Search results

The purpose of this of this paper is to show that judging by the number of mergers that still go sour, there is plenty of room to intensify the kind of operational due diligence that can uncover deal‐breaking factors before they destroy shareholder value. The paper focuses on specifically supply chain and IT as the two operations areas that deserve special attention because they still get short shrift.

The paper was written based on survey findings, publicly sourced information, case study work and Accenture's point of view based on work at over 400 M&A client engagements, three quarters with companies in the Global 1000. The two surveys cited are: 2006 Accenture study of supply chain managers; and Third Annual Due Diligence Symposium 2007 Survey.

The paper finds that when senior, experienced operations experts are involved in due diligence and pre‐merger planning, the major risks and potential deal breakers are exposed quickly – before deal momentum pushes things to the point where participants are reluctant to walk away. Also, with this input, deal makers can accurately assess the true investments needed as well as the “to be” operating costs of the joined companies. Those numbers can be used to adjust post‐merger cash flow projections, which are often extrapolated based on percentage estimates and projected top‐down rather than bottom‐up based on major projects under way or on operating model complexity. The operations experts allow new potential sources of value to be identified and considered as part of the valuation of the target company. The purchase price may then be adjusted up or down.

Dealmakers have significantly improved their understanding of, and skills in conducting, many elements of mergers and acquisitions, especially valuation and merger integration. Yet in example after example, due diligence processes have proven to be an Achilles heel. Dealmakers today must use every tool at their disposal to improve their odds of a successful deal while at the same time avoiding bad acquisitions. That means placing the same importance on operational due diligence as on valuation, traditional due diligence and merger integration. It also calls for using operational due diligence to pinpoint initiatives that protect and create value after an acquisition. The shift to this next level of due diligence will require enhancing rather than replacing traditional due diligence activities. The due diligence lists will be longer, yes, but importantly, they will be forward‐looking, gauging current observations against future operating needs.

To summarize and interpret a Risk Alert titled “Investment Adviser Due Diligence Processes for Selecting Alternative Investments and their Respective Managers,” issued by the USA Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations on January 28, 2014.

Focuses on investment advisers selecting underlying alternative investment managers. Discusses the scope of the Staff’s observations. Describes several due diligence practices observed by the staff, including seeking greater transparency; utilizing third-party information aggregators, administrators, custodians, and auditors; using more quantitative analysis; and extending due diligence process to include operational and liquidity reviews. Lists several observed warning indicators that could lead an advisor to conduct additional due diligence, request the underlying manager to make appropriate changes, or reject or veto an investment. Identifies both positive and negative compliance practices.

The Risk Alert noted several observed risk indicators that could lead an adviser to conduct additional due diligence, request the underlying manager to make appropriate changes, or reject or veto the investment. Advisers can assume that SEC Staff will ask about these risks in future adviser examinations.

Practical guidance from an experienced financial services and securities lawyer.

In December 2008, as the financial and economic crisis continued on its devastating course, a new scandal erupted. After the 1998s failure of Long-Term Capital Management, Madoff's fraud once again discredits the hedge funds industry. This scandal is, however, of a different kind. Indeed, Madoff's firm is not a standard hedge fund but a developed Ponzi scheme. By explaining Madoff's system and exploring the reasons for its collapse, this paper draws risk management lessons from this fraud, especially for operational risk management, due diligence processes, and the use of quantitative replication, regulatory, and standardizing approaches of the hedge fund industry.

Cross-border acquisitions play an important role in corporate strategic development and international expansion. During the past decades, mergers and acquisitions have been intensively researched through the lenses of strategic management, corporate finance, behavioral finance, etc. Despite the intense effort, the progress made is still fragmented and lacks unifying theories that approach the entire acquisition process on the one hand, and in-depth research of critical factors on the other. The intent of the research paper is to establish a vital link between academic research and practice of mergers and acquisitions, especially regarding the pre-acquisition evaluation.

In detail, the research paper investigates critical factors – and their inclusion in the pre-acquisition due diligence, before decision about acquisition is made. Pre-acquisition due diligence theoretically conforms to organizational learning theory, which proposes the more the acquiring firm learns about the acquisition target, the higher the probability of a successful acquisition. The central hypothesis states that due diligence, including the critical factors, in the pre-acquisition phase is related to acquisition success.

