aprilialand
2021-11-15
like pls
GE and JNJ Aren't the Only Aging Companies That Could Benefit From a Breakup<blockquote>GE 和 JNJ 并不是唯一可以从分拆中受益的老龄化公司</blockquote>
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
2
8
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":873610996,"tweetId":"873610996","gmtCreate":1636936566043,"gmtModify":1636936566176,"author":{"id":3586853256703013,"idStr":"3586853256703013","authorId":3586853256703013,"authorIdStr":"3586853256703013","name":"aprilialand","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ad4187787e31be179ad7d058aee6bd08","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":11,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"wearingBadges":[],"fanSize":26,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"title":"","extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>like pls</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>like pls</p></body></html>","text":"like pls","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":8,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/873610996","repostId":1178164317,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1178164317","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1636936020,"share":"https://www.laohunote.com/m/news/1178164317?lang=zh_CN&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-11-15 08:27","market":"us","language":"en","title":"GE and JNJ Aren't the Only Aging Companies That Could Benefit From a Breakup<blockquote>GE 和 JNJ 并不是唯一可以从分拆中受益的老龄化公司</blockquote>","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1178164317","media":"Thestreet","summary":"After years of turmoil and a valiant effort by its latest CEO Larry Culp, General Electric (GE) fina","content":"<p>After years of turmoil and a valiant effort by its latest CEO Larry Culp, General Electric (GE) finally gave up in its efforts to salvage its broad-reaching business as a singular unit.</p><p><blockquote>经过多年的动荡和新任首席执行官拉里·卡尔普的英勇努力，通用电气 (GE) 最终放弃了挽救其作为一个单一部门广泛业务的努力。</blockquote></p><p> The company has consistently spun off numerous assets across the sprawling conglomerate in recent years to lessen its debt load. Perhaps most important was a $20 billion deal to ship its biopharmaceutical business to Danaher (DHR) in 2020. Yet, it appears the moves were not enough to satisfy Culp's ambitious recovery goals for the once-great industrial giant.</p><p><blockquote>近年来，该公司不断剥离庞大企业集团的众多资产，以减轻其债务负担。也许最重要的是 2020 年以 200 亿美元的价格将其生物制药业务出售给丹纳赫 (DHR)。然而，这些举措似乎不足以满足卡尔普为这家曾经伟大的工业巨头制定的雄心勃勃的复苏目标。</blockquote></p><p> \"The world demands-and deserves-we bring our best to solve the biggest challenges in flight, healthcare, and energy,\" Culp said in a statement on Tuesday. \"By creating three industry-leading, global public companies, each can benefit from greater focus, tailored capital allocation, and strategic flexibility to drive long-term growth and value for customers, investors, and employees. We are putting our technology expertise, leadership, and global reach to work to better serve our customers.\"</p><p><blockquote>卡尔普在周二的一份声明中表示：“世界要求——也理应——我们尽最大努力解决航空、医疗保健和能源领域的最大挑战。”“通过创建三家行业领先的全球上市公司，每家公司都可以从更大的关注、量身定制的资本配置和战略灵活性中受益，以推动客户、投资者和员工的长期增长和价值。我们正在利用我们的技术专长、领导力和全球影响力来更好地服务我们的客户。”</blockquote></p><p> Similarly, the lawsuit-besieged Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)announced it would spin off its consumer health division from its higher growth pharmaceutical and medical devices divisions in the coming two years.</p><p><blockquote>同样，陷入诉讼困境的强生公司 (JNJ) 宣布将在未来两年内从其高增长的制药和医疗器械部门中剥离消费者健康部门。</blockquote></p><p> Judging by the jump in GE stock after the announcement and the early jolt to Johnson & Johnson stock after its announcement Friday<u>,</u>the market certainly looks as though it was offering its initial approval for the streamlining of separate companies. Still, a few questions quickly come to mind.</p><p><blockquote>从公告发布后通用电气股价的上涨以及周五公告发布后强生公司股价的早盘震荡来看<u>,</u>市场看起来确实是在为精简独立公司提供初步批准。尽管如此，几个问题还是很快浮现在脑海中。</blockquote></p><p> First, is this indeed a deft move by management in both cases and therefore deserving of the share-price reaction? And if so, are there more companies that could benefit from following the example set by both of these storied companies?</p><p><blockquote>首先，这是否确实是管理层在这两种情况下的巧妙举动，因此值得股价反应？如果是这样，是否有更多的公司可以从这两家传奇公司树立的榜样中受益？</blockquote></p><p> <b>Better After a Breakup?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>分手后更好？</b></blockquote></p><p> The first line of questioning is one of whether or not two or three firms are truly better than one.</p><p><blockquote>第一条问题是两三家公司是否真的比一家好。</blockquote></p><p> On paper, it would certainly appear to be so. As of Thursday's market open, GE touted a valuation of about $119 billion as a total entity. However, when broken into constituent parts, RBC Capital Markets analyst Deane Dray suggested up to a 20% upside for investors. Judging by company metrics and projections, it could well be even higher.</p><p><blockquote>从纸面上看，情况确实如此。