[Moselle18]

Could someone read this for me to see what sort of mark I would get, thankss!

Although long-term success of the Kraft – Cadburys takeover is yet to be realised, one year on the business seems to be going strong. Ultimately, the success of the Cadburys takeover has been due to Kraft considering the interests of Stakeholders. To what extent do stakeholders benefit from the merger of two large companies? (40 marks)

A merger is a union between two companies when they decide to integrate, these could be for a number of reasons such as trying to gain economies of scale whereas an acquisition is where one business buys another therefore taking ownership of it. Usually M&A’s are disastrous and 83% of them fail, however Kraft took into consideration of Cadbury’s stakeholders. Kraft still decided for Cadbury to remain selling in the UK as it is a prominent brand, therefore customers were still able to buy Cadbury’s products as they remained a single entity, but this only happened because of government intervention. In addition to this employees kept their jobs apart from a closure of the Somerset factory.

One stakeholder that usually benefits from mergers are the customers these then benefit the two businesses that have decided to merge. Customers usually get the best of both worlds and cheaper deals such as the T-mobile and Orange merger. When T-mobile and Orange decided to merge it was because they were the best companies in the telecommunications market. These benefited the customers because they could offer larger network coverage, across two networks.

Another stakeholder that usually benefits from a large merger, is the managers. Managers usually get the largest advantage. The main reason is because they get promoted to higher positions therefore giving them more pay and bonuses. One example of this is the merger between BA and Iberia. When these two businesses merged, they became IAG (International Airlines Group) which instantly made BA’s CEO Willie Walsh richer as he became the CEO of the combined group. As well as this the Finance Offer of BA became the CEO of BA (as they both still operated as single entities). This was good for both the businesses though as Willie Walsh is a respected manager and could provide both businesses with higher profits. Another company that made Managers richer was the Glencore and Xstrata merger. Both CEO’s became instantly richer from the $90Bn merger.

On the other hand not all Stakeholders benefit from M&A’s. A good example of this was the RBS takeover of NatWest. Employees and shareholders were not happy, which was really bad as a financial strategy has in place that shareholders should always be happy either through more shares available therefore more dividends. 18 000 of NatWest employees had to be made redundant as NatWest were now under control by RBS, this was only because costs had to minimised. As well as that NatWest shareholders were not happy with the premium that they were receiving on their shares, in addition to this they only had about 30 -35% share of the business when it was taken over, but on the positive side NatWest was kept as a separate entity. On another note Xstrata shareholders were not happy about the merger as they thought Glencore had another agenda. Glencore had already owned about 36.5% of the business, so shareholders were a little confused as to why they wouldn’t takeover but merge instead.

Overall most of the stakeholders benefit in one way or another. Governments do not really benefit from these mergers, as most of the time they will have to intervene as the businesses may be performing an act of monopolisation of the market. Suppliers can be affected as the larger a company gets it benefits from economies of scale. This means that lower prices will be given to these suppliers, as the businesses buy in bulk. To answer the above question, stakeholders generally do benefit from mergers e.g. shareholders earn a higher share in dividends as more profits will be generated from a combined business selling more products to customers. Generally it is a good idea to merge at the needs of stakeholders are met but it is also not good as the cultures of businesses may clash therefore diseconomies of scale such as bad communication can occur in these integrations, which would lead to a closed M&A and will lose a lot of money for both businesses.

[alexissocool]

(Original post by The Dark Redster)
Once again can someone look at my response to the question to which was completed in a time slot of ten minutes ‘To what extent do stakeholders benefit from the merger or takeover of two companies?’- this would be appreciated.

One could argue that to an extent some stakeholders, such as consumers do benefit from the merger or takeover of two companies. The reason why consumers could benefit is that the merger or takeover has granted the consumers with high quality products at a reasonable price. This was the case for when Morrisons took over the meat processing company, Vion UK in early 2012, according to Manchester Evening News. According to the group manufacturing director of Morrison, Martyn Fletcher, owning Vion UK’s meat processing plants will ‘ensure we can control quality and keep down costs for our customers’, which he believed what the majority of shoppers want. Furthermore, Vion UK’s move from Winsford to other United Kingdom facilities would ensure that their packaging resources are better aligned to current and anticipated market demand. Consequently, consumers would benefit from this takeover in terms of quality of meat products in Morrison’s stores, which are in safe and suitable packaging materials. One could argue though that one of the prominent reasons why the consumers, Morrisons’ shoppers, benefited is this is an example of a vertical backwards takeover, which allowed the supermarket to control the distribution cycle from the meat-stores to they enter Morrisons’ stores. In other cases, consumers may not have benefited because it was not an example of a vertical backwards merger therefore reducing no competition in the market place, but is a strategy to help Morrison control quality to gain the extra sales, rather than having the ability to exploit consumers. A classic example of exploitation this is the horizontal merger between British Airways and Iberia, where as it was a horizontal merger, the two companies could control and exploit consumers in terms of price. Therefore, one can recognise that the extent to which stakeholders benefit from the merger or takeovers of two companies can relate to what type of integration it is, and whether you already have the competitive advantage, therefore playing importance of power in the market place with Porter’s Five Competitive Forces.

