So, when do businesses grow too big to be broken?
The size of an enterprise has both advantages and downsides. Organizing the business into numerous sections allows you to capitalise on both problems and possibilities. Capital is constantly limited in its availability for sustenance and expansion. As a result, every rupee earmarked for the firm’s future must compete with the basic existence of some unit inside the larger enterprise.
Inefficiencies associated with large, diverse enterprises can be difficult to overcome and may consume management bandwidth. In a world where every quarter appears to be important for keeping investors interested, such inefficiencies can harm a company’s financial results.
Source: The New York Times
To address such issues, it may be beneficial to divide the company into multiple business lines. This could result in more focused management attention, personnel retention, and funding opportunities tailored to that company line and valuations based on that industry concentration. Such companies can have efficient operations and specialised expertise while incurring lower organisational costs. This could be useful in industries that require attention and money for R&D and innovation.
Splitting an enterprise into pieces might sometimes help you throw good money after bad. Investors will sometimes pay a premium for focused enterprises that can generate profits and engage customers over the long term. This stems from the investment notion that it makes sense to break enterprises that do not benefit from shared ownership and could gain from being standalone.
In terms of funding, the size of an integrated enterprise may provide investor reassurance at times. But, rules frequently demand a simpler ownership structure and the capacity to supply facts at the business unit level. Such transparency results in lower financing costs as well as lower regulatory and compliance expenses and time.
Source: Bloomberg Television
The fear is that giant corporations will have an impact on public policy, regulatory development, and the general political economy of the marketplaces in which they operate. Any negative surrounding such enterprises has a direct impact on the government’s image. Companies having a disproportionate market share cast suspicion on the regulators’ independence.
If one follows the corporate world, it is understandable that enterprise breakups are as often as they come. As a result, why is there such antagonism when regulators break up firms rather than investors requesting it? Another question from a strategic standpoint is why can’t rules prevent firms from being dominant in the first place? In an unpredictable environment of growing dangers and innovative business models, the question should be: is it too large to fail or just too big to break?
What do you think about this? Comment below.