截至周四开盘，通用电气作为一个整体的估值约为1190亿美元。然而，当细分为组成部分时，加拿大皇家银行资本市场分析师迪恩·德雷 (Deane Dray) 表示，投资者的上涨空间高达 20%。从公司指标和预测来看，这个数字很可能会更高。</blockquote></p><p> Also, each of the spun-off GE units will be less encumbered by the debt of their former counterparts within the broader company, especially as asset sales in recent years alleviate debt and pension issues. Further, future deals are more likely to reach approval based upon diminished antitrust risk, opening a much wider world of opportunity for investors in the streamlined companies.</p><p><blockquote>此外，每个分拆出来的通用电气部门都将减少受公司内部前同行债务的负担，特别是近年来的资产出售缓解了债务和养老金问题。此外，基于反垄断风险的降低，未来的交易更有可能获得批准，为精简公司的投资者打开了一个更广阔的机会世界。</blockquote></p><p> The logic is very much the same for Johnson & Johnson as its pharmaceutical business breaks free from the burdensome troubles of lawsuits over talcum-powder products as well as low-margin medicines like Tylenol. Separation is seen as a key step toward unlocking innovation.</p><p><blockquote>强生公司的逻辑大致相同，因为其制药业务摆脱了滑石粉产品以及泰诺等低利润药物诉讼的繁重麻烦。分离被视为释放创新的关键一步。</blockquote></p><p> \"For the new Johnson & Johnson, this planned separation underscores our focus on delivering industry-leading biopharmaceutical and medical device innovation and technology with the goal of bringing new solutions to market for patients and healthcare systems, while creating sustainable value for shareholders,\" CEO Alex Gorsky explained in a statement. \"We believe that the New Consumer Health Company would be a global leader across attractive and growing consumer health categories, and a streamlined and targeted corporate structure would provide it with the agility and flexibility to grow its iconic portfolio of brands and innovate new products.\"</p><p><blockquote>“对于新强生公司来说，这一计划中的分离凸显了我们对提供行业领先的生物制药和医疗器械创新和技术的关注，目标是为患者和医疗保健系统带来新的解决方案，同时为股东创造可持续价值，”首席执行官亚历克斯·戈尔斯基在一份声明中解释道。“我们相信，新的消费者健康公司将成为有吸引力和不断增长的消费者健康类别的全球领导者，精简和有针对性的公司结构将为其提供敏捷性和灵活性，以发展其标志性品牌组合并创新新产品。”</blockquote></p><p> To be sure, these targets and optimistic angles assume a rosy trajectory for each of the newly formed firms. As the example of DowDupont (now Dupont (DD) , Dow Inc. (DOW) , and Corteva (CTVA) ) shows, splitting up historic firms with sprawling business is not always a process that progresses precisely to plan.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，这些目标和乐观的角度假设了每个新成立的公司都有一个乐观的轨迹。正如陶氏杜邦（现为杜邦（DD）、陶氏公司（DOW）和科迪华（CTVA））的例子所示，拆分业务庞大的历史悠久的公司并不总是一个完全按照计划进行的过程。</blockquote></p><p> Since splitting, the two storied industrial companies, once combined into one mega-conglomerate, have not had much success.</p><p><blockquote>自拆分以来，这两家曾经合并为一家大型企业集团的传奇工业公司并没有取得多大成功。</blockquote></p><p> \"New Dow will be well positioned to drive best-in-class financial performance and shareholder returns,\" Dow CEO Jim Fitterling said ahead of the firm's 2019 spinoff to a standalone firm. \"We have a focused playbook of cost and growth drivers, clear and disciplined capital allocation priorities and a strong balance sheet. Our path to shareholder value creation is straightforward and in our control.\"</p><p><blockquote>陶氏化学首席执行官吉姆·菲特林 (Jim Fitterling) 在公司 2019 年分拆为一家独立公司之前表示：“新陶氏化学将处于有利地位，能够推动一流的财务业绩和股东回报。”“我们有一个重点突出的成本和增长驱动因素、清晰且有纪律的资本配置优先事项以及强大的资产负债表。我们为股东创造价值的道路是直接的，并且在我们的控制之中。”</blockquote></p><p> These pronouncements are very much in line with what GE has said of each of its planned new standalone entities. Also, in a move very much reminiscent of GE's quarterly results in recent years, the pronouncement promised much more than what has actually been delivered.</p><p><blockquote>这些声明与通用电气对其计划中的每个新独立实体的说法非常一致。此外，这一举动让人想起通用电气近年来的季度业绩，该声明所承诺的远远多于实际兑现的内容。</blockquote></p><p> Since it's spinoff was official in April 2019, DOW stock has marked a less than 10% gain. Meanwhile, the S&P has risen over 60% over the same period.</p><p><blockquote>自 2019 年 4 月正式分拆以来，道琼斯指数股价涨幅不到 10%。与此同时，标准普尔指数同期上涨超过 60%。</blockquote></p><p> <b>An Example to Follow?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>可以效仿的榜样？</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Still, assuming things do go well post-breakup, these moves could serve as a benchmark for other bigger, older, and perhaps bloated companies. At the very least, this is the logic adopted not only by aging and perhaps overcomplicated American conglomerates like GE and Johnson & Johnson, but also the nearly 150-year-old Japanese giant Toshiba (TOSBF) . In short, it looks as though a trend is taking hold.</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，假设分手后一切进展顺利，这些举措可以作为其他更大、更老、甚至可能臃肿的公司的基准。至少，这不仅是通用电气和强生等老龄化且可能过于复杂的美国企业集团所采用的逻辑，也是拥有近150年历史的日本巨头东芝（TOSBF）所采用的逻辑。简而言之，看起来一种趋势正在形成。</blockquote></p><p> \"Companies that have very diversified portfolios continue to dilute the value to the shareholders,\" David Braun, CEO of M&A advisory firm Capstone Strategic, told Real Money. \"We are in an era where technology and access to capital are different things. A conglomerate is going to have trouble competing.\"</p><p><blockquote>并购咨询公司 Capstone Strategic 首席执行官大卫·布劳恩 (David Braun) 告诉 Real Money：“投资组合非常多元化的公司继续稀释股东的价值。”