predicting the trends for future alliances marketing essay
TRANSCRIPT
Predicting The Trends For Future Alliances Marketing Essay
For assignment help please contact
at [email protected] or [email protected]
Strategic Alliance is one of the best ways of tracking the business
sentiment of the country. And the trends for the year 2010 show that the
corporate sentiment - at least as far as deal making is concerned - was at
an all time high. In fact, the year saw the same level of activity as 2007,
which was considered by many to be the bumper year for deal making.
If 2007 saw the spectacular Tata Steel takeover of Corus, then 2010 was
the year when Bharti got its hands on Zain. Indeed, mega deals
dominated the M&A space. Deal activities grew rapidly specially in India
because India recovered from the post Lehman Brothers meltdown faster
than most countries around the world. The economic conditions at home
and the rapid growth of the economy allowed Indian businessmen to
throw caution to the winds and raise money in search of suitable targets.
The year 2011 is poised to be yet another significant year for Indian
strategic alliances & mergers as business confidence is sky high, liquidity
is sufficient and there is an increased focus among Indian players to
identify strategic growth opportunities.
Acquiring a company is just the first step though. The real issues crop up
in integrating the acquired company and this is where many companies
falter. International studies show that integration problem crops up in
60% of acquired companies. But Indian companies so far seem to have
done reasonably well in merging acquired company operations with
parent operations. Many alliances don't live up to the expectations
because they stumble on the integration of technology and operations.
We have all heard about deals where stars seemed aligned but synergies
remained elusive. In these cases, the acquirer and target may have had
complementary strategies and finances, but the integration of technology
and operations are often proved difficult, usually because it did not
receive adequate consideration during due diligence.
Acknowledgement
Completing a task is not usually a one man effort and it often requires
the help, support, guidance and blessings of others. Hence I take this
opportunity to extend my thanks to all those people who have directly
and indirectly helped me to complete this dissertation.
I am deeply indebted to Prof. (Dr.) J.P. Saxena, my mentor & faculty
guide Amity Business School, Noida, for nudging my thoughts to decide
upon the subject of dissertation and providing me inputs from time to
time to make the topic more apt and succinct.
I also express my sincere gratitude to my parents, peers & friends for
their support and encouragement throughout the study. Their
suggestions and views have been quite handy in giving this study a
proper shape and keep me abreast with the latest developments in the
business front.
Literature Review
Strategic Alliance - a general overview
In the last two decades, alliances have become a central part of most
companies' competitive and growth strategies. Alliances help firms
strengthen their competitive position by enhancing market power (Kogut,
1991), increasing efficiencies (Ahuja, 2000), accessing new or critical
resources or capabilities (Rothaermel & Boeker, 2008), and entering new
markets (Garcia-Canal, Duarte, Criado, & Llaneza, 2002). By the turn of
this century many of the world's largest companies had over 20% of their
assets, and over 30% of their annual research expenditures, tied up in
such relationships (Ernst, 2004). A study by Partner Alliances reported
that over 80% of Fortune 1000 CEOs believed that alliances would
account for almost 26% of their companies' revenues in 2007-08 (Kale,
Singh, & Bell, 2009).
Strategic alliances are agreements between companies (partners) to
reach objectives of common interest. Strategic alliances are among the
various options which companies can use to achieve their goals; they are
based on cooperation between companies (Mockler, 1999). In practice,
they would be all relationships between companies, with the exception of
a) transactions (acquisitions, sales, loans) based on short-term contracts
(while a transaction from a multi-year agreement between a supplier and
a buyer could be an alliance); b) agreements related to activities that are
not important, or not strategic for the partners, for example a multi-year
agreement for a service provided (outsourcing) (Pellicelli, 2003).
Strategic alliance can be described as a process wherein participants
willingly modify their basic business practices with a purpose to reduce
duplication and waste while facilitating improved performance (Frankel,
Whipple and Frayer, 1996). In simple words, a strategic alliance is
sometimes just referred to as "partnership" that offers businesses a
chance to join forces for a mutually beneficial opportunity and sustained
competitive advantage (Yi Wei, 2007).
A strategic alliance is a partnership between two or more firms that unite
to pursue a set of agreed upon goals but remain independent subsequent
to the formation of the alliance to contribute and to share benefits on a
continuing basis in one or more key strategic areas, e.g. technology,
products. (Yoshino & Rangan, 1995)
A strategic alliance is a particular mode of inter-organizational
relationship in which the partners make substantial investments in
developing a long-term collaborative effort, and common orientation.
