You are on page 1of 76



    

!
!

 ! ! ! .

.

|   " #$| #" %  $ "  &' ( ' )*+ + | .

. .

/0 ! /0 ! +/$10 ! 2/ 0 . -! ! .

ß ã   .

  .

        |3  $  #  +  2 3.  ß .  (   ß3& -4 -4 -4  53# )  "  *  . 1  63# .

  . ) 7 ) )     ) 8 .-   ' # ) )/20 . :   -2  5 . 9 .

4 -# .

.

.

.

.

   # )  . 6 .

2 <  -2 - . +.   7 + 7 ) m .   ! .

 . ./0 &2 -4 ý . + |3 3 ß3 53 63 m3 ý3 =3     ) .

 / 0 |3 3 ß3 53 63 m3  '" ' 2  &  ý3 +2 =3 * >3 + |?3 " ||3 @@  | 3 . = .

_  !   .

   .

! + $  2$ "  > .

_  ! 4 .

where  how @  .

ß !  ! ) ! * .

in the related diversified firm. )$$ $"$  3This is because Corporate HQ. has the ability to transfer core competencies from one business unit to another3 |? .

$ + . || ._  ! 4 ß &  ) * -      &  2 +" 9$-  .

_  ! *4 .

7 |0 0 .

&"7* .

  . '7  +.

& 882 .

2  7*   7*  | .

B  ( ( D (    |ß ._  ! 7! 7   D ( D D A B       AC2B   A B  A.

_ 
!
7! + 
&,"
)7 
D

#  

(

9
ðnvest
Strongly

9
ðnvest
Selectively

9
ðnvest
Selectively 

Earn/
Protect

,

(
Harvest/
Divest

Earn/
Protect

: 2
Dominate/
Delay/Divest
(
Harvest/
Divest
(
Harvest/
Divest  

92
7

|5

_ 
!  

ß1!
! 9:
! D7*":
! 97*%:

   ! #< |6 . .

6 Threat of  +  Bargaining Power ðntensity of #   Bargaining power Threat From  |m ._  ! # ! .

6 ._  ! # ! .

ß ! 6 2@6  ! .6   ! *  |ý .

_  ! ! . .

&6  " .

)!  .

 8  |= .

         44 .  .  (  244 &4 #  #    ã   |> ._  ! ! .

_  ! ! < .

<  .

# ")   .

&< 22   3 ? .

 .  2   8 (  E4 -$D)$#& | ._  ! ! < .

_  ! ! < .

-$21! |3 $/0: 3 /0 : ß3  /0: 53 |$ ß: .

7$ $7*44 3 .

     .

.

.

   # 24  #$  1! .

.

924 : : ß .

         .

# -') (- &') .

+" .

.

# .

.

.

.

.

92! 2 '  # .  -') ( ' &)'( . &+ .

.

$ $  5 . )! .

4 -   ' # ) )/20 . :   -2  6 . ) 7 ) )     ) 8 .  . 9 .

  .     ! "# $      +'    2    .|   .ß  )  )7  ) m .

     ! #       +'   7*F  7*.   7*G  2  .  2  ý .   2  .  .

F  ..     ! # %    +"'  -  -7  -  .  .G  = .

Ä      & .

    .

 .

.

. 7*4 3D 3 &   > .

-  .

.

.

.

.

.

 . . . /0   . ß? .

  .

) .

.

.

.

.

   3 &  ß| .  $  .

  &7* !   7* 7*  7* 7* ß !  $7* 4 77* ! 7 .

) 4 7 .

.

.

) /) 0   3 )   ) "  ßß .

) !  .

) 3* $/0 /0 # ' 92 ) AB .

   ß5 .

) !   .

.

 ) # 3- "$   1 ß6 .

) !  ! ++ .

.

.

.

.

+  ) +doing things right) + ) %doing right things) & %"@)   .  /0 /0 ßm .

) 4 & '  # /0 ' 92 /0 +"! -  v  vvv vãv v v v E4 |3# 3' ß3'  ßý .

) 4 & '  # ' 92 /0 /0 +"! ).-  vÄ "' vãv v v v ß= .

) 4 & #  # /  0 ' 92 /0 +"! 2-  vv _v v v ß> .

) 4 & #  # ' 92 /0 /0 +"! 7*  ãÄ$ v v 5? .

) 4 & .  # /0 '   /0 +"! 7*   vv  v v 5| .

 ++ .  /  0 .2 /% @0 - .   #84 8 '  '     7 7 2 7  7 .)!  " .+ +   .  " 5 .  / 0 7AB .

)!  .  )     "3   "3 #84 8 ' /0 /"0 '  /0 /"0  7 2  " " " 5ß . . .