“我们生活在一个技术和资本获取是两码事的时代。企业集团将很难竞争。”</blockquote></p><p> He suggested that Emerson Electric (EMR) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) (BRK.B) are two companies that could likely benefit from a similar breakup.</p><p><blockquote>他表示，艾默生电气 (EMR) 和伯克希尔哈撒韦公司 (BRK.A) (BRK.B) 是两家可能从类似分拆中受益的公司。</blockquote></p><p> \"They continue to stockpile excess cash they cannot deploy,\" Braun added, voicing the drawbacks of the behemoth business. \"I'm not sure they benefit from that model any longer.\"</p><p><blockquote>“他们继续储备无法部署的多余现金，”布劳恩补充道，并表达了庞大业务的缺点。“我不确定他们是否还能从这种模式中受益。”</blockquote></p><p> On the former, he is far from the first to suggest such a move. RBC's Deane Dray has actually been calling for such a breakup for a few years, alongside 3M (MMM) and Roper Technologies (ROP) , firms he also believes could benefit from being a bit less bulky.</p><p><blockquote>在前者方面，他远不是第一个建议采取这样的举措的人。加拿大皇家银行 (RBC) 的迪恩·德雷 (Deane Dray) 实际上几年来一直在呼吁这样的拆分，他还呼吁 3M（3M）和 Roper Technologies (ROP)，他认为这两家公司可以从规模小一点中受益。</blockquote></p><p> \"We believe the pendulum is still swinging towards the 'urge to demerge' trend,\" he wrote in a note on Tuesday. \"GE's announcement today could embolden the boards of several other multi-industry companies to move ahead on more aggressive portfolio simplification moves, including Emerson, Roper Technologies and 3M.\"</p><p><blockquote>他在周二的一份报告中写道：“我们认为钟摆仍在朝着‘分离冲动’趋势摆动。”“通用电气今天的公告可能会鼓励其他几家跨行业公司的董事会采取更积极的投资组合简化措施，其中包括艾默生、罗珀技术公司和 3M。”</blockquote></p><p> As far back as 2019, Dray suggested a breakup of Emerson's automation and commercial divisions could be a boon for shareholders. While the stock has been on a roll since the pandemic began, such a breakup has already been intensely considered by management. In early February, Emerson announced it would not pursue a split \"unless a major strategic acquisition catalyst is actioned.\"</p><p><blockquote>早在 2019 年，德雷就表示艾默生自动化和商业部门的拆分可能对股东有利。虽然自疫情开始以来，该股一直在上涨，但管理层已经认真考虑过这样的分拆。二月初，艾默生宣布“除非采取重大战略收购催化剂”，否则不会寻求拆分。</blockquote></p><p> At the least, if such a catalyst is to appear the company is clearly willing to consider such an option.</p><p><blockquote>至少，如果出现这样的催化剂，公司显然愿意考虑这样的选择。</blockquote></p><p> For Berkshire, it is eminently unlikely that any moves come while both Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger helm the conglomerate. But prospects for such a breakup could take many forms considering the business spans industries from insurance to construction to railroads. As such, attempting to size up a form that such a move might take is nearly impossible to forecast.</p><p><blockquote>对于伯克希尔来说，当沃伦·巴菲特和查理·芒格同时掌舵这家企业集团时，任何举措都不太可能发生。但考虑到业务跨越从保险、建筑到铁路等行业，这种分拆的前景可能会有多种形式。因此，试图评估这种举措可能采取的形式几乎是不可能预测的。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the prospects of a 3M breakup are certainly not out of the question.</p><p><blockquote>最后，3M 分手的前景当然不是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Investors in the storied firm are understandably frustrated. Long-term shareholders have seen the stock stagnate over the past five years, marking a basically flat return even after shares were buoyed by demand for PPE and healthcare equipment that the firm manufactured during the pandemic. Looking back on the boost to the shares, many might have been happier with a pure-play option for healthcare and protective equipment rather than a company also weighed down by industrial, transportation, and consumer segments.</p><p><blockquote>这家传奇公司的投资者感到沮丧是可以理解的。长期股东看到该股在过去五年中停滞不前，即使该公司在大流行期间生产的个人防护设备和医疗设备的需求提振了股价，但回报率基本持平。回顾股价的提振，许多人可能更喜欢医疗保健和防护设备的纯粹选择，而不是一家同样受到工业、运输和消费领域拖累的公司。</blockquote></p><p> Toward this end, the company may have already telegraphed its intention to move toward breaking up. In March 2019, the company divided its business into four units. The units, entitled safety & industrial, transportation & electronics, healthcare, and consumer respectively, were created in order to focus the business.</p><p><blockquote>为此，该公司可能已经发出了分拆的意图。于二零一九年三月，本公司将其业务分为四个单位。为了集中业务，创建了分别名为安全与工业、运输与电子、医疗保健和消费者的部门。</blockquote></p><p> \"We are continuing to advance 3M into the future, and today's actions will strengthen our ability to meet the fast-moving needs of our customers,\" 3M CEO Mike Roman said at the time. \"Our new alignment will leverage our business transformation progress, accelerate growth and deliver greater operational efficiencies.\"</p><p><blockquote>3M 首席执行官 Mike Roman 当时表示：“我们正在继续推动 3M 迈向未来，今天的行动将增强我们满足客户快速变化需求的能力。”“我们的新结构调整将利用我们的业务转型进展，加速增长并提高运营效率。”</blockquote></p><p> As operational efficiencies have not materialized to the point of elevating the share price, it is not unreasonable to ask questions as to why separate businesses might further tap into the desired efficiency. In short, the healthcare business might be stronger if it was no longer adhered to a scotch tape and post-it manufacturer and vice versa.</p><p><blockquote>由于运营效率尚未达到推高股价的程度，因此提出为什么独立业务可能会进一步挖掘所需效率的问题并非不合理。