Using a multidimensional measure of critical factors, the empirical evidence is based on 85 cross-border acquisitions that took place between 2007 and 2013 in the European automotive industry. The quantitative analysis finds positive association between the Choice of Strategic Partner, Business Capabilities and HR Knowledge, and Financial Factors and Acquisition Premium as critical factors of due diligence and acquisition success. The strongest relationship is between business capabilities and knowledge transfer as the main asset for realization of synergy values and successful acquisition. In this context, the valuation of the business capabilities of the acquisition targets is classified as the main challenge for reflecting suitability of the acquisition price and establishing value generation from the combined firms in the post-acquisition phase.

By studying acquisition risk and critical factors – both success and failure reasons – this research tested and proved theoretically sound framework for successful acquisition. From a practical standpoint, the research results provide acquisition management with a proven model for pre-evaluating acquisition candidates by means of comprehensive due diligence.

It is well recognized that Mergers and Acquisitions (M&A) are important and popular ways of achieving corporate growth. Motivations include a search for monopolistic power and growth, desire to respond to a low level of profitability in the existing business portfolio, improvement of market position, filling out product line, protection of supply or distribution, gain of control, acquire what is available, to internationalize, or to reduce risk. However, M&A strategies are not risk-free, and arguably one of the CEOs greatest challenges. The last several decades have witnessed a surge of interest in top executives. The strategic choice ranks as one of the dominant roles and responsibilities of senior management. Executives’ experiences, values, and personalities greatly influence their interpretations of the situations they face and, in turn, affect their choices (Hambrick, 2007).

Over the past few years, sad stories of M&A failures have been reported and that can be attributed to poor synergy, bad timing, cultural issues, hubris, complexity, and ineffective strategic control mechanisms including poor due diligence process. M&A strategies require a series of choices made over time by actors at various organizational levels; therefore, it cannot be seen as an independent activity but as an integral part of the formal rational procedure as well as the cognitive process. Strategic cognition plays a very important role in the diagnosis of strategic issues and the formulation of problems (Schwenk, 1988). Pre-decision control mechanisms permeate all levels of strategic investments process to ensure that the investment decision aligns with organizational strategy (Alkaraan & Northcott, 2007). Due diligence processes are comprehensive appraisal of strategic investment opportunities undertaken by a prospective buyer, especially to establish its assets and liabilities and evaluate its commercial potential. Due diligence processes refer to verification, investigation, or audit of a potential deal or investment opportunity to confirm all facts, financial information, and to verify anything else that was brought up during an M&A deal or investment process.

This chapter explores the influence of due diligence processes on strategic investment decision-making (SIDM) processes. Further, it provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations. Furthermore, the chapter adopts a strategic perspective on M&A, particular attention has been paid to the influence of due diligence and other related strategic control mechanisms on SIDM processes.

The loss of an amount in excess of $100m cash deposit can be disruptive to the operations, definitely the liquidity of the hedge fund. Should a hedge fund liquidity position deteriorate, its compromised solvency could impact its vendors, most notably creditors and prime brokers. Large successful hedge funds do make basic mistakes. Lawyer Marc Dreier committed the criminal act of selling fraudulent promissory notes to hedge funds and others. Mr Drier’s success in selling fraudulent promissory notes was facilitated by his accomplices who posed as fake representatives of legitimate institutions. Drier and team presented bogus “audited financial statements” and forged developer’s signatures, and even went as far as using the unsuspecting institutions’ premises for meetings to meet potential notes buyers to further falsely legitimize the scheme. He had the notes buyers send their payments to his law firm account, to secure the money. His actions cost his victims, who include 13 hedge fund managers, other investors and entities, $400m in addition to his law firm’s employees who also suffered when his law firm was dissolved. For his actions, he was sentenced 20 years in federal prison for investment fraud. This study aims to direct hedge fund investors and other stakeholders to thoroughly vet the compliance function, especially controls on cash disbursements, even if the hedge fund is sizable (in excess of $1bn). Investors and even other stakeholders also should place a greater focus on what is usually overlooked issue; most notably the credit quality and authenticity of short-term investments bought by their hedge funds.