) ! .+ % .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7! 2  &2 !  7'1 #7 G77 !  &-!  ! .2  55 .

) !   !  .

 .

.

.

 (2 7 . .

.

.

AB . H 56 .

!$ .) ! ).

 .

 . .

(2 .

7 .

'). .

7! ! ! !  .

 . ).

 . I).

-$4 .

-$ .

. .

81" .

! )."$ ) .

+/ 0 5m .

) ! 2 !  .

(  .

.

&) "  " 2!  .

.

.

$ AB 2"I 2"  A'4B  5ý .

  .) ! .

 .

.

 2 4  5= .

  .) ! .

 .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

#1 C2 DC442 + & + # &  5> .

) ! .  .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

( )1 #DC #4   4  &4 6? .

) ! .  .

.

!   !   .

.

.

.

.

7& .  .  . & 6| .

) ! # .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

very less incentive to cut such expenditure as it would only reduce a part of if by way of capital charge 6 . 4 actual cash held at HQ much less than that would have been required as an independent company )! whether to include at SP or COGS? #! how to deal with creditors? 92 ! treatment of current liabilities ± 2 extreme treatments -" ! which value to consider? Problems with depreciation (! preference for leased assets over owned assets so as to reduce capital charge #! exclusion from computation of assets employed #! Capitalization of items like R & D and its repercussion on EVA ± if capitalized.

 #! )'#8+< .)! .&"3  +<  )# +<  )# .  <- |???$)# +<  <- |???$)# +<  )#  +<    6ß  . )# +<  )#  3 +<  2 3  )#3   3 +< 3#  .

#! )# .)! .

)# ! #!  )#3 ! $  ! #   65 .

)! .#! +< )# .

5 ! +< $2)#2 )#/ ?I0)#/ß?I0   /|?I03Roð creates a bias towards little or no expansion in high-profit business units while at the same time low-profit units are making investments at rates of returns well below those rejected by high-profit units .3-2$ 39)#3 ! +< )# %23&7* $+< 3 66 . ! *)#3& +< 3 ! .

 ß3 - 53  63  m3 - 6m . |3 )  3 .. .

7! 7 .

' .

7. .

7  .

.

.

.

.

# #  ) 7 .

 . .

 6ý . .

7! & ! & .

.

.

.

-"" - #G7 $1$2 .

# ! #  ! #  ! #3< 23 ! #44 2 6= .

7! G .

#$G77 /de novo0 .

1  .

&G77  .

122! should the activity under review be performed at all? What should the quality level be? .

# 3D3 6> .

&.4  .

#  $2 3 & 3 .

! . '&.

&7*  .

& .

&7*% .

# m? .

4  .&.

-&.  23 .

! .

 .

 2 .

&4 .

#" &.$  .

4 "3 . &4!  &.

&2 42 m| .

&.4  .

! .

 .

.

.

.2  3 7*  .! ! |3 . 23 2  m .

4  Comparative usage of the TP methods by fortune 1000 Companies as per survey by Vijay Govindarajan   .&.

 .

 .

:   .

 .

.

.

 mß .

4  .&.

! .

./ 0 ..

.

.

.

DC  &  2 m5 .  7 .

. ! 7   .

.

J  . .2! J) % .

.

.

 - .

.

.

.

.

&  # # - -  m6 .

4 . - 4  & "  &  "  +" )#$+< $..  1$   1 $ 3 D 7  3 mm .  &1  #1 1 .  $ +  . ! 7  ! .

7 / 7 04 $7 .

7 42 8 .

3&3- "$ !  .

&1'D  3 7  3 .

 2 ." +44 mý . # 7 E4 ! ! ! ! ! -4 .

7 / 7 04  . &  7 J  $  $ 7'D D$( D 7     (     ) )  ( @'D   @'D  m= .

 .

  .

.

.

.

 .1 ( 4 ! &      m> .

! . .

  .

.

.

.

.

.

 . '  2 .

.

.

.

.

. . ý? . &.   .

! - .

  .

.

.

.

.

 & )2 & .

    ý| .

! D ' .

  .

.

.

.

.

.

. " &4 . #1 .

.

.

.

.

  71$   D112  - " ý .

! ' .

  .

.

.

.

.

   -   .

.

.

.  ' ýß .

 .

.

.

.

2$ 8    2 &2$ $$3. 3 23 2 2 3- 3 ý5 .

! . &   &2    &2 2   &  2     C C# 9    7 7   77 .8 $   $   + +  ý6  . 7   3 2 3 ' 3 ' 3 *3 '3     + . -  #  .  .

  .

.

.

.

.

  $$ 3 &  2$ 2$ 3  4 2"3 D213 #   2 3 ým .