简而言之，如果医疗保健行业不再依赖透明胶带和便利贴制造商，反之亦然，它可能会变得更加强大。</blockquote></p><p> In the end, if the pursuit of separate businesses proves successful in each of the current experiments under way, the lesson may be that bigger is not always better. For investors, it might also open a number of pure-play options that provide a better investment than their parent companies do at present.</p><p><blockquote>最终，如果对独立业务的追求在目前正在进行的每一项实验中都被证明是成功的，那么教训可能是，越大越好。对于投资者来说，它还可能提供许多纯粹的游戏选择，提供比他们的母公司目前更好的投资。</blockquote></p><p></p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>GE and JNJ Aren't the Only Aging Companies That Could Benefit From a Breakup<blockquote>GE 和 JNJ 并不是唯一可以从分拆中受益的老龄化公司</blockquote></title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 12.5px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGE and JNJ Aren't the Only Aging Companies That Could Benefit From a Breakup<blockquote>GE 和 JNJ 并不是唯一可以从分拆中受益的老龄化公司</blockquote>\n</h2>\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n<p class=\"head\">\n<strong class=\"h-name small\">Thestreet</strong><span class=\"h-time small\">2021-11-15 08:27</span>\n</p>\n</h4>\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>After years of turmoil and a valiant effort by its latest CEO Larry Culp, General Electric (GE) finally gave up in its efforts to salvage its broad-reaching business as a singular unit.</p><p><blockquote>经过多年的动荡和新任首席执行官拉里·卡尔普的英勇努力，通用电气 (GE) 最终放弃了挽救其作为一个单一部门广泛业务的努力。</blockquote></p><p> The company has consistently spun off numerous assets across the sprawling conglomerate in recent years to lessen its debt load. Perhaps most important was a $20 billion deal to ship its biopharmaceutical business to Danaher (DHR) in 2020. Yet, it appears the moves were not enough to satisfy Culp's ambitious recovery goals for the once-great industrial giant.</p><p><blockquote>近年来，该公司不断剥离庞大企业集团的众多资产，以减轻其债务负担。也许最重要的是 2020 年以 200 亿美元的价格将其生物制药业务出售给丹纳赫 (DHR)。然而，这些举措似乎不足以满足卡尔普为这家曾经伟大的工业巨头制定的雄心勃勃的复苏目标。</blockquote></p><p> \"The world demands-and deserves-we bring our best to solve the biggest challenges in flight, healthcare, and energy,\" Culp said in a statement on Tuesday. \"By creating three industry-leading, global public companies, each can benefit from greater focus, tailored capital allocation, and strategic flexibility to drive long-term growth and value for customers, investors, and employees. We are putting our technology expertise, leadership, and global reach to work to better serve our customers.\"</p><p><blockquote>卡尔普在周二的一份声明中表示：“世界要求——也理应——我们尽最大努力解决航空、医疗保健和能源领域的最大挑战。”“通过创建三家行业领先的全球上市公司，每家公司都可以从更大的关注、量身定制的资本配置和战略灵活性中受益，以推动客户、投资者和员工的长期增长和价值。我们正在利用我们的技术专长、领导力和全球影响力来更好地服务我们的客户。”</blockquote></p><p> Similarly, the lawsuit-besieged Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)announced it would spin off its consumer health division from its higher growth pharmaceutical and medical devices divisions in the coming two years.</p><p><blockquote>同样，陷入诉讼困境的强生公司 (JNJ) 宣布将在未来两年内从其高增长的制药和医疗器械部门中剥离消费者健康部门。</blockquote></p><p> Judging by the jump in GE stock after the announcement and the early jolt to Johnson & Johnson stock after its announcement Friday<u>,</u>the market certainly looks as though it was offering its initial approval for the streamlining of separate companies. Still, a few questions quickly come to mind.</p><p><blockquote>从公告发布后通用电气股价的上涨以及周五公告发布后强生公司股价的早盘震荡来看<u>,</u>市场看起来确实是在为精简独立公司提供初步批准。尽管如此，几个问题还是很快浮现在脑海中。</blockquote></p><p> First, is this indeed a deft move by management in both cases and therefore deserving of the share-price reaction? And if so, are there more companies that could benefit from following the example set by both of these storied companies?</p><p><blockquote>首先，这是否确实是管理层在这两种情况下的巧妙举动，因此值得股价反应？如果是这样，是否有更多的公司可以从这两家传奇公司树立的榜样中受益？</blockquote></p><p> <b>Better After a Breakup?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>分手后更好？</b></blockquote></p><p> The first line of questioning is one of whether or not two or three firms are truly better than one.</p><p><blockquote>第一条问题是两三家公司是否真的比一家好。</blockquote></p><p> On paper, it would certainly appear to be so. As of Thursday's market open, GE touted a valuation of about $119 billion as a total entity. However, when broken into constituent parts, RBC Capital Markets analyst Deane Dray suggested up to a 20% upside for investors. Judging by company metrics and projections, it could well be even higher.</p><p><blockquote>从纸面上看，情况确实如此。截至周四开盘，通用电气作为一个整体的估值约为1190亿美元。然而，当细分为组成部分时，加拿大皇家银行资本市场分析师迪恩·德雷 (Deane Dray) 表示，投资者的上涨空间高达 20%。从公司指标和预测来看，这个数字很可能会更高。</blockquote></p><p> Also, each of the spun-off GE units will be less encumbered by the debt of their former counterparts within the broader company, especially as asset sales in recent years alleviate debt and pension issues. Further, future deals are more likely to reach approval based upon diminished antitrust risk, opening a much wider world of opportunity for investors in the streamlined companies.</p><p><blockquote>此外，每个分拆出来的通用电气部门都将减少受公司内部前同行债务的负担，特别是近年来的资产出售缓解了债务和养老金问题。