Professional Documents
Culture Documents
26 August 2010 2
26 August 2010 3
|
p
pp
p
26 August 2010 5
1) Building on company's strength.
26 August 2010 6
!"#
1) Influencing structural evolution of the industry.
2) less competition.
3) Creation of stronger competitive units.
4) Speed to market.
26 August 2010 7
##
1) Shared risk.
2) Transfer of technology/skills.
3) Diversification.
26 August 2010 8
"$%&|
1. Valuation Problems.
2. Transparency.
3. Conflict Resolution.
4. Division of management responsibility
and degree of management
independence
5. Changes in ownership shares.
26 August 2010 9
6. Dividend Policy.
8. Cultural Problems.
26 August 2010 10
|''
26 August 2010 14
26 August 2010 15
Concerns in a JV
Ú V
Ú The JV between Hotline group(india) and Haier(china)
missed at that point.
Ú Haier planned to increase its share to 49% to introduce
wide ranges of products including washing machines,
multi-split AC¶s etc.
Ú Haier wanted to focus in imports.
Ú Hotline disagreed to these, the JV broke off before the
operations started
Ú Haier re-entered indian market with a 100% subsidiary in
2003.
26 August 2010 16
Concerns in a JV
Ú In some cases access to technology or
capital provides sufficient confidence in
the partners to go alone, making the JV
redundant
Ú or example- JV between TVS group
(INDIA) and Suzuki(japan) formed in 1983
was called off in 2001.
26 August 2010 17
Concerns in a JV
Ú At times either of the partners are accused
of breaching the terms of the JV creating
tensions in it.
Ú or example- Wadia accused Danone of
using the popular Britannia brand Tiger
products outside india, not permitted as
per the existing agreement between the
two.
26 August 2010 18
Concerns of doing a JV
There are cases of JV falling apart due to
lack of synergy.
Ú or example- the 40:60 JV between Godrej and GE
formed in 1993 , was called off in 2001
Ú The JV failed to meet the projected turnover of Rs 35
billion and managed only 1.83 billion in 1998-99.
Ú There was poor cultural integration between the two
partners. GE alleged lack of professionalism in the
Indian partner.
26 August 2010 19
%)*
Ú Inadequate preplanning for the joint venture.
Ú The hoped-for technology never developed.
Ú Agreements could not be reached on alternative
approaches to solving the basic objectives of the
joint venture.
Ú People with expertise in one company refused to
share knowledge with their counterparts in the
joint venture.
Ú Parent companies are unable to share control or
compromise on difficult issues
26 August 2010 20
-&% ,.
Ú ufthansa and Modi Group
Ú Daewoo and Proctor & Gamble
Ú inetic Honda
Ú Tata IBM
Ú M Piaggio
26 August 2010 21
26 August 2010 22
|
Ú The number of joint ventures will continue
to increase in the near future
Ú More and more companies are adopting
the JV approach as a part of their growth
strategies.
Ú oreign companies can benefit mutually
by combining their technological and
monetary resources and taking advantage
of respective market conditions.
26 August 2010 23
26 August 2010 24