How good are Alliances as an Option to Acquisitions?

by Les Nemethy	CEO of Euro-Phoenix

Many investors often think that acquisition is the best or fastest way to achieve a strategic objective such as entering a particular market or acquiring a certain technology. 

An alliance, however, may be at least as good an option in certain circumstances (e.g. where a company lacks a budget for acquisitions).  Alliances are very common:  there are many tens of thousands of them negotiated every year, most of them across borders.

Types of Alliances

An alliance may be defined as a association among two or more parties which involves a sharing of resources and coordination among parties to achieve common objectives.

The three main types of alliance are contractual, cross-ownership or setting up a special purpose vehicle (SPV).

A contractual alliance is generally a pure commercial agreement that sets out the objectives, the resources contributed by each partner, the division of the spoils, as well as in many case the puts and calls, the representations and warranties, etc.

Cross-ownership may involve one party taking an ownership interest in the other, or parties taking an ownership interest in each other.  The relationship may be cemented through representation on the Board, or the contribution of capital.  Most alliances do not require cross-ownership.

Setting up an SPV (a company, a limited partnership, etc.) may be a good way to structure an alliance.  A Board of Directors provides a direct way of making decisions concerning the alliance.  A shareholders’ agreement may be used to regulate the corporate governance of the SPV.  The parties should also regulate who contributes what resources to the SPV, and how spoils are distributed.

The Rationale for an Alliance

Alliances have several advantages over acquisitions: 
· They are much faster to negotiate and implement than acquisitions.  They typically do not require due diligence of the acquired firm (although considerable research on the strategic or commercial opportunities available at hand is usually necessary).
· There is much less risk that the management of the alliance partner will depart (which often happens with acquisitions).  This generally means that there is a more committed team in place.
· There is no need for the huge investment that typically accompanies an acquisition.  If, for example, two alliance partners join forces to develop a certain product, technology, or geographic region, each alliance partner contributes thehuman, financial, or other resources necessary to achieve the joint objective.
a Elements of a successful alliance include the complementarity, compatibility and commitment of the alliance partners.

Drawbacks of an Alliance

Alliances are not appropriate in all circumstances, however.  They have a number of important drawbacks, which include:
· CEOs often like having resources under their direct command - but alliance partners do not respond well to commands.  They expect to be treated like partners.  Hence, achieving strategic objectives requires constant communication and effort put in to maintain the relationship.
· There is always a risk that the alliance partner will not hold their side of the bargain, which may jeopardize the efforts and investments of the partner that does hold their side of the bargain.  (This risk may generally be mitigated by good project management, for example using benchmarks for what objectives are to be achieved by certain dates), as well as including representations and warranties in the alliance agreement).
· One of the most surprising tendencies of alliances is for them to unravel once they have been successful.  While alliance partners may work together for many years to achieve their joint objectives, once these objectives have been achieved, and the venture has been declared a success, the partners have a tendency to go in different directions.  One may wish to sell, the other may wish to expand the scope of the venture (e.g. expand into additional countries or related ventures).  As a result, it is advisable to have good conflict resolution mechanisms built into the alliance agreement (e.g. mediation).

Most authorities on the subject estimate that only 40 to 50 per cent of alliances achieve their objectives in the long run.

Conclusions

Alliances are often not considered or given sufficient weight as a viable option for achieving corporate objectives.  While they are not appropriate in all circumstances, they are generally one of severable viable options.  Despite the relatively low track record of success for alliances, companies are facing increasing pressure to enter into  them as a means of bolstering competitiveness. Proceed carefully!

Les Nemethy is CEO of Euro-Phoenix Financial Advisors Ltd. (), a Central European corporate finance company focused on Mergers & Acquisitions.  He is the author of “Unlocking your Company’s Value”

How strategic investors identify acquisition targets

by Les Nemethy	CEO of Euro-Phoenix

A strategic investor uses a very different process to identify acquisition targets than that used by financial investors. 

For a strategic investor, as the name implies, identifying an acquisition target must flow from the acquiring company’s strategy.

The worst methodology that a strategic investor might use to identify targets is to respond to the acquisition opportunities that it finds on an ad hoc basis.  This simply will not work for two major reasons:

· First, responding to opportunities on an ad hoc basis typically means that deep strategic thinking has been short-circuited.
· Second, if a strategic investor acquires a company that it came across merely on an ad hoc basis, how does it know that there were not better acquisition opportunities elsewhere in the market place?

It flows from the above thinking that a strategic investor, before embarking on an acquisition, should have a clear definition of its overall corporate strategy, and from such a corporate strategy should flow its acquisition strategy.  (Of course it is ideal to have these in writing: there is nothing that focuses the mind as much as putting something in writing, an approach which also helps to ensure that the different parts of the organization are also in consensus).

Some of the elements of an acquisition strategy might include definitions of the following:
· The rationale for the acquisition (e.g. vertical or horizontal integration, expanding into newer high-growth markets, acquiring technology or know-how, etc.);
· The precise profile of the target companies sought;
· The geographic range of possibilities;
· The financial criteria (revenues, profitability, etc.);
· The type of management or skills which may be required;
· The type of clientele which the target company should have;
· The valuation range in which such acquisitions may make sense.

A company may choose to create a strategy broader than an acquisition strategy, namely an M&A strategy. Such an approach would also cover the criteria which a company would set for divestiture of its subsidiaries.

Once the strategy has been defined, the acquiring company should engage in a systematic search for and assessment of all those companies that fulfil the criteria (as opposed to an ad hoc approach).  If there are a very large number of candidates, the list might be shortened by selecting only the most attractive ones.  

The most attractive ones might then be approached to ascertain whether they are willing to talk about a strategic partnership or acquisition, and with an eye to further fact-finding about the company.  It is often useful to use an independent third party intermediary for this approach, as it allows the approach to be anonymous, keeping the name of the acquiring party out of the market.

Failure to apply the above approach may result in a bidder finding itself among a herd of bidders in a frothy, overpriced market, competing for a target company that might not even be the best strategic fit.

Some of the more astute strategic investors have been monitoring their potential acquisition targets for many years, sometimes even decades, and are ready to make a move on short notice if the owner of a target company becomes willing to sell or if price expectations are reduced.  However, it is usually only a small percentage of potential target companies that a strategic investor is willing to acquire—the majority of potential targets quite often simply do not make the grade.

Central Europe is often an attractive area for acquisitions for global investors because most investors believe that Central Europe is on a convergence path with Western Europe, meaning that GDP per capita, incomes, consumption, etc. will catch up to Western European levels.  This is based on the belief that, “A rising tide raises all ships”.  Nevertheless, different countries move at different speeds at different points in time, depending on their political and socio-economic environments, and some companies are better acquisition candidates than others.  The importance of country and industry-specific knowledge at the local level cannot be over-emphasized.

Les Nemethy is CEO of Euro-Phoenix Financial Advisors Ltd. (), a Central European corporate finance company focused on Mergers & Acquisitions.  He is the author of “Unlocking your Company’s Value”