Yes it's a great paragraph, I like the way you considered two sides of the same takeover; a good point and a bad point. Just remember you compare and contrast takeovers and mergers too cause that's the key to the B/A/A* grades; or so I've been told.

[The Dark Redster]

(Original post by tashbolton)
Hi

Can anybody give me an example of a business to relate to corporate plans or contingency planning, a firm that has relied on a contingency plan maybe? struggling with this section

Contingency Planning:

Risk management at Diageo- Diageo, the international drinks company, is a company known as using ‘a robust risk-assessment process to capture strategic and operational risk’, by employing thousands of staff to assess risk, and plan what to do if things go wrong. Furthermore, the company has developed a matrix that allows the company to assess potential events in terms of likelihood and impact, such as brewing plant fires or European Legalisation.

Extracts from Starbucks’ Annual Report- Many annual reports published by companies often include forward-looking statements, by using words such as ‘expects’ and ‘plans’ highlighting the uncertain future. In Starbuck’s 2007 Annual Report, the company took this to the extreme, despite not being able to control the future, they were trying to anticipate possible threats such as exchange rate changes, epidemics, health issues, damage to company’s reputation, uncontrollable cost increases, a downturn in the American economy, losses of key personnel, and technology failures.

[Rolay]

(Original post by idealized)
oo your lucky! i need 89ums to get into uni

Nah man. My chemistry was a shocker yesterday so i'm pretty depressed! ohwell. Lets see what happens

[The Dark Redster]

(Original post by alexissocool)
Yes it's a great paragraph, I like the way you considered two sides of the same takeover; a good point and a bad point. Just remember you compare and contrast takeovers and mergers too cause that's the key to the B/A/A* grades; or so I've been told.

Comparing and contrasting in the same paragraph or throughout?
Thank you.

[sergeant1]

(Original post by Moselle18)
Could someone read this for me to see what sort of mark I would get, thankss!

Although long-term success of the Kraft – Cadburys takeover is yet to be realised, one year on the business seems to be going strong. Ultimately, the success of the Cadburys takeover has been due to Kraft considering the interests of Stakeholders. To what extent do stakeholders benefit from the merger of two large companies? (40 marks)

A merger is a union between two companies when they decide to integrate, these could be for a number of reasons such as trying to gain economies of scale whereas an acquisition is where one business buys another therefore taking ownership of it. Usually M&A’s are disastrous and 83% of them fail, however Kraft took into consideration of Cadbury’s stakeholders. Kraft still decided for Cadbury to remain selling in the UK as it is a prominent brand, therefore customers were still able to buy Cadbury’s products as they remained a single entity, but this only happened because of government intervention. In addition to this employees kept their jobs apart from a closure of the Somerset factory.

One stakeholder that usually benefits from mergers are the customers these then benefit the two businesses that have decided to merge. Customers usually get the best of both worlds and cheaper deals such as the T-mobile and Orange merger. When T-mobile and Orange decided to merge it was because they were the best companies in the telecommunications market. These benefited the customers because they could offer larger network coverage, across two networks.

Another stakeholder that usually benefits from a large merger, is the managers. Managers usually get the largest advantage. The main reason is because they get promoted to higher positions therefore giving them more pay and bonuses. One example of this is the merger between BA and Iberia. When these two businesses merged, they became IAG (International Airlines Group) which instantly made BA’s CEO Willie Walsh richer as he became the CEO of the combined group. As well as this the Finance Offer of BA became the CEO of BA (as they both still operated as single entities). This was good for both the businesses though as Willie Walsh is a respected manager and could provide both businesses with higher profits. Another company that made Managers richer was the Glencore and Xstrata merger. Both CEO’s became instantly richer from the $90Bn merger.

