CASE GAME
The Case of Troubled
Diversification
Having invested expensive debt into new
projects given to overruns, Peekay Steels must now find a way out of the
interest squeeze to ensure survival. A.K. Sengupta of SPJIMR, S. Biswas of
Accenture, and V. Sett of Hughes Telecom debate on Peekay's way ahead.
By R.
Chandrasekhar
Pravin kumar
flicked the TV off as he saw, for the nth time that night, the second
tower of the World Trade Center in New York come crashing down. ''What
kind of people would plot so meticulously to take thousands of innocent
lives?'' he wondered, as a chill went down his spine. ''It hasn't been a
good day for me and lots of others in the US,'' Kumar muttered, switching
on a lamp next to his king-sized chair, and pulling out a file from his
expensive Pierre Cardin portfolio.
A few hours earlier, the 48-year-old ceo of
Peekay Steels, which had four other subsidiaries dealing in aluminium,
power, oil exploration, and telecom, had emerged from a gruelling
four-hour session with Dalal Street analysts. It seemed the analysts
thought there was nothing right with his diversified group. The hundreds
of crores of rupees that the flagship had raised to fund forays into new
growth sectors were proving be a mill round Peekay's neck. The bottomline
was bleeding not because the steelmaker was inefficient; rather, the
culprit was the staggering interest Peekay had to pay month after month.
Kumar flipped a few pages of his file and got
to a section titled 'Competitive Analysis'. He put a finger on the column
that read production cost and traced it down to the row where Peekay's
prices were given: $260 per tonne. Moving his gaze further down, he looked
at the global benchmark: $280 per tonne. Feeling bitter, he picked up a
pen and circled the number under the financial charges column. ''We are
paying $81 as interest charge for every tonne of steel that we make,'' he
said it aloud for the words to sink in. ''So, by the time my steel leaves
the factory it costs $341 per tonne.''
Mulling
Over The Break-Up
|
Why
It Helps...
» Sharpens
business focus to just steel-making
» Rids
the balance-sheet of expensive borrowings
» Helps
leverage cost leadership in steel manufacture
» Raises
investor interest and, hence, shareholder value
...And Why
It Doesn't
» Lowers
the promoter's stake precariously
» Throws
the company open to takeovers
» Reduces
asset strength in the balance-sheet
» Limits
growth opportunities for individual managers |
In another few hours, Kumar knew he would be
seated in the back of his black Mercedes Benz along with three of his key
executives, on a four-hour drive outside the city to Peekay's steel plant.
But before hitting the sack for a few winks, Kumar decided to call Anirudh
Desai, Peekay's director of finance. Desai was watching CNN too when Kumar
called him on his mobile. ''Do you think our US exports are going to be
affected if there's a war?'' Kumar asked Desai without bothering to say
hello or expressing his shock over the attacks.
''It could go either way,'' replied Desai.
''If there's a war, the US may step up imports. But if the business
sentiment worsens, purchases may actually fall.''
''Let's talk about it later today,'' said
Kumar. ''But, ANI, the reason I called was to find out something specific.
Can we lower our interest costs without losing control of any of our
subsidiaries?''
''I think so,'' replied Desai. ''But given
the complicated shareholding pattern within the group, individual
spin-offs might be tricky. The joint venture route is an option we could
look for all our non-steel businesses. Even if we were to forfeit the
controlling stake, we could still retain a major holding in each
subsidiary. I have done some scenario building, but I don't think I can
take you through that over the phone. May be I could do that on our way to
the plant tomorrow?''
''I guess you could,'' said Kumar, wishing
Desai good night, and putting the cordless phone back into its cradle.
Kumar had slept for all of an hour when the
electronic clock on the table by his bedside beeped. By quarter to seven,
Desai and two other senior execs were at Kumar's house, waiting for Kumar
to join them for a quick breakfast before setting out on the ride.
''What's the update on the attacks?'' Kumar asked no one in particular,
but Desai replied. ''No news yet on how many dead, but it seems the
fatality could run into a few thousands.'' Over the next 15 minutes, the
terrorist attack dominated the conversation at the breakfast table.
Getting into the car, Kumar switched to the
business at hand. ''We simply have to get our financial costs down,'' he
said, turning to Desai. ''Yes, but the question is how?'' countered Desai.
''In the past, we have used the flagship as an investment vehicle for
setting up projects in power, oil, aluminium, and telecom. Not only are
these businesses capital intensive, but they have been hit by time and
cost over-runs. That has sent our interest costs into a spiral.''
''But aren't we trying to swap expensive debt
with cheaper funds from abroad?'' questioned Kumar.
''Yes, but this may not be the best of time
to do that,'' said Desai. ''Besides, let's face it, our track record at
repaying loans isn't exactly blemishless. More than once we've had our
loans rescheduled.''
''But can't we convert our inter-corporate
borrowings into convertible debentures?'' said Kumar.
''I'm not confident of this happening,''
Venkatesh Krishnan, a nominee on Peekay's board, butted in. ''For one,
your stock price has taken a severe beating on Dalal Street, and investors
are aware of the financial problems you are facing. Also, where is the
market for IPOs?''
''So, what is the solution? Should we, like
the analysts want, spin off our four projects into companies and offload
the borrowings from our books?'' Kumar asked. ''This would sharpen
Peekay's business focus. What do our institutional shareholders think
about this?'' continued Kumar, looking to Krishnan.
''The consortium does not favour a
break-up,'' the nominee-director replied. All your lenders see merit in a
large balance sheet that comes with a diversified portfolio. But, frankly,
my own view is different. True, your operational efficiency in steel is
comparable to the best in the world. But the profitability-and indeed the
survival-of the group is at stake because of its conglomerate nature. And
the only option is for you to stick to what you are good at and divest
areas that are marginal to your core business of steel.''
''But a break-up has its flipside,'' argued
Kumar. ''A single business company could attract the attention of
predators with an eye on synergy and cost savings. Our power unit, for
instance, which has a capacity to produce 1,000 mw of power might interest
a larger power unit. A pure play is more likely to invite a take-over bid
which may be good for shareholders-since such acquisitions occur at a
substantial premium to the market price-but bad for the incumbent
management, because it reflects poorly on their past performance.''
''If we break up,'' Desai added, ''the group
would shrink in size. The growth opportunities for individual managers
would be reduced. But the overriding rationale against a break-up is that
we need balance in our portfolio. We are good at steel, but the future
lies in emerging areas like telecom. So, we should be in telecom.''
''And let us not forget,'' pointed out Kumar,
''that our shareholders invested in us because we are a diversified
company. I don't think we should be concerned about focus because that is
not the reason why investors came to us in the first place.'' As the
sprawling steel plant loomed into sight, Kumar knew that answers would be
hard to find. Just the same, he had to find them quickly.
CASE
SOLUTIONS
Send us your solution
|