Avoid carve out surprises
1 like537 views
The document discusses the importance of careful planning and execution in corporate carve-outs to maximize value and avoid surprises. It highlights challenges such as underestimating the complexity of separation, maintaining unnecessary business complexity, and the need for a robust go-to-market strategy. Ultimately, effective foresight and management are essential to ensure that the carve-out leads to increased value rather than underperformance.
Avoid carve out surprises
- 1. www.strategy-business.com strategy+business ONLINE SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 THE CAPABLE DEALMAKER How to Avoid “Carve-Out” Surprises Careful planning for an independent future can maximize value when companies liberate assets. BY THOMAS J. FLAHERTY III AND KYLE LONG
- 2. www.strategy-business.com 1 unlock value in unique ways. But restructuring or separating business units to match investor sentiment is often neither simple nor cer- tain. Smart companies are finding that the early recog- nition and consideration of the challenges that accom- pany a carve-out can avoid unwelcome surprises later. The First Order of Business Management decisions to carve-out a business often generate a great deal of excitement about what the fu- ture will look like for both the soon-to-be separated company and the original enterprise. Management team members and employees intuitively feel that the carve-out will cure whatever market misperceptions have contributed to the company’s past undervaluation, while those who will run the soon-to-be-free entity look forward to greater independence. As a result, manage- ment can focus too much on executing the separation quickly and defining the company’s future beyond the carve-out. In doing so, they often overlook important elements that increase the risks of successful execution and value realization for the new entity, and can also create unwelcome and untimely distractions for man- agement of both the parent company and carve-out af- ter separation. Many of these problems are avoidable. Four specific challenges that have arisen in several recent carve-outs C ompanies have traditionally sought to create shareholder value through the process of addi- tion. They build broad-based business portfoli- os via growth strategies or product innovation, and bulk up through mergers and acquisitions. In this market cycle, however, investors seem to prefer simpler and clearer business models to complicated stories. As a re- sult, there is rising pressure — and increasing opportu- nity — to add value through subtraction. In an effort to provide more compelling value propositions, many companies have pursued a broader and less traditional range of structural options that simplify matters and clarify business priorities: divestments, and the spin- outs of business units or assets into real estate invest- ment trusts, master limited partnerships, or yield com- panies (“yieldcos”), which provide stable and more predictable cash flows. Each of these “carve-out” mechanisms has a place in the portfolio of strategic reconstruction, depending on its applicability to the asset base or business. In re- cent years we have seen their adoption in transactions such as Duke Energy’s spin-out of Spectra Energy, Cen- terPoint Energy’s and OGE Energy’s IPO of Enable Midstream Partners, and NextEra Energy’s formation of its yieldco, NextEra Energy Partners. The positive market reception to these carve-outs when they oc- curred highlights how nontraditional restructurings can How to Avoid “Carve-Out” Surprises Careful planning for an independent future can maximize value when companies liberate assets. by Thomas J. Flaherty III and Kyle Long
- 3. www.strategy-business.com 2 The manifold requirements of a carve-out include financial structuring, business valuation, operating model design, organization stand-up, infrastructure separation, staffing alignment, cost distribution, market readiness, and a variety of additional areas of consider- ation and preparation. Underestimating carve-out separation planning and execution requirements frequently leads to time- 0line progression and readiness problems. To avoid them, management needs to treat any proposed carve- out as a priority and not just another project. Formal leadership, enterprise mobilization, and detailed action planning should be cornerstones of carve-out planning and execution. • Conservatism in go-to-market strategy. Al- though the focus of the carve-out is to get into the mar- ket as quickly as possible, investors are also interested in how the new entity will compete and create value. Management often emphasizes the stand-up of the new entity rather than its post-separation competitive- ness, partly because responsibility for post-separation strategy development and market performance will fall to the carve-out’s management. But when a company loses market mo- mentum after separation due to an underdeveloped or oversimplified first-year strategy, it can undercut the original rationale for the separation. In formulating the carve-out strategy, management needs to con- sider where in the market the new provide lessons that can help management side-step ad- verse separation outcomes. These are particularly on point for structural carve-outs — i.e., divestments and spin-offs, in which standing up a successful new com- pany is a significant obstacle. • Underestimating carve-out requirements. Man- agement teams often fail to recognize the complexity and execution demands a carve-out creates. In many cases, the business may be relatively small compared to the overall enterprise, and management assumes that the separation is simple and has minimal overall impact. In other cases, management assumes that the separation requirements are straightforward and leave little room for judgement. Generally, neither is true, and these per- ceptions tend to lull management into a false sense of security. Thomas J. Flaherty tom.flaherty@ strategyand.us.pwc.com is a principal with Strategy&, PwC’s strategy consulting group. He is part of the power and utilities practice and based in Dallas. Kyle Long kyle.long@us.pwc.com is a director in PwC’s Advisory practice and is based in Atlanta. IllustrationbyMartinLeonBarreto
