Parenting theory Essays

Parenting theory Essays Parenting theory Essay Parenting theory Essay Parenting org will try to answer 2 question: which business should we own? What parenting approach will get the best performance from those busineses? Instead of looking at how businesses relate to one another, a parent organization should look at how well its skill fit its businesses needs and whether owning them creates or destroy value. Parenting theory suggest that most CEO should concern with two crucial questions: what business should this company, rather than rival, own and why? And What org structure. Management process and philosophy will foster superior performance from its businesses? The best parent companies create more value in their businesses than rivals would. Multi business bring together under a parent org businesses that could potentially be independent. Such parent company can justify themselves economically only of their influence creates value. For example: The parent org can improve business plan and budget , promote better linkages among them, provide especially competent central function or make wise choices in its own acquisitions , divestment and new ventures. How corporate parenting add value to its businesses units? That occur when the parents skills and resources fit well with the needs and opportunities of the businesses. If there is not a fit, the parent is likely destroy value. A parent that does not understand the critical success factors in a business is likely to destroy vale. To add value: ICM, Restructure, Knowledge, transfer skill and sharing activities. A parent without detailed knowledge of a business market my not be aware of the opportunity to combine sales. Synergy. Five type of synergies: Cost savings, Revenue enhancements, process improvements, financial engineering and tax benefit. COST SAVINGS This is the most common type of synergy and the easiest to estimate. Peter Shaw, head of mergers and acquisitions at the British chemical and pharmaceutical company ICI, refers to cost savings as hard synergies and points out that the level of certainty that they will be achieved is quite high. Usually, they come from eliminating jobs, facilities, and related expenses that are no longer needed when functions are consolidated, or they come from economies of scale in purchasing. Cost savings are likely to be especially large when one company acquires another from the same industry in the same country. For example, SBC Communications, the former South-western Bell, realized substantial cost savings when it acquired Pacific Telesis. Within the first two years of this merger, SBC saved more than $200 million in information-technology operating and maintenance costs. It also saved tens of millions of dollars by combining the merged companies purchasing power. Even though cost savings are t he easiest synergy to calculate, overly optimistic projections certainly do occur, so you need to look very carefully at the numbers you 1 re presented with. If youre evaluating projections, be aware of three common problems. First, analysts may overlook the fact that definitions of cost categories vary from company to company. (For example, are warranty costs included in the cost of production or the cost of sales?) So it may appear that there are more easily eliminated costs in a category than turn out to be the case. Second, costs are incurred in different places depending on the structure of each company. Acquirers may assume they can eliminate more corporate or divisional administrative costs than they actually can because essential work is getting done in unexpected places. Third, it is easier to eliminate positions than the people who fill them. Often a job is eliminated on paper, but the person in the job is very talented and must be shifted ewhere in the company. Therefore, if a consolidation Ins to suggest that 200 jobs are destined for the ax, that doesnt mean that 200 salaries are, too Acquirers often underestimate how long it will take to realize cost savings. Sometimes that happens because the plans specifying how integration will proceed are insufficiently detailed. In other cases, it happens because the people in both companies are resistant to change, and senior managers often delay making tough cost cutting decisions. And, of course, the longer it takes for cost savings to be realized, the less value they create. REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS Its sometimes possible for an acquirer and its target to achieve a higher level of sales growth together than either company could on its own. Revenue enhancements are notoriously hard to estimate, however, because they involve external variables beyond managements control. The customer base of the acquired company, for instance, may react negatively to different prices and product features. A combined customer base may balk at making too many purchases from a single supplier. And competitors may lower their prices in response to an acquisition. Revenue enhancements are so difficult to predict, in fact, that some wise companies dont even include them when calculating synergy value. Matthew Slatter, the CEO of Bank of Melbourne, says, We model this [revenue enhancements], but never factor it into the price. Similarly, Peter Shaw at ICI considers them soft synergies and discounts them heavily in calculations of synergy value. Despite their dangers, revenue enhancements can create real value. Sometimes the target brings a superior or complementary product to the more extensive distribution channel of the acquirer. That happened when Lloyds TSB acquired the Cheltenham and Gloucester Building Society (which had a better home-loan product) and Abbey Life (which had insurance products). In both cases, Lloyds TSB was able to sell those products to its dramatically larger retail customer base, thus generating more revenue than the three entities could have done individually. Similarly, having acquired Duracell for a 20% premium, Gillette was confirmed in its expectation that selling Duracell batteries through Gillettes existing channels for personal care products would increase sales, particularly internationally. Gillette sold Duracell products in 25 new markets in the first year after the acquisition and substantially increased sales in established international markets. In other instances, a target companys distribution channel can be used to escalate the sales of the acquiring companys product. That occurred at Gillette when it acquired Parker Pen. In calculating what it could pay, Gillette estimated that it would be able to get an