此外，基于反垄断风险的降低，未来的交易更有可能获得批准，为精简公司的投资者打开了一个更广阔的机会世界。</blockquote></p><p> The logic is very much the same for Johnson & Johnson as its pharmaceutical business breaks free from the burdensome troubles of lawsuits over talcum-powder products as well as low-margin medicines like Tylenol. Separation is seen as a key step toward unlocking innovation.</p><p><blockquote>强生公司的逻辑大致相同，因为其制药业务摆脱了滑石粉产品以及泰诺等低利润药物诉讼的繁重麻烦。分离被视为释放创新的关键一步。</blockquote></p><p> \"For the new Johnson & Johnson, this planned separation underscores our focus on delivering industry-leading biopharmaceutical and medical device innovation and technology with the goal of bringing new solutions to market for patients and healthcare systems, while creating sustainable value for shareholders,\" CEO Alex Gorsky explained in a statement. \"We believe that the New Consumer Health Company would be a global leader across attractive and growing consumer health categories, and a streamlined and targeted corporate structure would provide it with the agility and flexibility to grow its iconic portfolio of brands and innovate new products.\"</p><p><blockquote>“对于新强生公司来说，这一计划中的分离凸显了我们对提供行业领先的生物制药和医疗器械创新和技术的关注，目标是为患者和医疗保健系统带来新的解决方案，同时为股东创造可持续价值，”首席执行官亚历克斯·戈尔斯基在一份声明中解释道。“我们相信，新的消费者健康公司将成为有吸引力和不断增长的消费者健康类别的全球领导者，精简和有针对性的公司结构将为其提供敏捷性和灵活性，以发展其标志性品牌组合并创新新产品。”</blockquote></p><p> To be sure, these targets and optimistic angles assume a rosy trajectory for each of the newly formed firms. As the example of DowDupont (now Dupont (DD) , Dow Inc. (DOW) , and Corteva (CTVA) ) shows, splitting up historic firms with sprawling business is not always a process that progresses precisely to plan.</p><p><blockquote>可以肯定的是，这些目标和乐观的角度假设了每个新成立的公司都有一个乐观的轨迹。正如陶氏杜邦（现为杜邦（DD）、陶氏公司（DOW）和科迪华（CTVA））的例子所示，拆分业务庞大的历史悠久的公司并不总是一个完全按照计划进行的过程。</blockquote></p><p> Since splitting, the two storied industrial companies, once combined into one mega-conglomerate, have not had much success.</p><p><blockquote>自拆分以来，这两家曾经合并为一家大型企业集团的传奇工业公司并没有取得多大成功。</blockquote></p><p> \"New Dow will be well positioned to drive best-in-class financial performance and shareholder returns,\" Dow CEO Jim Fitterling said ahead of the firm's 2019 spinoff to a standalone firm. \"We have a focused playbook of cost and growth drivers, clear and disciplined capital allocation priorities and a strong balance sheet. Our path to shareholder value creation is straightforward and in our control.\"</p><p><blockquote>陶氏化学首席执行官吉姆·菲特林 (Jim Fitterling) 在公司 2019 年分拆为一家独立公司之前表示：“新陶氏化学将处于有利地位，能够推动一流的财务业绩和股东回报。”“我们有一个重点突出的成本和增长驱动因素、清晰且有纪律的资本配置优先事项以及强大的资产负债表。我们为股东创造价值的道路是直接的，并且在我们的控制之中。”</blockquote></p><p> These pronouncements are very much in line with what GE has said of each of its planned new standalone entities. Also, in a move very much reminiscent of GE's quarterly results in recent years, the pronouncement promised much more than what has actually been delivered.</p><p><blockquote>这些声明与通用电气对其计划中的每个新独立实体的说法非常一致。此外，这一举动让人想起通用电气近年来的季度业绩，该声明所承诺的远远多于实际兑现的内容。</blockquote></p><p> Since it's spinoff was official in April 2019, DOW stock has marked a less than 10% gain. Meanwhile, the S&P has risen over 60% over the same period.</p><p><blockquote>自 2019 年 4 月正式分拆以来，道琼斯指数股价涨幅不到 10%。与此同时，标准普尔指数同期上涨超过 60%。</blockquote></p><p> <b>An Example to Follow?</b></p><p><blockquote><b>可以效仿的榜样？</b></blockquote></p><p></p><p> Still, assuming things do go well post-breakup, these moves could serve as a benchmark for other bigger, older, and perhaps bloated companies. At the very least, this is the logic adopted not only by aging and perhaps overcomplicated American conglomerates like GE and Johnson & Johnson, but also the nearly 150-year-old Japanese giant Toshiba (TOSBF) . In short, it looks as though a trend is taking hold.</p><p><blockquote>尽管如此，假设分手后一切进展顺利，这些举措可以作为其他更大、更老、甚至可能臃肿的公司的基准。至少，这不仅是通用电气和强生等老龄化且可能过于复杂的美国企业集团所采用的逻辑，也是拥有近150年历史的日本巨头东芝（TOSBF）所采用的逻辑。简而言之，看起来一种趋势正在形成。</blockquote></p><p> \"Companies that have very diversified portfolios continue to dilute the value to the shareholders,\" David Braun, CEO of M&A advisory firm Capstone Strategic, told Real Money. \"We are in an era where technology and access to capital are different things. A conglomerate is going to have trouble competing.\"</p><p><blockquote>并购咨询公司 Capstone Strategic 首席执行官大卫·布劳恩 (David Braun) 告诉 Real Money：“投资组合非常多元化的公司继续稀释股东的价值。”“我们生活在一个技术和资本获取是两码事的时代。企业集团将很难竞争。”</blockquote></p><p> He suggested that Emerson Electric (EMR) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) (BRK.B) are two companies that could likely benefit from a similar breakup.</p><p><blockquote>他表示，艾默生电气 (EMR) 和伯克希尔哈撒韦公司 (BRK.A) (BRK.B) 是两家可能从类似分拆中受益的公司。</blockquote></p><p> \"They continue to stockpile excess cash they cannot deploy,\" Braun added, voicing the drawbacks of the behemoth business. \"I'm not sure they benefit from that model any longer.\"</p><p><blockquote>“他们继续储备无法部署的多余现金，”布劳恩补充道，并表达了庞大业务的缺点。“我不确定他们是否还能从这种模式中受益。”