- 4. www.strategy-business.com 3 the new management team to define the minimum level of requirements that will position the business to grow and deliver in the first year, and by dropping infra- structure platforms that do not support these objectives. • Underperforming market expectations. Carve- outs commonly fail to deliver on first-year commit- ments. Although the investment community can be forgiving in that time frame, competitors may seize the moment to make an offer to the new entity’s sharehold- ers, claiming they can manage the business better than the current management team. As a smaller entity out- side the former parent company’s umbrella, the carve- out will now be subject to the vagaries of the market’s impatience for results. Strategic decisions prior to the separation, planning inadequacies in the run-up to separation, or simple ex- ecution failures after the carve-out can lead to disap- pointing performance. Management often doesn’t real- ize the value of detailed planning for the separation or the need for precision in executing against that plan. Once again, the emphasis on simply getting to Day One can mask future difficulties. The best way to avoid post-close underperformance is to define and understand the risks in achieving ex- pected outcomes, and to recognize the potential need for mitigation within separation planning. These mech- anisms help anticipate negative outcomes and define ac- tions that can be undertaken early in the planning pro- cess to identify and nullify threats. Planning for the Unexpected Markets notice when carve-out preparation and follow- through have not been executed well. To avoid the types entity will choose to play, how the new entity will com- pete, and how the separated company will win in the market. A robust and complete go-to-market strategy thus needs to be designed for the competitive future of the separated company rather than for the competitive position that existed when it was part of a larger enter- prise. Strategy needs to be developed well before the separation — not left to new management. • Maintaining unnecessary business complexity. In the rush to get to Day One of the separation, man- agement often considers only the requirements to sepa- rate and operate the carve-out business, rather than the need to also improve it to operate effectively. Manage- ment frequently takes the approach that what exists to- day is the same as what needs to exist tomorrow. And so they transfer the existing infrastructure and platforms rather than redesign, adapt, or replace them. Management can select from several approaches to standing-up the new business — clone and go, fit-for- purpose, or build to suit. Any of the approaches can work. But each bears trade-offs in both cost and effec- tiveness related to the ongoing needs of a smaller and simpler business. Each approach also has strengths and weaknesses regarding the ability to satisfy the core needs of the separated business without saddling it with un- necessary infrastructure, processes, and complexity. To avoid leaving the carve-out in an uneconomic or uncompetitive position post-close, management needs to focus on simplicity. The newly separated business needs to be self-sufficient shortly after stand-up occurs. But it also needs to be as lean as possible so that it can optimize margins and solidify market performance. This simplification is best accomplished by empowering Positioning Defining the parameters of market participation Platforming Establishing the future business model for growth Scaling Setting the resource levels to match business needs Streamlining Simplifying the business to achieve “best cost” standards Standing Up Executing against the plan to accelerate readiness Exhibit: Carve-Out Focus Areas Carve-Out Success Value Creation “Stand-up” execution Carve-out decision Separation plan Options and trade-offs “SpinCo” philosophy Source: Strategy& Management’s focus on “carve-out” planning starts with defining the “how” of execution (the cycle at left), with attention to building value throughout the planning and execution processes (at right).
- 5. www.strategy-business.com 4 of performance challenges that often occur in carve- outs, management teams need to engage in a careful bal- ancing act. They must consider what adverse carve-out events could happen (pre- and post-separation) and what actions they can take to ensure that planned outcomes are fully realized, rather than unnecessarily foregone. A variety of elements go into structuring and imple- menting a successful carve-out process (see exhibit). The first step is to define the philosophy that will drive the desired outcomes from the separation, e.g., market posi- tioning to unlock value. A detailed and comprehensive plan to shape the spun-off company — i.e., “SpinCo” — according to this philosophy provides the road map for execution and defines the internal strategic and op- erating platform to build upon. Next, management tests the plan against alternative approaches and outcomes to evaluate unexpected impacts and sharpen the activities to be carried out. Finally, execution must be carefully managed to recognize the complexity of the separation and either scale or streamline the resources necessary to support the carve-out. Throughout the planning and execution process, management must also focus on how it can build value through effective scaling and stream- lining of the newly independent entities. Carve-out of assets or a business can be a valuable lever when smartly used by management to unlock un- recognized value. Bringing informed foresight to the carve-out planning process is a fundamental ingredient to ensure that asset or business subtraction actually leads to the addition of incremental value. +
- 6. strategy+business magazine is published by certain members of the PwC network. To subscribe, visit strategy-business.com or call 1-855-869-4862. For more information about Strategy&, visit strategyand.pwc.com • strategy-business.com • facebook.com/strategybusiness • twitter.com/stratandbiz Articles published in strategy+business do not necessarily represent the views of the member firms of the PwC network. Reviews and mentions of publications, products, or services do not constitute endorsement or recommendation for purchase. © 2015 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.