additional $25 million in sales for its own Waterman pens by taking advantage of Parkers distribution channels. A final kind of revenue enhancement occurs when the bigger, post-acquisition company gains sufficient critical mass to attract revenue neither company would have been able to realize alone. Consider what happened when ABN and AMRO merged to form ABN AMRO, the large Dutch bank. Afterward, other large banks pulled the new company in on syndicated loans that neither ABN nor AMRO would have been asked to participate in individually. PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS Cost savings result from eliminating duplication or from purchasing in volume; revenue enhancements are generated from combining different strengths from the two organizations. Process improvements, by contrast, occur when managers transfer best practices and core competencies from one company to another. That results in both cost savings and revenue enhancements. The transfer of best practices can flow in either direction. The acquirer may buy a company because the target is especially good at something. Conversely, the acquirer may see that it can drastically improve the targets performance in a key area because of some competence the acquirer has already mastered. Take the case of National Australia Banks purchase of Florida mortgage lender HomeSide. HomeSide has an extremely efficient mortgage-servicing process that NAB plans to transfer to its banking operations in Australia, New Zealand, and. the United Kingdom. The same was true of ABN AMRO when it acquired the U.S. commercial bank Standard Federal. In that case, process improvements went hand in hand with cost savings: because its mortgage operation was so efficient, SF eventually took over the combined banks entire mortgage business. Product development processes can also be improved so that new products can be produced at lower cost and get to market faster. Such was the case when Johnson Controls acquired Prince Corporation, a maker of rear-view mirrors, door panels, visors, and other parts of automobile interiors. Prince was better than Johnson Controls at understanding customers needs-both existing and anticipated-and consequently it produced higher-margin products. Prince also had an excellent process for ramping up production of new products, which enabled it to move from design to mass production about twice as fast as Johnson Controls could, maintaining higher quality levels while speeding cycle times. Johnson learned from Prince and was soon able to apply those advantages to its own products. For an example of the process improvements an acquiring company can bring to the table, take a look at newspaper giant Gannett. Gannett has a database of financial and nonfinancial measures for each of its 85 newspapers; executives use this rich resource to determine best practices, both boosting revenue and lowering costs. Larry Miller, Gannetts CFO, explains, We have been able to dramatically improve the papers weve bought. The key for us is knowing in very minute detail how to run a business. This gives us very specific ideas for improvement. Through more efficient production and distribution processes, Gannett has been able to extend its deadlines for news and advertising copy while simultaneously delivering the newspaper more quickly. That helps advertisers and improves Gannetts revenue. Gannett is also able to determine where classified rates are too high, hurting volume, and where they are too low, leaving money on the table. Because it can expect to yield quick, substantial p rocess improvements, Gannett can pay very high premiums for its acquisitions. When you consider that many of the acquisitions are run independently-and so dont offer many consolidation opportunities-the high premiums are quite extraordinary. In fact, Miller has told us, People are often shocked at what we pay. In nearly all cases, though, performance improvements after the fact have justified the high prices. The synergies of cost savings, revenue enhancements, and process improvements may be easy to understand conceptually, but our research demonstrates how hard they are to forecast accurately. Why? Most calculations of synergy value occur under horrendous conditions: time pressure is intense, information is limited, and confidentiality must be maintained. Since conditions are so far from ideal, the managers and board members responsible for the final decision should always scrutinize the assumptions underlying the numbers. FINANCIAL ENGINEERING Acquirers often think-and hope-that if they borrow cash to finance a transaction, theyll reduce the weighted average cost of capital. That is not a good reason to do a deal. If either the acquirer or the target company could afford to take on more debt; each could have borrowed it on its own. However, some companies can find genuine synergies through financial engineering. For example, an acquisition can increase the size of a company to a level where there are clear economic benefits to pooling working- capital finance requirements and surplus cash, as well as netting currency positions. These benefits can be quite substantial. When the Credit Suisse Group merged with Winterthur, 10% of the forecasted synergies came from reducing funding costs through optimized capital management. Heres another genuine financial-engineering synergy: a transaction may allow a company to refinance the targets debt at the acquirers more favourable borrowing rate without affecting the acquirers credit rating. That is especially likely to happen in the financial services sector because those companies are big and their risk is diversified. TAX BENEFITS Tax considerations are often a barrier that must be overcome to justify a deal, a fact that makes tax-related synergies very difficult to assess. Its useful to distinguish between tax structuring, which makes the deal possible, and tax engineering (also called tax planning), which ensures that the overall tax rate of the combined company is equal to or lower than the blended tax rates of the two companies before the deal. Regulators often believe that companies using perfectly legitimate structuring and engineering techniques to avoid incurring additional costs are simply taking advantage of loopholes. Thus companies are not anxious to disclose any clever techniques they may have used. The goal of tax structuring is to avoid as many onetime tax costs as possible. Those costs may include capital and transfer duties, as well as change-of-ownership provisions that can trigger capital gains or prevent tax losses from being carried forward.