(Faulkner, 1995)
A strategic alliance is a contractual, temporary relationship between
companies remaining independent, aimed at reducing the uncertainty
around the realization of the partners' strategic objectives (for which the
partners are mutually dependent) by means of coordinating or jointly
executing one or several of the companies' activities. Each of the
partners are able to exert considerable influence upon the management
or policy of the alliance. The partners are financially involved, although
by definition not through participation, and share the costs, profits and
risks of the strategic alliance. (Douma, 1997)
Strategic alliances are long-term agreements between firms that go
beyond normal market transactions but fall short of merger. Forms
include joint ventures, licenses, long-term supply agreements, and other
kinds of inter-firm relationships. (Porter, 1990)
Strategic alliance was also perceived as long-term co-operative
partnerships involving vendor, customer, competitor, or industry-related
firms and was used to achieve some competitive advantage (Stafford,
1994, p.64).
Strategic alliances are voluntary arrangements between firms involving
exchange, sharing, or co-development of products, technologies, or
services. (Gulati, 1998)
Regardless of the broad variety of definitions for strategic alliance, all
have certain similarities (Spekman, 1998):
- Each has goals that are both compatible and directly related to the
partner's strategic intent,
- Each has the commitment of, and access to, the resources of its
partners and,
Each represents an opportunity for organizational learning.
Arino et al. (2001) define alliance as a formal agreement between two or
more business organizations to pursue a set of private and common goals
through the sharing of resources (e.g., intellectual property, people,
capital, organizational capabilities, and physical assets) in contexts
involving contested markets and uncertainty over outcomes. According to
Hill (2005), strategic alliance is referred as the cooperative agreements
between potential or actual competitors; it is a relationship between
firms to create more value than they can on their own. However, his
definition narrowed the partner selection to competitors.
Strategic Alliances as Corporate Strategy
Beginning in the 1960s, corporate strategy was defined by Andrews
(1967) as "the pattern of corporate objectives and the policies and plans
intended to achieve them." When corporate strategy is used in the most
classical sense in business studies, there is no problem with using it in
the sense that Chandler (1962) indicated in his work Strategy and
Structure: "a corporate entity's determination of its fundamental long-
term objectives, the adoption of modes of conduct necessary to
accomplish these objectives, and the allocation of resources."
The definition given by Itami (1984), we can define it as "that which
expresses the basic orientation of organizational activities in relation to
the environment, and that which carries out the fundamental selection of
circumstances for an organization's various activities and the
fundamental determination of policy for the coordination of its various
activities."
When focusing upon the internal resources of a firm, the role of
corporate strategy is to accumulate highly scarce managerial resources
and provide the competence to skillfully apply them. In addition, when
considering relations with other firms, the managerial resources that
corporate strategy takes as its object are not confined to the resources of
their own firm; the managerial resources of other firms also fall under
this category. And the competence to apply the managerial resources is
the competence to unify their resources with those of other firms,
coordinate them, and make them work together.
The aforementioned presents a new challenging issue to managers who
have only attended to the accumulation and distribution of their own
resources. This new challenging issue is, namely, the accumulation of
highly scarce managerial resources in their own firm via mutual relations
with other firms, and the skillful application of the accumulated
managerial resources through mutual relations with other firms. And in
this sense, it is at the point when managers realize that they must take
into account mutual relations with other firms and plan and execute a
corporate strategy that they are first able to grasp alliances, as one of the
strategic methods, in connection with the internal factors of the firm.
Indeed, the meaning of the fact that alliances are "strategic" when they
are grasped in conjunction with a firm's internal factors can be sought in
the following two points:
a) Alliances are used to acquire the managerial resources of other firms
and accumulate highly scarce managerial resources
b) Alliances are used to skillfully apply the managerial resources of their
own firm and those of alliance partners.
With respect to the various alliances that firms weave, only by carefully
approaching them from the above two points can we clear up the
important unresolved issue indicated by Badaracco, namely the reason
for engaging in alliances.
