首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到10条相似文献,搜索用时 93 毫秒
1.
Dow Chemical Company, which was founded in 1894, is now the second‐largest chemical company in the world. From the outset, the company has been committed to high‐technology research and commercial innovation in chemistry, advanced materials, and agro‐sciences. But if Dow's long history of innovation is impressive, the greatest change in the past few years has been the company's use of innovation to reinforce its commitment to sustainability. In 1996, the company produced its first set of 10‐year sustainability‐related goals. In an effort to meet such goals, the company invested a total of $1 billion in environmentally beneficial products such as new seeds and traits in Dow's AgroSciences business, solar shingles, and advanced battery technologies. Along with the social benefit of higher crop yields and reduced carbon emissions, the company's return on this investment has been estimated at $5 billion. The company was even more ambitious when setting its next set of 10‐year goals in 2006. In this statement, Dow's leadership aimed to create a culture that saw sustainability as a business opportunity from the perspective of a “triple bottom line”—a performance evaluation scheme focused on “people, planet, and profit” that construes success in terms of social benefits, environmental stewardship, and economic prosperity. Dow is now starting the process of developing its third set of 10‐year goals, with the aim of producing a plan that will ensure the viability of the company 50 years from now. With this end in mind, Dow's leaders understand their obligation to continue investing in the health and well‐being of their employees, their communities, and the environment while still creating value for their shareholders.  相似文献   

2.
Much to Apple's chagrin, the ‘suicide express’ at the Foxconn manufacturing complex in China has been widely reported. While outsourcing the manufacture of technology components is neither new nor unique, the external sourcing of digital content is integral to the success of Apple's business model. In 2008, Apple opened up their platform to third-party IT developers, leveraging their expertise for the supply of applications. Apple's rapid dominance of the mobile market led to the emergence of a business model that weaves together Internet-enabled mobile devices with digital content, brought together within a closed proprietary platform or ecosystem. Applying a Global Production Network analysis, this paper reports on fieldwork among Apple mobile application developers in Sweden, the UK, and the US. The analysis shows that although some developers experience success, financial returns remain elusive and many encounter intense pressure to generate and market new products in a competitive and saturated market. Crowdsourcing allows Apple to effectively source development to a global base of software developers, capitalizing on the mass production of digital products while simultaneously managing to sidestep the incurred costs and responsibilities associated with directly employing a high-tech workforce.  相似文献   

3.
This article argues that thirty years ago favourable cost conditions helped build productive power in Asia, whereas now US financial power drives and benefits from low labour costs in China, using the very different supply chain positions of Apple Inc. and Foxconn International Holdings (FIH) as examples. In the first section, the authors bring together the literatures on financialization and global supply chains to contextualise the pressures and outcomes discussed. A temporal dimension is added in section 2, using macro evidence on labour costs to compare new entrants into the industrial world order since the 1970s. The article then presents company illustrations in sections 3 and 4, deconstructing Apple's financial success and its trans-Pacific relations with its handset supplier FIH. The article concludes by observing that the rise of the post-national corporate player changes the alignment between large corporate interests and the US economy where Apple hoards its cash surplus and the success for the stockholders does not align with the broader needs of the US economy and society.  相似文献   