On the other hand not all Stakeholders benefit from M&A’s. A good example of this was the RBS takeover of NatWest. Employees and shareholders were not happy, which was really bad as a financial strategy has in place that shareholders should always be happy either through more shares available therefore more dividends. 18 000 of NatWest employees had to be made redundant as NatWest were now under control by RBS, this was only because costs had to minimised. As well as that NatWest shareholders were not happy with the premium that they were receiving on their shares, in addition to this they only had about 30 -35% share of the business when it was taken over, but on the positive side NatWest was kept as a separate entity. On another note Xstrata shareholders were not happy about the merger as they thought Glencore had another agenda. Glencore had already owned about 36.5% of the business, so shareholders were a little confused as to why they wouldn’t takeover but merge instead.

Overall most of the stakeholders benefit in one way or another. Governments do not really benefit from these mergers, as most of the time they will have to intervene as the businesses may be performing an act of monopolisation of the market. Suppliers can be affected as the larger a company gets it benefits from economies of scale. This means that lower prices will be given to these suppliers, as the businesses buy in bulk. To answer the above question, stakeholders generally do benefit from mergers e.g. shareholders earn a higher share in dividends as more profits will be generated from a combined business selling more products to customers. Generally it is a good idea to merge at the needs of stakeholders are met but it is also not good as the cultures of businesses may clash therefore diseconomies of scale such as bad communication can occur in these integrations, which would lead to a closed M&A and will lose a lot of money for both businesses.

In my opinion i would focus more on using about 3 case studies for each paragraph to back up a point instead of trying to use as many as possible. It gives you good application using all of those case studies but it meant to restricted yourself from developing points further to get good analysis and to get into the top boundary you have to get both good application and good analysis.
Only my opinion people can feel free to disagree but otherwise it is a good answer is answers the question and you don't need to know much more about the case studies as there is enough detail about them just analyse them more, well thats what i would do anyway.

[alexissocool]

(Original post by Moselle18)
Could someone read this for me to see what sort of mark I would get, thankss!

Although long-term success of the Kraft – Cadburys takeover is yet to be realised, one year on the business seems to be going strong. Ultimately, the success of the Cadburys takeover has been due to Kraft considering the interests of Stakeholders. To what extent do stakeholders benefit from the merger of two large companies? (40 marks)

A merger is a union between two companies when they decide to integrate, these could be for a number of reasons such as trying to gain economies of scale whereas an acquisition is where one business buys another therefore taking ownership of it. Usually M&A’s are disastrous and 83% of them fail, however Kraft took into consideration of Cadbury’s stakeholders. Kraft still decided for Cadbury to remain selling in the UK as it is a prominent brand, therefore customers were still able to buy Cadbury’s products as they remained a single entity, but this only happened because of government intervention. In addition to this employees kept their jobs apart from a closure of the Somerset factory.

One stakeholder that usually benefits from mergers are the customers these then benefit the two businesses that have decided to merge. Customers usually get the best of both worlds and cheaper deals such as the T-mobile and Orange merger. When T-mobile and Orange decided to merge it was because they were the best companies in the telecommunications market. These benefited the customers because they could offer larger network coverage, across two networks.

Another stakeholder that usually benefits from a large merger, is the managers. Managers usually get the largest advantage. The main reason is because they get promoted to higher positions therefore giving them more pay and bonuses. One example of this is the merger between BA and Iberia. When these two businesses merged, they became IAG (International Airlines Group) which instantly made BA’s CEO Willie Walsh richer as he became the CEO of the combined group. As well as this the Finance Offer of BA became the CEO of BA (as they both still operated as single entities). This was good for both the businesses though as Willie Walsh is a respected manager and could provide both businesses with higher profits. Another company that made Managers richer was the Glencore and Xstrata merger. Both CEO’s became instantly richer from the $90Bn merger.

On the other hand not all Stakeholders benefit from M&A’s. A good example of this was the RBS takeover of NatWest. Employees and shareholders were not happy, which was really bad as a financial strategy has in place that shareholders should always be happy either through more shares available therefore more dividends. 18 000 of NatWest employees had to be made redundant as NatWest were now under control by RBS, this was only because costs had to minimised. As well as that NatWest shareholders were not happy with the premium that they were receiving on their shares, in addition to this they only had about 30 -35% share of the business when it was taken over, but on the positive side NatWest was kept as a separate entity. On another note Xstrata shareholders were not happy about the merger as they thought Glencore had another agenda. Glencore had already owned about 36.5% of the business, so shareholders were a little confused as to why they wouldn’t takeover but merge instead.

