Skip to main content
Skip to content
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Case File
d-30262House OversightOther

Morgan Stanley research note on Apollo Global Management valuation scenarios

The document is a standard financial analysis discussing upside/downside valuation scenarios for Apollo Global Management. It contains no allegations, misconduct, or links to high‑profile political or Scenario analysis of fee‑related earnings for Apollo Global Management (APO). Assumes a 24% tax rate for C‑corp conversion and evaluates sum‑of‑the‑parts valuation. Provides numerical estimates for u

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #025558
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The document is a standard financial analysis discussing upside/downside valuation scenarios for Apollo Global Management. It contains no allegations, misconduct, or links to high‑profile political or Scenario analysis of fee‑related earnings for Apollo Global Management (APO). Assumes a 24% tax rate for C‑corp conversion and evaluates sum‑of‑the‑parts valuation. Provides numerical estimates for u

Tags

valuationinvestment-researchmorgan-stanleyhouse-oversightapollo-global-managementfinance

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Morgan Stanley | RESEARCH NORTH AMERICA INSIGHT ~~ Impact to Current Valuations in Upside and Downside Case In the sections following we explain in greater detail our approach to potential Upside/Downside scenarios and the impact to valuation under potential conversion. The actual impact is very difficult to quantify given the variety of moving pieces and the reliance on investors to drive the a re-rating. We have pre- sented it as a scenario analysis to evaluate conversion on a risk reward spectrum. Upside/downside scenarios show a positive skew for companies that have higher earnings contribution from manage- ment fees vs. more downside skew for companies with more per- formance fees (less certain re-rating of performance fees). As the examples herein illustrate, we see significant value in the re-rating of fee-related earnings that could unlock share value and result in higher stock prices. We believe these stable and growing fee earnings can support higher multiples and broader own- Exhibit 6: ership of the Alts and be the catalyst for the re-rating (explained in greater detail in the sections that follow). In both our upside and downside approaches we look at a Sum-of-the-Parts that values at) fee-related earnings, 2) balance sheet investments and net cash, 3) the net accrued carry balance, and&) future value of carry. In both the current and upside case we use a fully taxed fee-related earnings at a 24% tax rate and our value for the balance sheet remains unchanged in both scenarios as well. However, we make several adjustments to our upside and downside case to reflect a C-corp structure with full tax rate on all earnings: 1) Tax the net accrued carry receivable balance at a24%.2) Tax our esti- mate for average net carry earnings at a full 24% rate. Further, in the upside case we also adjust the multiple upwards for fee related earn- ings driven by broader ownership of the stocks, and we conserva- Potential Upside Scenario SOTP Valuation for APO. We see potentially significant value from a re-rating of fee-related earnings driving higher valua- tion Apollo Global Management (APO) Downside Case Upside Case C- Sum-of-the-Parts Components Cortent APO) Price ( SOTP 2018e Pre-Tax Core FRE / Sh $1.66 Tax Rate 24% Fee Rel eo) 6 Poesancerr Gere oh $1.26 Earnings FRE Multiple 1510x Core FRE Value $18.94 + Balance Balance Sheet Net Cash and $2.72 Sheet Investments / Sh (as of 3Q17) . Accrued Net Accrued Carry / Sh (as of $2.16 Carry 3Q17) . a Avg Net Carried interest / Sh $2.45 Market (2018e-2020e) ‘ Implied Carry ; Market Implied Carry Value I $12.61! Total Value $36.42 Valuation 2018e EPS $3.68 P/E 9.9x Source: Thomson Reuters Company Data, Morgan Stanley Research estimates C-Corp Corp Conversion Conversion $1.66 0% $1.66 0% 24% 0% 24% 0% $1.26 0% $1.26 0% 15.0x 0.0x 22.5Xx 15x $18.94 0% $28.40 $2.72 0% $2.72 0% $1.64 -24% $1.64 -24% $1.86 -24% $1.86 -24% 4.2x -0.9x 7.1x 2.0x $7.91 -37% $13.30 6% $31.20 14% $46.07 (26% $3.15 -14% $3.15 -14% 9.9x 0.0x 14.6x 4.7x

Related Documents (6)

House OversightUnknown

Industry overview of Curaleaf, CV Sciences, Elixinol, and Green Thumb Industries CBD product lines (Feb 2019)

Industry overview of Curaleaf, CV Sciences, Elixinol, and Green Thumb Industries CBD product lines (Feb 2019) The passage provides a market‑focused summary of several publicly traded cannabis/MSO companies and their product expansions. It contains no specific allegations, financial flows, or connections to high‑level officials, but it does mention revenue figures and growth rates that could be useful for baseline industry analysis. Because it lacks any reference to powerful actors, controversial actions, or actionable leads, its investigative value is limited. Key insights: Curaleaf launched a CBD line sold in 47 states, targeting pharmacy chains and grocery stores.; Curaleaf reported ~$45 M revenue for FY9M18 with 247% YoY growth and 57% gross margin.; CV Sciences’ PlusCBD Oi! brand generated ~$34 M revenue FY9M18, 153% YoY growth, 72% gross margin.

1p
House OversightUnknown

Tax Guidance on Converting Hedge Fund Partnerships to C Corporations After 2018 Tax Reform

Tax Guidance on Converting Hedge Fund Partnerships to C Corporations After 2018 Tax Reform The document outlines potential tax planning strategies for investment managers following the 2018 corporate tax rate reduction. It mentions no specific individuals, firms, or illicit activity, offering only generic guidance that is already public and unlikely to generate controversy or actionable investigative leads. Key insights: New 21% corporate tax rate creates incentive for partnership entities to convert to C corporations.; Conversion deadline for S corporation status may be March 15, 2018.; IRS anti‑abuse rules (accumulated earnings tax, personal holding company tax) could become enforcement focus.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Tom Sze

2p
House OversightUnknown

Ares Management SOTP Valuation Exhibit – Financial Projections

Ares Management SOTP Valuation Exhibit – Financial Projections The passage contains only internal valuation tables and financial metrics for Ares Management, with no mention of individuals, transactions, or potential misconduct. It offers no investigative leads. Key insights: Provides projected pre‑tax and after‑tax core FRE per share for 2018.; Shows various valuation multiples and implied share price scenarios.; Cites Morgan Stanley and Thomson Reuters data sources.

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "Silvina Royston" <MI=IMM>

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Market Overview of Publicly Traded Cannabis Companies Across U.S., Canadian, and Australian Exchanges

The passage provides aggregate financial data on cannabis‑related publicly traded firms and outlines exchange listing requirements. It contains no specific allegations, names, transactions, or links t Most cannabis companies trade on OTC in the U.S. due to lax regulations. Canadian exchanges (TSX, TSXV, CSE) have varying listing standards. CSE permits U.S. cannabis operations, unlike TSX/TSXV.

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.