Need for Strategic Alliances
If the achievement of competitive advantage through the accumulation of
highly scarce managerial resources is one of the strategic issues for the
firm, then the primary means of accumulating these resources are
thought to be arm's-length relations, internal activities, mergers and
acquisitions (M&A) and strategic alliances (Lewis, 1990). As Doz and
Hamel (1998) indicate that the races for the world and the future require
the development of insights, capabilities, and infrastructures at an ever-
faster pace that few companies can master, and yet they must be swifter
if strategic advantage is to be obtained. If a company cannot position
itself quickly and correctly, it will miss important opportunities and be
far lagged behind the tidal wave, therefore the strategic alliance between
different firms have emerged as the vehicle of choice for many companies
in both the race for the world and the race for the future (Doz and
Hamel, 1998). Strategic alliance has become a favorable choice for many
multinational companies as a strategy responding to rapid economic
development and increasingly fierce competition in the global market
(Gulroy, 1993). Compared with other widely adopted strategies, such as
mergers and acquisitions, major companies prefer to choose the 'bond'
option rather than the 'buy' or 'build' option to stimulate growth and
increase corporate wealth (Pekar and Margulis, 2003, p.50). With the
prevalence of the strategic alliance in recent decades especially in the
last years of the 20th century, Cyrus and Freidham (1999) believe that it
will become the primary way of global consolidation in the near future,
and it may also become the most powerful tool to maintain a firm's
sustainable competitive edge. Just as Gilroy (1993) stated that the
strategic alliance has become a favour for many multinational companies
as a strategy responding to the rapid economic and technological
development, globalization and dynamic nature of the market.
Formation of Alliances - favorable factors
Previous studies have suggested that partner selection favors formation
of alliances with firms that are relationally "embedded" through prior
direct ties and structurally embedded though network connections to
common third partners (Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Podolny, 1994). This is
not surprising, given the role of social interaction among partner firms in
alliances in the development of the trust and cohesion necessary for
mutually beneficial interfirm relationships (Larson, 1992; Li & Rowley,
1999; Mohr & Spekman, 1994; Ring & Van de Ven, 1992; Seabright,
Levinthal, & Fichman, 1992).
According to the nature and life span of alliances, it can also be classified
into three different forms of strategic alliances: horizontal, vertical and
diagonal alliance. Specifically, horizontal strategic alliances are formed
with competitors within the same industry; this kind of alliance is often
formed for R&D purposes. Vertical strategic alliances can be formed with
suppliers or customers in several value chain activities. While diagonal
strategic alliances are formed with partners from other industries
(Bronder and Pritzi, 1992, p416). To put the strategy in a more concrete
form, Arino et al.'s (2001) state that alliance's forms can be varied in a
number of ways, it could be performed under the forms like equity joint
ventures, non-equity collaborative arrangements, licensing or franchising
agreements, management contracts, and long-term supply contracts.
While with alliances, companies can access global markets and
contribute to economic development without steep exposure to market
and political turmoil (Cyrus and Freidheim, 1999, p.48). The motivations
for the formation of an alliance can range from purely economic reasons
(e.g., search for scale, efficiency, or risk sharing) to more complex
strategic ones (e.g., learning new technologies, seeking political
advantage) (Arino, et al., 2001).
Firstly, companies are seeking for co-option during its globalizing
process. Co-option turns potential competitors into allies and providers
the complementary goods and services that allow new business to
develop and usually multinational companies seek partners with similar
products who have a good knowledge of local market and channels of
distribution in order to share the risk during the expansion of the global
market (Bronder and Pritzi, 1992; Doz and Hamel, 1998; Cullen and
Parboteeach, 2005). The privileged market access of some countries
sometimes can be a reason for MNC to search for alliance under the
globalization movement (Bleeke and Ernst, 1991; Bronder and Pritzi,
1992; Doz and Hamel, 1998).
Secondly, co-specialization has become a more and more attractive force
behind the strategic alliance. It is the synergistic value creation that
results from the combination of previously separate resources, positions,
skills and knowledge sources. By bringing the resources of two or more
companies together, strategic alliances often provide the most efficient
size to conduct a particular business (Bronder and Pritzi, 1992; Cullen
and Parboteeach, 2005). Through the way of alliances, partners can
contribute their unique and differentiated resources to the success of
their allies, i.e. skills, R&D, brands, networks, as well as tangible and
intangible assets (Bronder and Pritzi, 1992; Doz and Hamel, 1998).
Alliance may also be an avenue for learning and internalizing new skills
from its partners, in particular those that are tacit, collective and
embedded (Bronder and Pritzi, 1992; Doz and Hamel, 1998). Therefore, it
is self-evident that strategic alliance is central to the corporate strategy
and it is significant and unavoidable for the global reaching step in the
world economy.