A thorough investigation of a fraud committed by a lawyer against a number of hedge funds. Several important lessons are identified to professionals who conduct due diligence on hedge funds.

The details of the case are very remarkable. This case directs investors’ attention to place greater efforts on certain aspects of operational risk and due diligence on not only hedge funds but also other investment managers. Normally investors conduct operational due diligence on the fund and its operations. Investors also vet fund external parties such as prime brokers, custodians, accountants and fund administrators. Yet, investors normally do not suspect the quality of short-term fund investments. In this case, the short-terms investments were the source of unforeseen yet substantial risk.

Stakeholders in hedge funds need to carefully investigate the issuer of and the quality of short-term investments that a hedge fund invests in. Future research can investigate the association of hedge fund manager failure with a liquidity position of the fund.

Investors must thoroughly the entirety of the fund including short-term securities.

Normally, it is the hedge funds that commit the fraud against investors. In this case, it is the multi-billion hedge funds run by sophisticated fund managers, who are the victims.

The purpose of this paper is events and analysis of present a hedge fund collapse, offer lessons to investors and hedge fund industry stakeholders and propose a possible remedy for mitigating operational risks and associated potential losses.

This study focused on one hedge fund case study and conducted a thorough investigation of the events that led to the collapse and eventual filing of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint. All articles and publications used for this research are available in the public domain and accessible.

Wood River Capital Management had concentrated the portfolios of its two hedge funds into one stock, EndWave Corp. Fund Manager violated terms of offering memorandum. Investors were not made aware of and did not discover the operational risks. Stock price of EndWave plummeted. There was no independent oversight over the funds. The values of the two funds dropped significantly. Investors attempted to redeem but the funds were not liquid. The SEC filed a complaint. Mr Whittier was sentenced for three years in jail.

It is an analysis of US-based hedge fund, not an empirical paper. The article presents critical analysis and offers many valuable lessons to hedge fund industry stakeholders.

This paper helps investors in terms of identifying a hedge fund’s operational risks and conducting more effective due diligence while vetting a hedge fund. This could potentially save investors and constituents billions of dollars, by avoiding potential hedge fund collapses. This paper suggests that the scope of fiduciary duty be expanded to cover hedge fund industry vendors.

Thorough research of a hedge fund that collapsed because of poor investment decisions, not self-enrichment at expense of fund investors. This paper provides lessons to investors in terms of identifying a hedge fund’s critical operational risks and conducting value preserving due diligence. This could potentially save hedge funds investors billions of dollars, by avoiding potential hedge fund collapses. This paper recommends that the scope of fiduciary duty be expanded to cover hedge fund industry vendors.

According to several authors 50 per cent of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) operations destroy value. The aim of this paper is to study the reasons why it happens and to seek to reveal that intangible assets, which are increasingly important in today's economy, must be better assessed during the due diligence phase.

The authors present a part of the French intangible assets measurement approach, which has been published by the French Intangible Assets Observatory. The methodology proposes an extended balance sheet which is an interesting addition to the IAS‐IFRS intangible standard. It identifies 12 classes of intangible assets including human capital and customer capital.

The paper proposes a due diligence approach, using the French methodology and applies it to the insurance sector.

This paper is not an academic paper. However, a significant research program is now underway in France. Academic publications are expected to be submitted.

The practice of intangible due diligence is a key issue in today's increasingly intangible economy. This practice is on the verge of a very strong development.

The paper presents a systemic approach to intangible assets. It answers a key question: what are the main assets that are necessary to start and continue a process of value creation? Accounting only recognizes the intangible assets that are not overly volatile, for prudential reasons. But even if customers or teams are “too intangible” for accountants, they are required to generate cash flows. If they are not evaluated, the process of wealth creation is not under control. This is crucial in M&A.

This chapter discusses the current landscape for digital asset investing and the many operational risks facing cryptocurrency investors. It also discusses the ongoing progress in the institutionalization of digital asset investment and the risks inherent when investing in cryptocurrencies and blockchain opportunities. Investors considering investing in a public or private fund that invests in digital assets must be aware of the operational risks that may directly impact their investments, including risks from portfolio concentration, illiquidity, hacking, digital asset custody, and digital asset valuations. Operational due diligence reviews of funds and fund managers are critical in assessing operational risks for digital asset investment.