Lex报告:中印海外收购反差明显

Alongside a currency plunge and softening economic growth, cross-border M&A was a source of ignominy for India in 2013. Apollo Tyres attempted to buy the larger, US-based Cooper Tire & Rubber for $2.5bn in cash. Apollo’s shareholders immediately panned the deal, given the debt required. To the relief of those shareholders, labour difficulties at Cooper will probably prohibit it anyway.

2013年印度不仅经历了汇率下跌以及经济增长疲软，跨境并购也是一大耻辱来源。印度阿波罗轮胎公司(Apollo Tyres)试图收购总部位于美国、规模更大的固铂轮胎橡胶公司(Cooper Tire & Rubber)，出价为25亿美元现金。阿波罗的股东很快批评了这项交易，因为由此导致的债务负担过重。让这些股东松一口气的是，固铂的劳资困境很可能导致交易无法达成。

Yet the reputational damage to Indian acquirers will linger and will sting even more when set against another notable M&A milestone – China’s completion of its largest US buyout.

但此事对印度收购方声誉的负面影响将持续存在，并在与另一个海外并购里程碑对比时更令人痛心——中国企业完成了其在美国的最大规模收购。

Apollo saw the Cooper acquisition as the quickest route to becoming a global tire player. The combined company would have been the seventh largest tire manufacturer in the world by sales. But the deal required a pile of debt in a highly cyclical business. US merger agreements are typically airtight but unions baulked at the deal, which provided a window for Apollo to ask for a lower price or simply walk away. For Apollo it is an escape. But the outcome casts doubt on the credibility of Indian buyers. The labour hang-up should have been anticipated and resolved during the due diligence phase.

阿波罗将收购固铂视为成为一家全球轮胎企业的最快途径。合并后的公司将成为全球按销售额计算第七大的轮胎制造商。但这项交易需要阿波罗背负大量债务，而轮胎制造是一个高度周期性的行业。美国的并购协议通常是无懈可击的，但工会对这笔交易感到不满，因为它为阿波罗提供了一个要求降低收购价格或者干脆放弃的机会。对于阿波罗来说，这将是一种解脱。但由此导致的后果是印度收购方的信誉受到怀疑。阿波罗应当预见到劳工问题，并在尽职调查阶段将其解决。

Juxtapose the Apollo/Cooper fiasco against Shuanghui’s $5bn purchase of American pork processor Smithfield. In spite of Congressional scepticism of Chinese motives – a headwind that Indian buyers do not face – the largest Chinese takeover of a US company passed scrutiny. Shuanghui secured financing of $7bn and is poised to list its shares.

将阿波罗收购固铂的惨败与双汇斥资50亿美元成功收购美国猪肉加工商史密斯菲尔德食品公司(Smithfield Foods)并列对比。虽然美国国会有人对中方的收购动机表示怀疑——印度收购方没有面对这样的阻力——但这项中国对美国企业的最大规模收购通过了审查。双汇获得了70亿美元融资，并将挂牌上市。

Chinese M&A abroad has steadily marched upward in the past decade, reaching $70bn in 2013. In contrast, India’s activity has more sharply ebbed and flowed. Volume is only about $10bn in 2013. Judging by the respective outcomes in these two deals, the gap makes sense.

在过去十年中，中国的海外并购规模稳步走高，2013年达到了700亿美元。相比之下，印度的海外并购活动起伏较大，2013年的规模仅为100亿美元。从以上两项交易的不同结果来看，难怪中印两国在海外并购领域存在巨大差距。