To a nutshell, when confronting with the newly opening markets,
intensified competition, and the need for increased scale, many CEOs
have put the formation of cross-border alliances on their agendas since
1990s. To international managers, the strategic benefits are compelling
under the synergy effects among partners; and it is a flexible and
efficient channel to crack new markets, to gain skills, know-how, or
products, and to share risks or resources (Bleeke and Ernst, 1991).
Break of Alliances
Although alliance break-ups and member withdrawal are also common,
running as high as 50 percent in some industries, much less is known
about these events (Broschak, 2004: 608; Burt, 2000; Podolny & Page,
1998). Nevertheless, an understanding of them is basic to the
development of realistic and informative models of alliance behavior and
network dynamics (Kogut, 1989). Alliance break-ups alter the network
positions of the firms involved, their immediate partners, and more
socially distant firms, as an initial break-up triggers others (Nohria,
1992; Powell et al., 2005). Resource scarcity and misalignment of
alliance partners' resources and interests create friction that may trigger
member withdrawal (Baker, Faulkner, & Fisher, 1998; Koka, Madhavan,
& Prescott, 2006; Rowley, Greve, Rao, Baum, & Shipilov, 2005).
Similarly, member withdrawal may occur when embeddedness is low.
Despite the growing popularity of strategic alliances, the success rate
remains low, and also a number of recent studies have noted that the
failure rate of alliances is in the range of 50-60% (Spekman et al., 1996;
Dacin et al., 1997; Kok and Wildeman, 1998; Frerichs, 1999; Andersen
Consulting, 1999; Duysters et al., 1999; Kelly et al., 2002). This is about
the same rate identified in studies done by McKinsey and Company and
Coopers and Lybrand at the beginning of 1990s (Stafford, 1994, Kelly et
al., 2002).
Studies have shown that two thirds of all alliances experience severe
leadership and financing problems during the first two years (Bronder
and Pritzi, 1992, p.419). Evidence showing that even those ventures that
finally succeed must frequently overcome serious problems in their early
years (Kelly et al., 2002). For instance, Bleeke and Ernst (1993) found
out that 66% of cross-border alliances they studied confronted with
serious managerial problems in their first two years of the alliance. The
other study done by a Bain and Co. also indicated that in every ten
alliance relationships, five would fail to meet the partners' expectations
and of the other half, only two would last for more than four years (Rigby
and Buchanan, 1994).
Draulans et al. (2003) find that an inadequate capability to manage the
alliance is the main reason. As Robert E. Spekman state that leadership
played a key role to the success of alliances. Another frequently cited
reason is poor selection of alliance partners; due to competitive
pressures, many firms rush into alliances without adequate preparation
or understanding of their needs, the incompatibility of partners will lead
to insurmountable problems (Medcof, 1997; Dacin et al. 1997). Other
reasons that are often cited for the alliances failure include lack of trust
between partners, cultural conflicts, incompatible chemistry, unique risks
inherent in strategic alliances, and lastly focusing on alliance formation
rather than sustaining the alliance (Gomes-Casseres, 1998; Kelley et al.,
2002).
International alliances are increasingly central to the corporate success;
however, they often end up in divorce. As Fedor and Werther (1996,
p.39) point out that in many cross-boarder alliances, the failure stems
from the deal maker's concentration on strategies, financial, and legal
complexities, while largely ignoring issues of "cultural compatibility"
among the alliance partners. Therefore, cultural differences could
become a barrier to success, especially at the initial stage. Besides that,
the failure to build trust between partners in the early stage of the
alliance could be detrimental to further development to the next stage.
Trust building is also closely linked to the cultural compatibility between
partners. Stafford (1994, p.70) indicates that if partners lack compatible
cultures and expectations, the trust between partner employees may not
materialized, which will lead to inter-partner employee conflicts.
Introduction
Food & Beverage
Coffee consumption has risen sharply, almost doubling in between 1998
and 2008 from 50,000 metric tonnes in 1998 to 94,400 metric tonnes in
2008, according to India's Coffee Board. The growing coffee culture is
being driven by demand from the country's emerging middle classes but
India's retail coffee market remains highly fragmented and is dominated
by small street-side vendors. Local chains, including Café Coffee Day and
Barista account for less than a third of the total domestic market,
according to analysts.
