Issuer by Macdonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. ("MDA") significantly undervalues DGI's business, based on meaningfully higher trading and transaction multiples for comparable companies.
We have been shareholders in DGI for over five years. During that time, we have seen the Company go through a dramatic transformation, fueled by what we view as operational excellence. During this period the Company:
1) | Executed significant margin expansion, from 38% in 2012 to 52% in 2016 |
2) | Acquired and successfully integrated its largest competitor, GeoEye |
3) | Substantially grew the portion of revenue that is recurring |
4) | Transitioned from a cash user to a substantial cash generator, and lowered the capital intensity of the business to be able to sustain cash generation going forward |
5) | Widened the Company's competitive moat meaningfully, by launching WorldView-3 and WorldView-4, the industry's leading high resolution earth imaging satellites, and by greatly expanding the Company's image library, a competitive advantage that grows daily |
6) | Opportunistically repurchased approximately 20% of the Company, one of several shareholder friendly initiatives that also included multiple open-market purchases of stock by several members of the management team and the board of directors |
Further, the Company achieved all of this during a period of declining defense budgets, the largest end market for the Company's geospatial imaging services. Now with defense budgets poised to expand for the first time in many years, we believe that the Company could achieve further financial improvement.
Despite all of these accomplishments and potential for future success, the Company has a current enterprise value that is below where it was before the GeoEye acquisition, before the launch of either WorldView-3 and WorldView-4 and before the Company initially launched its share repurchase program, which on your second quarter 2014 earnings call you said was being done to "maximize shareowner value." How does this valuation therefore fairly reflect all that the Company has accomplished?
We believe that DGI's assets, including its image library and competitive positioning, should give it meaningful scarcity value, and don't think that this valuation remotely reflects this franchise value. The multiple of enterprise value to EBITDA implied by the MDA acquisition is slightly over 8x. U.S. defense contractors are trading at 12.5x EBITDA. In other words these companies are trading at more than four turns above the multiple at which DGI is transacting, not only undervaluing the current business, in our opinion, but also not offering any control premium for a private market transaction. With each turn of EBITDA being worth approximately $6.50 per share of DGI, these four additional turns in a comparable company would be worth an additional $26 per share, more than 80% above the current DGI price. Information services companies, to which the Company has long compared itself, trade several turns above defense contractors, suggesting even more upside potential. Transaction multiples for information services business have been in the 16-20x EBITDA level in recent years, more than double the valuation implied by the MDA offer.
Even MDA, which compared to DGI is a lower margin, lumpier, highly leveraged (and becoming more leveraged) company, trades at 10.5x EBITDA. How could DGI not be worth at least the valuation of its proposed acquiror, given the superior quality of DGI's business? Just those additional two turns of EBITDA would be worth another $13 per DGI share, more than 40% above the current DGI price.
What's more, per the terms of the deal, DGI shareholders are being asked to accept half of the consideration in cash and half in stock. After years of DGI management telling shareholders how valuable it was to be increasing recurring revenue, expanding margins and deleveraging, why would those same shareholders want to exchange their stock for that of the complete reverse, a lumpy, lower margin, re-leveraging company? Ordinarily, we would expect that in order to be asked to take a lower valuation, we would be getting our consideration entirely in cash. Or, if we were being asked to accept the stock of a lower quality business, that we would be doing so at a valuation much higher than that of competitors, let alone that of the acquiror itself. Instead, we are being offered a low valuation and stock in a lower quality business.
Further, because the acquiror is Canadian, we are being asked to accept additional risks associated with regulatory approval, foreign exchange and potential protectionist policies from the new administration. A full price could provide some compensation for these potential risks, but as stated above, we don't believe it is fair, and given the highly leveraged balance sheet of MDA, we don't think they can offer much more in cash.
Although DGI is trading at over 2.5x where it was 14 months ago, that doesn't mean that this transaction represents fair value. In our opinion, last year the stock simply traded down to a ridiculously low valuation and has rebounded to now just being cheap, as compared to values implied by its historical valuation levels, comparable companies and private market transactions (by a lot).
DGI management and the board have done many things historically that are shareholder friendly, and have long espoused the importance of maximizing shareholder value. After so much success in building this company, why would you fall short now, in your final opportunity to truly maximize value? We do
not believe that this is the best deal that shareholders can receive and we urge you to find a deal that offers more value. Scour the earth if you have to...you certainly have the tools at your disposal to do so.
| Sincerely, |
| |
| /s/ Jonathan Brolin |
| Jonathan Brolin Managing Partner |