</blockquote></p><p> On the former, he is far from the first to suggest such a move. RBC's Deane Dray has actually been calling for such a breakup for a few years, alongside 3M (MMM) and Roper Technologies (ROP) , firms he also believes could benefit from being a bit less bulky.</p><p><blockquote>在前者方面，他远不是第一个建议采取这样的举措的人。加拿大皇家银行 (RBC) 的迪恩·德雷 (Deane Dray) 实际上几年来一直在呼吁这样的拆分，他还呼吁 3M（3M）和 Roper Technologies (ROP)，他认为这两家公司可以从规模小一点中受益。</blockquote></p><p> \"We believe the pendulum is still swinging towards the 'urge to demerge' trend,\" he wrote in a note on Tuesday. \"GE's announcement today could embolden the boards of several other multi-industry companies to move ahead on more aggressive portfolio simplification moves, including Emerson, Roper Technologies and 3M.\"</p><p><blockquote>他在周二的一份报告中写道：“我们认为钟摆仍在朝着‘分离冲动’趋势摆动。”“通用电气今天的公告可能会鼓励其他几家跨行业公司的董事会采取更积极的投资组合简化措施，其中包括艾默生、罗珀技术公司和 3M。”</blockquote></p><p> As far back as 2019, Dray suggested a breakup of Emerson's automation and commercial divisions could be a boon for shareholders. While the stock has been on a roll since the pandemic began, such a breakup has already been intensely considered by management. In early February, Emerson announced it would not pursue a split \"unless a major strategic acquisition catalyst is actioned.\"</p><p><blockquote>早在 2019 年，德雷就表示艾默生自动化和商业部门的拆分可能对股东有利。虽然自疫情开始以来，该股一直在上涨，但管理层已经认真考虑过这样的分拆。二月初，艾默生宣布“除非采取重大战略收购催化剂”，否则不会寻求拆分。</blockquote></p><p> At the least, if such a catalyst is to appear the company is clearly willing to consider such an option.</p><p><blockquote>至少，如果出现这样的催化剂，公司显然愿意考虑这样的选择。</blockquote></p><p> For Berkshire, it is eminently unlikely that any moves come while both Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger helm the conglomerate. But prospects for such a breakup could take many forms considering the business spans industries from insurance to construction to railroads. As such, attempting to size up a form that such a move might take is nearly impossible to forecast.</p><p><blockquote>对于伯克希尔来说，当沃伦·巴菲特和查理·芒格同时掌舵这家企业集团时，任何举措都不太可能发生。但考虑到业务跨越从保险、建筑到铁路等行业，这种分拆的前景可能会有多种形式。因此，试图评估这种举措可能采取的形式几乎是不可能预测的。</blockquote></p><p> Finally, the prospects of a 3M breakup are certainly not out of the question.</p><p><blockquote>最后，3M 分手的前景当然不是不可能的。</blockquote></p><p> Investors in the storied firm are understandably frustrated. Long-term shareholders have seen the stock stagnate over the past five years, marking a basically flat return even after shares were buoyed by demand for PPE and healthcare equipment that the firm manufactured during the pandemic. Looking back on the boost to the shares, many might have been happier with a pure-play option for healthcare and protective equipment rather than a company also weighed down by industrial, transportation, and consumer segments.</p><p><blockquote>这家传奇公司的投资者感到沮丧是可以理解的。长期股东看到该股在过去五年中停滞不前，即使该公司在大流行期间生产的个人防护设备和医疗设备的需求提振了股价，但回报率基本持平。回顾股价的提振，许多人可能更喜欢医疗保健和防护设备的纯粹选择，而不是一家同样受到工业、运输和消费领域拖累的公司。</blockquote></p><p> Toward this end, the company may have already telegraphed its intention to move toward breaking up. In March 2019, the company divided its business into four units. The units, entitled safety & industrial, transportation & electronics, healthcare, and consumer respectively, were created in order to focus the business.</p><p><blockquote>为此，该公司可能已经发出了分拆的意图。于二零一九年三月，本公司将其业务分为四个单位。为了集中业务，创建了分别名为安全与工业、运输与电子、医疗保健和消费者的部门。</blockquote></p><p> \"We are continuing to advance 3M into the future, and today's actions will strengthen our ability to meet the fast-moving needs of our customers,\" 3M CEO Mike Roman said at the time. \"Our new alignment will leverage our business transformation progress, accelerate growth and deliver greater operational efficiencies.\"</p><p><blockquote>3M 首席执行官 Mike Roman 当时表示：“我们正在继续推动 3M 迈向未来，今天的行动将增强我们满足客户快速变化需求的能力。”“我们的新结构调整将利用我们的业务转型进展，加速增长并提高运营效率。”</blockquote></p><p> As operational efficiencies have not materialized to the point of elevating the share price, it is not unreasonable to ask questions as to why separate businesses might further tap into the desired efficiency. In short, the healthcare business might be stronger if it was no longer adhered to a scotch tape and post-it manufacturer and vice versa.</p><p><blockquote>由于运营效率尚未达到推高股价的程度，因此提出为什么独立业务可能会进一步挖掘所需效率的问题并非不合理。简而言之，如果医疗保健行业不再依赖透明胶带和便利贴制造商，反之亦然，它可能会变得更加强大。</blockquote></p><p> In the end, if the pursuit of separate businesses proves successful in each of the current experiments under way, the lesson may be that bigger is not always better. For investors, it might also open a number of pure-play options that provide a better investment than their parent companies do at present.</p><p><blockquote>最终，如果对独立业务的追求在目前正在进行的每一项实验中都被证明是成功的，那么教训可能是，越大越好。对于投资者来说，它还可能提供许多纯粹的游戏选择，提供比他们的母公司目前更好的投资。</blockquote></p><p></p>\n<div class=\"bt-text\">\n\n\n<p> 来源：<a href=\"https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/ge-isn-t-the-only-aging-company-that-could-benefit-from-a-breakup-15830176?