The Deal:
Starbucks Corporation is an international coffee and coffeehouse chain
based in Seattle, Washington. Starbucks is the largest premium coffee
retail chain in the world with over 16,858 stores in 50 countries,
including over 11,000 in the United States, over 1000 in Canada, and
over 700 in the UK. Retail growth outside the US is now central to the
company's strategy. The first Starbucks location outside North America
opened in Tokyo, Japan, in 1996. Starbucks entered the U.K. market in
1998 with the $83 million acquisition of the then 60-outlet, UK-based
Seattle Coffee Company, re-branding all the stores as Starbucks. In
September 2002 Starbucks opened its first store in Latin America, in
Mexico City. In November 2010, Starbucks opened the first Central
American store in El Salvador's capital, San Salvador. In an investor
presentation, Starbucks International president John Culver said the
company hopes to operate at least 1,500 stores in mainland China by
2015. He also said that the company sees exciting growth prospects in
other emerging countries such as India and Brazil.
Tata Coffee is coffee company owned by the Tata Group. Tata Coffee is
Asia's largest coffee plantation company and the third-largest exporter of
instant coffee in the country. It produces more than 10,000 million tonne
of shade grown Arabica and Robusta coffees at its 19 estates in south
India. Its two instant coffee manufacturing facilities have a combined
installed capacity of 6,000 tonne. The company owns 19 coffee estates in
Southern India. The estates are spread across the districts of Coorg,
Chickmaglur and Hassan in Karnataka and Valparai district in Tamil
Nadu. Tata Coffee, one of the biggest suppliers of Arabica coffee beans
In a significant step toward market entry in India, U.S.-based Starbucks
Coffee Company on January, 2011 signed a non-binding memorandum of
understanding (MoU) with Tata Coffee. Starbucks and Tata Coffee
announced plans for a strategic alliance to bring Starbucks to India later
that year. Starbucks plans set up stores in Tata retail locations and hotels
in India, and also to source and roast coffee beans at Tata Coffee's
Kodagu facility. Starbucks is aiming to tap a market where consumption
of coffee has more than doubled to 100,000 metric tons from a decade
ago. In the areas of sourcing and roasting, Tata Coffee and Starbucks will
explore procuring green coffee from Tata Coffee estates and roasting in
Tata Coffee's existing roasting facilities. At a later phase, both will
consider jointly investing in additional facilities and roasting green coffee
for export to other markets.
Synergies/ Outcome:
"India is one of the most dynamic markets in the world with a diverse
culture and tremendous potential," said Starbucks Coffee Company
Chairman, President and CEO Howard Schultz. This MoU is the first step
in our entry to India. We are focused on exploring local sourcing and
roasting opportunities with the thousands of coffee farmers within the
Tata ecosystem. We believe India can be an important source for coffee
in the domestic market, as well as across the many regions globally
where Starbucks has operations."
Local Partner - For Starbucks, it requires a local partner to open retail
stores in Asia's third-largest economy as under India's foreign direct
investment regulation, a single-brand retailer is only allowed to control
up to 51% of a joint venture with an Indian partner.. Tata Coffee,
majority-owned by Tata Global Beverages Ltd., is a unit of India's second-
biggest industrial group. The knowledge and understanding of the Indian
market can be brought by Tata Global Beverages, because it has been in
this play for a while
Rising Exports - Coffee exports from India, Asia's third-biggest producer,
gained 56 percent last year, the Coffee Board said earlier this month.
Tata Coffee and its domestic rivals boosted shipments 56 percent to
292,550 metric tons. Given the scenario, Starbucks realised that forging
an alliance with Tata Coffee will increase their market share and expand
their reach to the world market.
The MoU will create avenues of collaboration between the two
companies for sourcing and roasting as Tata Coffee and Starbucks will
explore procuring high quality green coffee from Tata Coffee estates and
roasting in Tata Coffee's existing roasting facilities in Coorg in South
India. At a later phase, both will consider jointly investing in additional
facilities and roasting green coffee for export to other markets.
In addition, Tata and Starbucks will jointly explore the development of
Starbucks retail stores in associated retail outlets and hotels.
Two companies also will explore social projects to positively impact
communities in coffee growing regions where Tata operates.