4.
A large number of studies have shown that many companies have made large acquisitions that their own shareholders probably would not have approved if given the opportunity to do so. In this article, which summarizes the findings of their study published recently in the Review of Financial Studies, the authors present evidence that suggests the effectiveness of shareholder voting as a corporate governance mechanism designed to prevent such value‐reducing acquisitions from taking place. The authors' study focused on acquisitions in the U.K. where proposed transactions that exceed a series of 25% relative size (target's as a percentage of the acquirer's) thresholds are defined as “Class 1” transactions and require shareholder approval. The authors found strikingly positive stock market reactions to the announcements of such Class 1 acquisitions—as compared to zero if not negative average announcement returns for Class 2 transactions that were not subject to a shareholder vote. And when the authors extended their analysis to U.S. M&A markets, they found that the larger (again, in relative size) U.S. deals—large enough that they would have required a shareholder vote in the U.K.—provided returns to their shareholders that were negative, and thus significantly lower than those of their U.K counterparts. In terms of the economic significance of their findings, the authors found that Class 1 transactions were associated with aggregate gains to acquirer shareholders of $13.6 billion. By contrast, U.S. transactions of similar size, which again were not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $210 billion for acquirer shareholders; and Class 2 U.K. transactions, also not subject to shareholder approval, were associated with aggregate losses of $3 billion. In a further series of tests designed to shed light on how mandatory shareholder voting generates such substantial value improvements for acquirer shareholders, the authors also found evidence suggesting that when faced with the requirement of a shareholder vote, CEOs and boards are more likely to resist the temptation to overpay to close a deal. And the fact that the shareholders of the Class 1 acquirers did not end up blocking a single transaction that was submitted to a vote suggests that this mechanism works without the need for shareholders to actually vote down a deal. In other words, mandatory shareholder voting on acquisitions is a powerful deterrent to “bad deals” because, first of all, the vote is triggered automatically by the relative size tests and, second, CEOs and boards, with the help of their bankers, have a pretty good idea well in advance of the vote whether their shareholders are going to vote “no”—and such a vote would be viewed by top management as a major rejection, a strong vote of no confidence.  相似文献   

5.
On March 19, 2012, Apple announced a program to distribute its “excess” cash to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buybacks. This announcement followed a pattern that is remarkably similar to the one leading up to Microsoft's announcement in 2004. Likewise IBM, the bluest of blue chips, made a path‐breaking decision to initiate share buybacks in the 1980s. And as recently as April 2012, IBM, along with many other large corporations, announced yet another major share buyback program together with an increase in its dividend. These actions underscore the reality that senior management's main job is to allocate capital efficiently—and that efficient allocation of capital means distributing it when necessary. In light of these events, and the demand from shareholders that appears to be driving them, this paper explores analytical and empirical issues related to excess cash and corporate payout policy. In so doing, it provides the outline of an analytical framework for executives when thinking about the allocation of excess cash among competing uses, including deleveraging, growth, special and regular dividends, and share buybacks. The essence of the framework is this: Once companies satisfy their demands for cash based on their expected financial transactions, their targeted capital structure, and prospective investment (mergers and acquisitions) considerations, management should turn its attention to capital structure and shareholder payout decisions. Assuming that the company's capital structure is reasonably close to its target, and that its rating agencies are supportive, management should aim to pay a level of dividends that (1) reflects the underlying strength and stability of their projected earnings streams and that (2) satisfies the expectations of its core shareholders while positioning itself for the future. For more cyclical and otherwise riskier companies, management should also consider the use of stock buybacks or special dividends as a way of paying out the more variable, or unexpected, part of their expected earnings stream.  相似文献   

6.
In May 1987, Apple Computer announced that it would pay $5 million in cash dividends on its common stock your cents per share) for the first time in its history. On the day of the announcement, the market value of Apple's equity rose by $219 million.
In May 1986, Emhart announced that it intended to issue 2.75 million shares to raise $102 million in new equity. Following the announcement, the market value of its existing equity fell by $23 million.
In February 1939, General Motors declared a 2-for-1 stock split for the first time since 1955, and increased its dividends. The announcement led the market value of GM's equity to increase by $1.3 billion.  相似文献   

7.
This paper examines the fight over a share reunification plan that pitted Swiss financier Martin Ebner against Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), once the largest Swiss bank and a global leader in asset management. In the U.S. corporate governance debate, large shareholders are often held up as a possible solution to corporate governance problems. But this examination of the UBS proxy fight shows why some large shareholders can themselves be a source of governance problems. The share reunification plan was designed to combine the firm's two classes of stock: registered (voting) shares and bearer (non-voting) shares. As its motive for the plan, the UBS board cited a desire both to increase liquidity and to prevent a control change. The majority of the holders of the company's registered stock—many of whom had other financial ties to the bank—ended up voting for a proposal that caused them to lose 11% of the value of their shares during the three trading days following its announcement, and eventually almost twice as much. Moreover, even the holders of the bearer stock hurt themselves by approving the reunification plan. Although the plan clearly transferred value from the registered to the bearer shares, the redistribution benefits from the plan for the bearer shareholders were not sufficient to offset their losses from the reduced probability of a control change. Although it did not succeed in accomplishing its immediate goal, the UBS proxy fight is today recognized as a watershed event in Swiss corporate governance. Until recently, Switzerland's economy has been dominated by cartels, with closely overlapping boards of directors. Hostile takeovers were essentially unheard of, and criticism of management by shareholders was highly unusual. Ebner's activities have had the effect of stimulating public debate about shareholders' rights and shareholder activism. In so doing, they have made it more acceptable for shareholders to criticize management and established shareholder value as a “politically correct” goal for Swiss corporations.  相似文献   