Overall most of the stakeholders benefit in one way or another. Governments do not really benefit from these mergers, as most of the time they will have to intervene as the businesses may be performing an act of monopolisation of the market. Suppliers can be affected as the larger a company gets it benefits from economies of scale. This means that lower prices will be given to these suppliers, as the businesses buy in bulk. To answer the above question, stakeholders generally do benefit from mergers e.g. shareholders earn a higher share in dividends as more profits will be generated from a combined business selling more products to customers. Generally it is a good idea to merge at the needs of stakeholders are met but it is also not good as the cultures of businesses may clash therefore diseconomies of scale such as bad communication can occur in these integrations, which would lead to a closed M&A and will lose a lot of money for both businesses.

The evaluation is quite good but I would say that your points are quite brief, good on application but lacking in analysis a bit.
Also the essay is top heavy; you have two points on how stakeholders do benefit from a M+A but only one point contradicted.

Let me see, analysis and application is 26 marks and evaluation is 14 marks.

For that essay I would say 16 marks for analysis and application and 10 marks for evaluation so 26 in total. But then again, it is just my opinion you never know!
Work on expanding your analysis and another point for contradiction and I reckon you're looking at 30+ marks

[Moselle18]

(Original post by sergeant1)
In my opinion i would focus more on using about 3 case studies for each paragraph to back up a point instead of trying to use as many as possible. It gives you good application using all of those case studies but it meant to restricted yourself from developing points further to get good analysis and to get into the top boundary you have to get both good application and good analysis.
Only my opinion people can feel free to disagree but otherwise it is a good answer is answers the question and you don't need to know much more about the case studies as there is enough detail about them just analyse them more, well thats what i would do anyway.

Thank youu for ur feedback I will take it into consideration

[Moselle18]

(Original post by alexissocool)
The evaluation is quite good but I would say that your points are quite brief, good on application but lacking in analysis a bit.
Also the essay is top heavy; you have two points on how stakeholders do benefit from a M+A but only one point contradicted.

Let me see, analysis and application is 26 marks and evaluation is 14 marks.

For that essay I would say 16 marks for analysis and application and 10 marks for evaluation so 26 in total. But then again, it is just my opinion you never know!
Work on expanding your analysis and another point for contradiction and I reckon you're looking at 30+ marks

Thank you so much, my teacher has been saying that to me for agess but I just dnt know how, I need to by today! Thank you and I will take all ur advice into consideration

[sergeant1]

(Original post by smellycat123)
What case studies do people have for organisational culture? (i only have google )

Google is a really good one as you have it.
Apple as the culture didn't really changed they lived in using the culture steve jobs left and any discrete changes have been managed well by the CEO Tim Cook.
I have an example of "Time Warner" they sacked there CEO Jack Griffin as his leadership style didn't fit the culture of the business, for instance he unravelled a complicated management structure by moving around executive and trying to combine different sections of magazines into one!

[RE94]

If anyone needs help for Section A businesses, then this is really good

http://buss4revisionhelp.blogspot.co...d-cadbury.html

It has details about each bullet point with good facts and figures to use in your exam

Hope this helps some people who have just started to revise

[Indyy]

Please come up BP1..

[alexissocool]

(Original post by Moselle18)
Thank you so much, my teacher has been saying that to me for agess but I just dnt know how, I need to by today! Thank you and I will take all ur advice into consideration

You're welcome.

[HP348]

Can you call the intergration of Cadburys and kraft a success?
Given the mass exhodus of workforce ?

[sergeant1]

(Original post by Moselle18)
Thank youu for ur feedback I will take it into consideration

No problem

[The Dark Redster]

What would you suggest is the best way to compare and contrast business examples in each paragraph?

[alexissocool]

(Original post by The Dark Redster)
Comparing and contrasting in the same paragraph or throughout?
Thank you.

This will be brief but show you what you need to do:

Well for example if you had an essay question on factors influencing the success or failure of a takeover or merger.

You could talk about the price paid for the merger/takeover as a key factor influencing the success/failure of an M + A. For example, the takeover of Myspace by News Cooperation was priced at over £500m (overvaluation) they sold Myspace in June 2011 for an estimated $35 million.. In contrast to this, the takeover of Edexcel by Pearsons cost just £20 million which some argue was a very fair price, in 2010-2011 Edexcel reported profits of £60million, up from pre-takeover.

Obviously that's very brief and would require much more analysis but you see how you compare for one point that you're making?

[The Dark Redster]

That is helpful, thank you.

[idealized]

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/10/2...ple-in-stores/

that story is just so rude :O
but it can be used for "recession"

[HP348]

Have i got enough case studies:
British Airways/ Iberia
Morrisons/ Safeway
Santanda
Kraft / Cadburys
ABN amros/ RBS
Lloyds HBOS
Crysler / Benz