The Indian group has deep experience in running food supplies, so it can
handle that part of the outlets. But in terms of running cafes, Tata has no
specific advantage, where Starbucks holds the expertise. Starbucks plans
to open standalone outlets in all big cities as well as inside Tata-owned
luxury hotels and retail stores,
The agreement provides a win-win situation for both partners. Tata can
leverage the Starbucks name, and vice versa. The entry of more players
means the market will grow. India can absorb up to an estimated 5,400
outlets; at the moment, the number is over 1,300.
IT Sector
The broader trend in the IT sector is that mid-size companies finding
difficult to grow, are looking to merge with business rivals or sell out.
The post-recession period has brought in large business orders for IT
behemoths and specialized companies, but generic mid-size IT firms
haven't benefited as much. Industry estimates peg the annual growth
rate of top-tier IT firms like Infosys and TCS at around 20-25% this fiscal,
while the corresponding growth rates for tier II companies are estimated
in the range of 10-15%. IT sector analysts go as far back as early 2008 to
pick up indications of consolidation in the IT sector. Mid-size IT firm
MindTree had then acquired Aztecsoft to boost its capabilities in
outsourced product development (OPD) and testing. Deals like these are
now becoming common and the trend is set to intensify in 2011.
According to data provided by Venture Intelligence, in 2010, the IT
sector saw 115 M&A deals-largely in the small and mid-sized IT space.
This figure was lower at 92 in 2009.
Arup Roy, senior research analyst at Gartner, says marginal players are
facing tough times. "We can expect more consolidation next year.
Companies that do not have the size and scale to take advantage of new
business opportunities will be obliterated," he said.
Avinash Vashistha, CEO of IT advisory firm Tholons, adds that apart from
the fact that mid-tier companies are losing big contracts to IT majors,
they are also not being able to customize or tweak business models to
execute smaller contracts. They follow a software factory model that is
suited for large contracts, which are typically won by the top 5 IT
companies.
Abhishek Shindadkar, research analyst with ICICI Securities, said that
generic mid-size companies are also affected by operational concerns
such as wage inflation and pressure to increase marketing spends.
MindTree has been reporting margins of 14-15% in recent quarters
whereas the figure for top-tier companies like Infosys and TCS has been
above 25%.
iGATE Corporation is an American information technology company
founded and based in Fremont, California with its operational
headquarters at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The company specializes in
business data processing and uses a structure known as iTOPS
(integrated Technology and Operations Systems) to meet customer
demands. Services provided include: IT consulting; application
development, data warehousing, business intelligence solutions,
ERP/enterprise solutions, BPO/business service provisioning,
infrastructure management, testing/independent verification and
validation, and contact center services. Offices are located in 16
countries and serve businesses in various fields. While the US has long
been its operations center, the company is undergoing an aggressive
expansion into India. By 2012, the company wants to be a billion dollar
organization, for which association should be with 100 of the global 1000
clients.
Patni Computer Systems Ltd., a Mumbai based mid sized Software
Services firm is a provider of Information Technology services and
business solutions. The company employs over 15000 people, and has 23
international offices across the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific, as
well as offshore development centres in 8 cities in India. Patni's clients
include more than 400 Fortune 1000 companies.
The Deal:
Nasdaq-listed iGate Corp. announced that it, along with its partner,
would acquire a majority stake in Mumbai-headquartered information
technology (IT) services company Patni Computer Systems Ltd for
around $1.22 billion (around Rs. 5,540 crores) in a deal that gives the
former scale in the IT services business and ends uncertainty about the
future of the latter, one of India's oldest IT services companies, but also
one which has been in the news as a possible target for acquisition for at
least four years. iGate will now have 63% stake in Patni. The acquisition
is among the biggest involving an Indian IT company. In 2006, EDS Corp.
acquired MphasiS BFL Ltd for Rs. 1,748 crores. And in 2005, Oracle
Corp. acquired i-flex Solutions Ltd for Rs. 4,090 crores. The takeover is
seen by analysts as a David and Goliath scenario. While Patni registered
revenues of $518.7 million in the 9 months ended September 2010, the
corresponding figure for iGate is less than half of that, at $199.5 million.
Â
Patni
iGate
Revenues
178.80
74.80
Net profit
28.80
14.30
EPS
0.21
0.25
Employee strength
13,995
6,910
Active clients
282
80
Financials for Q3 2010 in $mn, except EPS in $
Synergies/Outcome:
Clients: Patni will also enable iGate to widen its client base and reduce
its dependence on a few clients. iGate's top 10 clients bring 84% of total
revenues versus Patni's 48%. The combination will now have 2 clients
that bring $100 million plus revenues, 2 clients that bring $15 million
plus revenues, and 36 clients in the $5 million plus league. General
Electric is one of the biggest customers for both companies and this is
expected to bring synergies.
