www:y8ss,当当特价书,323700美女游戏大全
| Mnf工作更好的原因 为什么mnf表现得更好？原因可能是其本身的结构，更有可能来自于知识和技术转让所获得的协同作用。 背景和假设： a)前提研究： 有关M&A或类似于M&A活动的文献十分丰富。很多学者通过对国内以及跨国并购的案例来考察对公司绩效的影响。尤其是很多论文报告了所涉及的国际并购公司的绩效有了明显改善。 通过研究包括Fukao，Ito，Kwon Takizawa(2006)在内的超过3000家的日本上市公司的国内和跨境并购案件，发现在收购的第一个四年后，公司的生产力和总体性能都有了提高。这些跨境并购的影响力优于单纯的国内并购。Ito(2004)对印度尼西亚汽车行业的外资公司做出了相似的报告，他们同时都提出了这样的问题：受益人的作用到底来自哪里？Ito (2004)特别提出这归于它的规模经济，而不是技术优势或要素生产率的增加。 Why mnf perform better Why is it that MNF perform better? Reason might be the structure of MNF itself; more likely the synergy gained from knowledge and technology transfer Background And Hypothesis: a) Preceding Studies: The literature on M&A or M&A-like activity is abundant. Numerous scholars have examined the effects on firms' performance in the case of domestic as well as cross-border M&A. Especially for international M&A many papers report a significant improvement in the involved firms' performance. In a study of over 3,000 domestic and cross-border M&A cases involving Japanese listed firms, Fukao, Ito, Kwon and Takizawa (2006) found improvements in both the firms' productivity and overall performance in the first four years after the acquisition. These effects where larger for cross-border M&A, outperforming purely domestic M&A. Ito (2004) reports the same for foreign-owned firms of the Indonesian automotive industry. Both raise questions as to where the beneficiary effects really come from, Ito (2004) notably attributing it to economies of scale rather than technological advantages or increased factor productivity. Arnold and Javorcik (2005) report similar findings in terms of plant productivity and performance for foreign owned Indonesian industry but attribute it rather to the introduction of superior technology and management. A study on the long-term effect of M&A in high-tech sectors, such as the computer or bio-medical industries, points to an improvement of merged firms' technological performance and innovative capacity in the long run (Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2000). The study also emphasises the importance of strategic considerations and organisational planning as aspects of M&A decisions to react to uncertainty within the market and in transactions with other firms. The latter seems to hold true in the case of European banks as well. Altunbas and Ibanez (2004) find that, especially for cross-border M&A, the bank's performance is enhanced after a merger, due to higher diversity in loan and risk strategies and increased security. While the focus lies mainly on the acquired firms, there is some research that surveys the acquiring side of M&A deals. Saboo and Gopi (2009) surveyed the performance of Indian acquiring firms between 2000 and 2007 and found that operating profits increased significantly for those firms after the merger in the case of domestic M&A. For international M&A however, their results were insignificant. As of late the flow of capital from developing to developed countries has intensified. Even though according to Neoclassical theory, capital should flow from capital-abundant markets to markets where capital is scarce, many firms from emerging economies are now actively looking for foreign firms to acquire to get a foothold in mature markets. Chari, Chen and Dominguez (2009) conducted a large scale analysis of the performance of US listed firms that have been acquired by firms from emerging markets. They find that overall performance and in particular the target firms' return on assets increased significantly after announcement of the M&A and in the 5 years following. Given the fact, that the performance increase can't be easily explained by attributing it to e.g. overall lower factor prices in the new market or utilization of larger economies of scale by the acquiring firm for this kind of cross-border M&A, their results are very interesting, as they again raise the question what effects actually cause it. b) Hypothesis: Concluding the results of many studies, M&A seem to have inherent performance enhancing effects of some kind. Furthermore these effects are apparently bigger in the case of cross-border M&A and unrelated to the acquiring firm's country of origin or field of business. The one underlying problem is to identify and explain these effects in order to understand their nature and to be able to accurately predict their impact and utilize their potential. As it holds more promise I will focus mainly on cases of international M&A in the following. There are two possible explanations that deserve further examination. The first reason why both acquiring as well as acquired firms exhibit increased performance after M&A could be the structure of the newly formed multinational corporation (MNC) itself. MNC might command larger economies of scale and eliminate transaction costs. They might be able to pay higher wages and thus have access to a bigger and better trained workforce or might benefit from dispersed resources and access to multiple markets. The list of structural advantages one can think of goes on and on. The other explanation could be the exchange and transfer of knowledge and technology between the acquiring and acquired firms and the resulting synergies. The effects of which could be very big, but exchange of sensitive information and technology always holds high risks as well and cultural differences might make internal communication difficult and therefore expensive. An important thing to remember when evaluating M&A affected performance changes is the existence of a selection-bias on the side of the acquiring firm. Basically firms will pick targets for acquisition based on their profitability and prospects, which in turn leads to an increase in performance after the M&A. However, the fact that the increase for cross-border M&A is regularly larger than for domestic M&A (Hagedoorn and Duysters, 2000; Altunbas and Ibanez, 2004; Fukao, Ito, Kwon and Takizawa, 2006) whilst the selection-bias is surely present for both types of M&A, allows to rule out the possibility, that the selection-bias is the dominant cause of post-merger performance changes. Hypothetically, performance increases after international M&A are hence affected by two things: Structural advantages gained from forming a multinational corporation (MNC). Synergy effects gained from a larger pool of knowledge and technology and a faster creation of new knowledge. How exactly and to what degree, these factors play a relevant role in reality shall be discussed in the following. Multinational Corporations: The change in forms of organisation in business and the development of completely new business types after World War 2 has been greatly influenced by increasing internationalisation and globalisation. The formation of multinational corporations (MNC) is part of this and today big MNC are more powerful than ever. Despite their great importance for world economy there is a surprising scarcity of research on the matter and it is not as easy as it seems to say exactly what a MNC actually is and how it is different from national enterprises. a) What is a multinational corporation? Dunning (1989 and 1993) defines companies that own and control entrepreneurial activities in more than two countries as MNC. Even though this definition is very basic, it grasps the quality of MNC that discerns them from national enterprises: presence and action in a number of countries and across borders. It does however raise the question as to why companies would want to become multinational instead of simply trying to enter foreign markets by means of export and trade, whilst staying rooted in their country of origin. This answered by Dunning's OLI-paradigm, according to which companies will opt for direct-investment abroad if three criteria are met. First, the company must have an “ownership advantage” over potential or actual competitors after the investment, meaning direct ownership in a foreign market must bear a competitive advantage in comparison to non-ownership activities, like for example licensed retailing or joint-ventures. The most common example for an ownership advantage would be the utilisation of economies of scale. Further, the company must be able to realise “location advantages” innate to the foreign market it enters. Typical location advantages would be lower factor prices or attractive trade and tax law. Finally, it is usually profitable for a company to internalise its activities abroad to gain greater control and reduce transaction costs, realising an “internalisation advantage”. According to the OLI-paradigm, if a company's specific advantages of directly entering a foreign market outweigh the costs and risks of differences in language, culture, legal and political system as well as business practice, it will engage in the venture. b) Knowledge and multinational corporations: From a “resource-based” point of view (Barney, 1991), a firm is a set of material and immaterial resources. The firm's competitiveness and its ability to survive and strife in the market are determined by its success in using its own resources to create specialised or unique skills. In other words, it is dependent on its ability to create and utilise knowledge and technology of any kind. |