8.
我国股权大都集中在大股东的手中,终极控制股东普遍采用金字塔股权结构的方式对底层公司实施控制并影响会计稳健性。基于Basu模型,采用2012-2017年深沪两市A股上市公司数据,对终极控制股东产权性质、金字塔股权结构对上市公司会计稳健性进行研究。结果表明:与终极控制股东为非国有的上市公司相比,终极控制股东为国有的上市公司会计稳健性更高;金字塔层级增加导致会计稳健性降低;金字塔层级的增加对于国有控股企业和非国有控股企业会计稳健性的影响存在差异,国有终极控制上市公司的会计稳健性更高。  相似文献   

9.
This paper uses a business model framework to analyze the main limitations of Apple Inc. post-2003, a significant turning point in the company's history. As such, we move beyond an exclusive focus on what makes Apple unique or different by evaluating the mundane and out-dated elements of its business model. To do so, we examine the end-to-end supply chain, from source to store, to present a more holistic evaluation of the Apple business model. Drawing on the existing literature, we argue that the quintessential element of the Apple business model is its ability to ‘own the consumer’. In short, the Apple business model is designed to drive consumers into its ecosystem and then hold them there, which has been hugely successful to date and has allowed Apple to wield enormous power in the end-to-end supply chain. We demonstrate this through a detailed evaluation of Apple's physical and content supply chains and its retailing strategy. Moreover, we find that the very business processes that enable unparalleled corporate control bring with them new problems that Apple has thus far been unable, or unwilling, to adequately address.  相似文献   

10.
A distinguished Columbia academic discusses the methods and outcomes of “active investing” with the co‐founder of a leading private equity firm and a former senior partner of a well‐known hedge fund. In the case studies used by both panelists to illustrate their investment selection and management processes, the investors provided not only capital, but oversight and expertise that helped bring about significant increases in the productivity and value of their portfolio companies. What's more, in both cases, the changes that contributed to high returns for investors also ended up having major benefits for the companies' non‐investor stakeholders, especially their consumers. In the first of the two cases, Paul Hilal explains the thinking behind Pershing Square's $1.1 billion purchase of 14% of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 2012. With the help of intensive “fundamental” analysis of the company, Hilal recognized that Canadian Pacific was substantially underperforming its rival, the Canadian National Railway, in a number of important ways. And when CP's management and board rejected his plan for changes, Hilal led a proxy battle that ended in a landslide victory for the proposed slate of directors, including Hilal himself. Then, after bringing in a new CEO, the restructured board presided over operating changes that, during Pershing's four‐year ownership, increased the market value of CP from $8 billion to $30 billion. By 2016, when Pershing sold its investment (for $4 billion), Canadian Pacific was “shipping 20% more freight … 40% faster than ever before, with record on‐time performance, 40% fewer locomotives, 35% fewer people, and 14% improved fuel efficiency—all while maintaining an industry‐leading safety record.” In the second case, Russ Carson describes the success of Welsh, Carson, Anderson, and Stowe in turning its purchase in 1998 of a single oncology practice in Denver into a publicly traded company with more than 90 outpatient cancer centers throughout the U.S. When it was sold in 2011, US Oncology was producing $4 billion in revenue while employing 1,000 oncologists, who, as significant equity owners, shared in the success of Welsh Carson. Using modern management techniques to create “enormous efficiencies out of an extraordinarily fragmented system,” Carson and his colleagues created “the single largest—and, by all accounts, most reputable—outpatient provider of cancer services in the country.” One of the keys to this success was “getting the doctors to spend their time seeing patients, not looking for records,” which contributed greatly to Welsh Carson's ability to improve “both the quantity and quality of cancer care in the 90 communities that we were operating in.”  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号