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO\">Thestreet</a></p>\n<p>为提升您的阅读体验，我们对本页面进行了排版优化</p>\n\n\n</div>\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"JNJ":"强生","GE":"GE航空航天"},"source_url":"https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/ge-isn-t-the-only-aging-company-that-could-benefit-from-a-breakup-15830176?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1178164317","content_text":"After years of turmoil and a valiant effort by its latest CEO Larry Culp, General Electric (GE) finally gave up in its efforts to salvage its broad-reaching business as a singular unit.\nThe company has consistently spun off numerous assets across the sprawling conglomerate in recent years to lessen its debt load. Perhaps most important was a $20 billion deal to ship its biopharmaceutical business to Danaher (DHR) in 2020. Yet, it appears the moves were not enough to satisfy Culp's ambitious recovery goals for the once-great industrial giant.\n\"The world demands-and deserves-we bring our best to solve the biggest challenges in flight, healthcare, and energy,\" Culp said in a statement on Tuesday. \"By creating three industry-leading, global public companies, each can benefit from greater focus, tailored capital allocation, and strategic flexibility to drive long-term growth and value for customers, investors, and employees. We are putting our technology expertise, leadership, and global reach to work to better serve our customers.\"\nSimilarly, the lawsuit-besieged Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)announced it would spin off its consumer health division from its higher growth pharmaceutical and medical devices divisions in the coming two years.\nJudging by the jump in GE stock after the announcement and the early jolt to Johnson & Johnson stock after its announcement Friday,the market certainly looks as though it was offering its initial approval for the streamlining of separate companies. Still, a few questions quickly come to mind.\nFirst, is this indeed a deft move by management in both cases and therefore deserving of the share-price reaction? And if so, are there more companies that could benefit from following the example set by both of these storied companies?\nBetter After a Breakup?\nThe first line of questioning is one of whether or not two or three firms are truly better than one.\nOn paper, it would certainly appear to be so. As of Thursday's market open, GE touted a valuation of about $119 billion as a total entity. However, when broken into constituent parts, RBC Capital Markets analyst Deane Dray suggested up to a 20% upside for investors. Judging by company metrics and projections, it could well be even higher.\nAlso, each of the spun-off GE units will be less encumbered by the debt of their former counterparts within the broader company, especially as asset sales in recent years alleviate debt and pension issues. Further, future deals are more likely to reach approval based upon diminished antitrust risk, opening a much wider world of opportunity for investors in the streamlined companies.\nThe logic is very much the same for Johnson & Johnson as its pharmaceutical business breaks free from the burdensome troubles of lawsuits over talcum-powder products as well as low-margin medicines like Tylenol. Separation is seen as a key step toward unlocking innovation.\n\"For the new Johnson & Johnson, this planned separation underscores our focus on delivering industry-leading biopharmaceutical and medical device innovation and technology with the goal of bringing new solutions to market for patients and healthcare systems, while creating sustainable value for shareholders,\" CEO Alex Gorsky explained in a statement. \"We believe that the New Consumer Health Company would be a global leader across attractive and growing consumer health categories, and a streamlined and targeted corporate structure would provide it with the agility and flexibility to grow its iconic portfolio of brands and innovate new products.\"\nTo be sure, these targets and optimistic angles assume a rosy trajectory for each of the newly formed firms. As the example of DowDupont (now Dupont (DD) , Dow Inc. (DOW) , and Corteva (CTVA) ) shows, splitting up historic firms with sprawling business is not always a process that progresses precisely to plan.\nSince splitting, the two storied industrial companies, once combined into one mega-conglomerate, have not had much success.\n\"New Dow will be well positioned to drive best-in-class financial performance and shareholder returns,\" Dow CEO Jim Fitterling said ahead of the firm's 2019 spinoff to a standalone firm. \"We have a focused playbook of cost and growth drivers, clear and disciplined capital allocation priorities and a strong balance sheet. Our path to shareholder value creation is straightforward and in our control.\"\nThese pronouncements are very much in line with what GE has said of each of its planned new standalone entities. Also, in a move very much reminiscent of GE's quarterly results in recent years, the pronouncement promised much more than what has actually been delivered.