Presence: Patni has roughly two employees for every one iGate has and
the combined strength of the two will be around 25,000 employees. And
while iGate has 82 customers, seven delivery centres and offices in 16
countries, Patni has 282 customers, 22 global delivery centres and offices
in 30 locations. Patni has good presence in the western and northern
Indian region, while iGate has offices in the south, which gives employees
good options to move around the country.
Business Verticals: The merger could result in a more competitive entity.
When a company does not have the width of verticals, then it is restricted
in terms of growth. Hence, Patni was unable to take on bigger deals or
huge orders.The two companies will now enjoy synergies in business
verticals. While 60% of iGate's revenues come from banking and finance,
30% of Patni's revenues come from insurance. By leveraging both
strengths, the companies plan to build a strong BFSI team. BFSI is the
fastest growing business segment for the IT sector. With the acquisition,
there should be scope for cross selling and improvement in margins.
Ownership: Patni Computers was already having trouble among three
founders of Patni-Narendra Patni, Gajendra Patni and Ashok Patni
regarding their share in the company. The acquisition will end ownership
woes in Patni and help the company build its pipeline in the banking and
financial services vertical, in which iGate earns a large chunk of its
revenues.
Revenue: The combined revenues of the merged entity, around $1 billion
in size, will help customers access more service lines and improved
domain expertise. It can also bid for large projects competing against IT
behemoths including TCS, Infy, Wipro and HCL. Smaller IT companies
have in recent times struggled for revenue growth and profitability, as
they are unable to offer scale efficiencies or attractive pay packages to
retain staff. From iGate's point of view, it will be a huge asset. Patni has
an application, development and maintenance business of at least $450
million (around Rs 2,025 crores). Its insurance business is around $240
million (around Rs 1,080 crores). Compare this with iGate's overall
revenue of $230 million (around Rs 1,035 crores),"
Amalgamation: The deal also reopens the argument for a combined tech
services and BPO play - as the transaction marries iGate's BPO-ish skills
with Patni's tech services and development platform. Overall,
combination will help customers get better service, access to more
service lines and deeper pools of expertise.
Debt: The biggest concerns that iGate officials point to is the cultural
integration between the two organizations as well as the debt on its
books. IGate, which is currently a zero debt company, will have debts in
its books for the next few years.
Attrition & Integration: iGate is less than half Patni's size. Other than
integration challenges, there will be employee attrition issue as well.
Steel Industry
Tata Steel, formerly known as TISCO and Tata Iron and Steel Company
Limited, is the world's seventh largest steel company, with an annual
crude steel capacity of 31 million tonnes. It is the largest private sector
steel company in India in terms of domestic production. Currently ranked
410th on Fortune Global 500, it is based in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand,
India. It is part of Tata Group of companies. Tata Steel is also India's
second-largest and second-most profitable company in private sector
Nippon Steel Corporation is the world's 4th largest steel producer by
volume.
The Deal:
In January 2011, Tata Steel said it has inked a joint venture agreement
with Nippon Steel for setting up a Rs 2,300-crore specialty steel-making
line having a capacity of 60,000 tonnes per annum at Jamshedpur to
cater to the domestic auto sector. The project is expected to be
operational in three years. Tata Steel would hold a majority 51% stake in
the unnamed joint venture entity while the Japanese major would have
the rest 49% stake. The project (Continuous Annealing and Processing
Line) will be set up at a capital cost of about Rs 2,300 crore and is
expected to come on stream in 2013.
Synergies/Outcomes:
The demand for small cars in India is rapidly growing and Tata Steel
aims to tap this growing market. The JV aims to capture the growing
demand for high-tensile auto-grade steel in India. Also, Nippon's
technology would help Tata Steel to tap the Japanese auto makers in the
Indian auto market.
The joint venture entity would source steel from Tata Steel's Jamshedpur
plant and use Nippon Steel's technology for production of high-grade
cold rolled steel sheet to meet the growing needs of the Indian
automobile sector.
Global auto majors like Honda, General Motors and Hyundai Motors
currently import steel for making cars. With this JV, Tata Steel hopes to
discourage the automakers from importing the special steel and, instead,
buy from Tata.