\nSince it's spinoff was official in April 2019, DOW stock has marked a less than 10% gain. Meanwhile, the S&P has risen over 60% over the same period.\nAn Example to Follow?\nStill, assuming things do go well post-breakup, these moves could serve as a benchmark for other bigger, older, and perhaps bloated companies. At the very least, this is the logic adopted not only by aging and perhaps overcomplicated American conglomerates like GE and Johnson & Johnson, but also the nearly 150-year-old Japanese giant Toshiba (TOSBF) . In short, it looks as though a trend is taking hold.\n\"Companies that have very diversified portfolios continue to dilute the value to the shareholders,\" David Braun, CEO of M&A advisory firm Capstone Strategic, told Real Money. \"We are in an era where technology and access to capital are different things. A conglomerate is going to have trouble competing.\"\nHe suggested that Emerson Electric (EMR) and Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) (BRK.B) are two companies that could likely benefit from a similar breakup.\n\"They continue to stockpile excess cash they cannot deploy,\" Braun added, voicing the drawbacks of the behemoth business. \"I'm not sure they benefit from that model any longer.\"\nOn the former, he is far from the first to suggest such a move. RBC's Deane Dray has actually been calling for such a breakup for a few years, alongside 3M (MMM) and Roper Technologies (ROP) , firms he also believes could benefit from being a bit less bulky.\n\"We believe the pendulum is still swinging towards the 'urge to demerge' trend,\" he wrote in a note on Tuesday. \"GE's announcement today could embolden the boards of several other multi-industry companies to move ahead on more aggressive portfolio simplification moves, including Emerson, Roper Technologies and 3M.\"\nAs far back as 2019, Dray suggested a breakup of Emerson's automation and commercial divisions could be a boon for shareholders. While the stock has been on a roll since the pandemic began, such a breakup has already been intensely considered by management. In early February, Emerson announced it would not pursue a split \"unless a major strategic acquisition catalyst is actioned.\"\nAt the least, if such a catalyst is to appear the company is clearly willing to consider such an option.\nFor Berkshire, it is eminently unlikely that any moves come while both Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger helm the conglomerate. But prospects for such a breakup could take many forms considering the business spans industries from insurance to construction to railroads. As such, attempting to size up a form that such a move might take is nearly impossible to forecast.\nFinally, the prospects of a 3M breakup are certainly not out of the question.\nInvestors in the storied firm are understandably frustrated. Long-term shareholders have seen the stock stagnate over the past five years, marking a basically flat return even after shares were buoyed by demand for PPE and healthcare equipment that the firm manufactured during the pandemic. Looking back on the boost to the shares, many might have been happier with a pure-play option for healthcare and protective equipment rather than a company also weighed down by industrial, transportation, and consumer segments.\nToward this end, the company may have already telegraphed its intention to move toward breaking up. In March 2019, the company divided its business into four units. The units, entitled safety & industrial, transportation & electronics, healthcare, and consumer respectively, were created in order to focus the business.\n\"We are continuing to advance 3M into the future, and today's actions will strengthen our ability to meet the fast-moving needs of our customers,\" 3M CEO Mike Roman said at the time. \"Our new alignment will leverage our business transformation progress, accelerate growth and deliver greater operational efficiencies.\"\nAs operational efficiencies have not materialized to the point of elevating the share price, it is not unreasonable to ask questions as to why separate businesses might further tap into the desired efficiency. In short, the healthcare business might be stronger if it was no longer adhered to a scotch tape and post-it manufacturer and vice versa.\nIn the end, if the pursuit of separate businesses proves successful in each of the current experiments under way, the lesson may be that bigger is not always better. For investors, it might also open a number of pure-play options that provide a better investment than their parent companies do at present.","news_type":1,"symbols_score_info":{"JNJ":0.9,"GE":0.9}},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":507,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":7,"subscribersOnly":false,"subscribersOnlyAccessible":false,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/873610996"}
精彩评论