The two companies aim to capture more of the local demand for auto
steel, growing at 13-15 per cent a year. Tata Steel has already around 40
per cent share of the domestic auto steel market. Its European
subsidiary, Tata Steel Europe, too, has its own auto-grade technology.
But according to Tata Steel, the technology cannot be used in India.
Europe and India use different kinds of auto steel. In Europe, more
galvanized steel is used because of corrosion, snow issues, etc. In India,
it is more continuous annealing steel.
Also, the auto steel product development can now happen jointly in the
common R&D. Now, there is a group R&D which reports to both the
CEOs (Europe and India). The agenda is drawn and the mandate is given
that in auto steel we have to see what we can do.
NTPC Limited (formerly National Thermal Power Corporation) is the
largest state-owned power generating company in India. Forbes Global
2000 for 2009 ranked it 317th in the world. It is an Indian public sector
company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange although at present the
Government of India holds 84.5 of its equity. With a current generating
capacity of 33194 MW, NTPC has embarked on plans to become a 75,000
MW company by 2017. It is premier power generation company in India
having expertise and strength in areas such as setting up of coal, gas and
hydro based power projects, operation and maintenance of power
stations and sale of power to various State power utilities and other bulk
customers. NTPC has developed comprehensive in-house expertise in
various facets of power generation from concept to commissioning,
efficient operation to nurturing of ecology and environment in
accordance with National Power Policy of the Government of India.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) is one of the oldest and largest
state-owned engineering and manufacturing enterprise in India in the
energy-related and infrastructure sector which includes Power, Railways,
Transmission and Distribution, Oil and Gas sectors and many more. It is
the 12th largest power equipment manufacturer in the world. BHEL was
established more than 50 years ago, ushering in the indigenous Heavy
Electrical Equipment industry in India. It is one of the leading
international companies in the field of power plant equipment with state-
of-the-art technologies. BHEL range of services extend from project
feasibility through design, manufacture, supply, erection and
commissioning to after sales-service of equipment required for
generation, transmission and distribution of coal, gas, hydro, nuclear and
non-conventional energy.
The Deal:
In April, 2008, NTPC-BHEL Power Projects formed a 50:50 JV firm
NBPPL, with a focus on engineering, procurement and construction
contracts, besides the manufacture and supply of equipment for power
plants. The JV has an order book of about Rs 450 crores. It is targeting
an order book of Rs 7,000 crores by the end of the current fiscal (2010-
11). At present, NBPPL is working on the 100-MW Namrup Power Station
in Assam and the 726-MW combined cycle power plant being set up by
ONGC Tripura Power Corporation at Palatana, in Tripura. It is also
executing the 500-MW Singrauli thermal power plant and the 600-MW
thermal power plant of Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation
(APGENCO) at Rayalseema.
NTPC and BHEL Navaratna enterprises of the Government of India have
come together to harness their compatibility, common ownership, and
also common legacy for the development of Power Sector as whole. The
two companies have complementary strengths; BHELÂ is strong in
Project and Product Engineering, manufacturing and Erection and
commissioning and NTPC strength in being Project development &
management. NBPPL is created to leverage the core strengths &
synergies of the respective promoter companies and supplement their
EPC and equipment manufacturing capacities. This will help to meet the
huge emerging demand for setting up of new power projects in the
country.
Synergies/Outcome:
The prime objective of the Company is to enhance the capability and
capacity of the Power Sector and supplement the efforts of both the
promoter companies (NTPC and BHEL).
JV Company will also work as a EPC company (Engineering, Procurement
& Construction) to take up turn-key jobs of power plant with a view to
provide total business solution to the customer from concept to
commissioning.
Explore, secure and execute EPC contract(s) for Power Plants and other
Infrastructure Projects in India and abroad including plant engineering,
project management, quality assurance, quality control, procurement,
logistics, site management, erection and commissioning services.
To engage in manufacturing and supply of equipments for power plants
and other infrastructure projects in India and abroad.
Joint Venture manufactures main power plant equipment, such as
Turbine, Generator, Boiler to meet the growing demand of power in the
country.
The joint venture between state-run NTPC and BHEL should also focus to
establish manufacturing facility for Balance of Plant, such as Coal
Handling, Ash Handling Plant and also focus on building equipment other
than boilers, turbines and generators, as there is a dearth of companies
engaged in the construction of such machinery in the country. Currently,
there is a shortage of balance of plant (BOP) equipment in the market.