Please email ft@mergermarket.com or call EMEA: + 44 (0)20 7059 6105 Americas: +1 212 686-5277 Asia-Pacific: +852 2158 9730 for further information on mergermarket and how to receive more articles like the one below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the M&A wave that has swept through the US corporate sector in recent years has been the absence of Chinese acquirers. It was widely anticipated that Chinese companies would follow in the footsteps of Japanese companies in the 1980s, and European companies in the late 1990s, by stepping forward and acquiring large US brands, particularly in the consumer sector. China’s emergence as a major economic power has been largely based on its ability to produce cheap goods as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) on behalf of established brands in the US, Europe and Japan. However, as China’s industrialization has gained scale and sophistication the view has emerged that Chinese companies will look to get closer to the ultimate consumer by acquiring the brand names they supply as OEMs. The 2003 acquisition of IBM by Lenovo, the Chinese computer manufacturer, was widely heralded as the first of many such deals.
Yet four years later few, if any, sizeable deals have come to pass.
DaimlerChrysler’s recent decision to put its Chrysler division up for sale would have presented China’s fledgling automotive industry with the perfect opportunity to gain direct access to the US market. However, all the main Chinese vehicle manufacturers simply lack the scale and management resource required to make a viable standalone bid.
The same issues confront Chinese furniture manufacturers, which, given their significant industrial competitive advantage would be expected to emerge as consolidators of US furniture brands. La-Z-Boy, the Michigan-based manufacturer of the eponymous armchairs, has been selling off non-core operations and its well-established brand would conceivably represent an ideal Chinese-US takeover opportunity. However, if any deal were to take place, it would be more likely to take the same form as that of Chrysler and be acquired by a private equity firm. La-Z-Boy, which has a market capitalization of USD 680m, declined to comment on any potential M&A activity.
Chinese OEM furniture companies Yihua Timber and Markor International have an interest in making acquisitions in the US, according to sources at these companies. However, these sources both stated that a transaction of this size was beyond their means. Markor is currently in the process of a complex restructuring process that will result in it increasing its size and share liquidity, however the firm is more likely to look within China for acquisition targets than overseas, sources familiar with the situation say.
An executive at Kasen International Holdings, the Hong-Kong listed company which is a supplier to La-Z-Boy, agreed that it, like most Chinese furniture companies, would be too small to acquire La-Z-Boy. He said that Kasen was more interested in La-Z-Boy, and other US furniture companies, as a distribution partners than as M&A targets.
Chinese firms are likely to face issues that go beyond scale. A US investment banker active in the US furniture sector has confirmed that he is aware of Chinese companies that have “a real interest in acquiring here.” He says that some have come to realize that it may be preferable acquire a US manufacturer and/or retailer than to assume the risks and time that accompany building their own distribution networks. However, he argues that any such deals would be less advantageous to a US-based target because most companies are already sourcing their products from multiple facilities in Asia. “If the company were to sell to one Asian buyer it could lose the competitive advantage to get the best deal on its sourcing, since the buyer will be locked into sourcing all of its products from its parent entity,” the banker said.
Herein lies the paradox: a Chinese acquirer of a US company would gain the retail distribution advantages it needs, but would be left to compete against US firms able to continue sourcing from multiple Chinese suppliers as opposed to being locked into sourcing with just one (the parent) entity.
Chinese firms also have a reputation for making ‘low-ball’ bids and retreating in the face of competing offers, as Haier, the world’s fourth largest white goods manufacturer, did in 2005 when its US rival Whirlpool emerged with a knock out bid for Maytag. The second US-based furniture banker said that he often reaches out to potential Asian bidders on deals but they have not yet completed a deal with any because they have historically bid conservatively. To be competitive in the auction process, Asian companies would have to pay the 4.5X to 6.5X EBITDA multiples that US-based furniture companies typically sell for, the banker said.
Another US-based sector banker said that in his experience Chinese bidders were willing to pay up but were typically looking for something very specific. He said that most Chinese companies were unused to competing with private equity firms in an auction process.
Chinese companies have shown themselves to be ‘thin-skinned’ when acquiring in the US, as was the case in 2005 when China’s largest energy company, CNOOC, abandoned its well-planned bid for the US oil and Gas firm, Unocal, after the first signs of political opposition emerged.
There are other issues that make Chinese-US deals less likely. A number of the Chinese companies contacted stated that they were more focused on Europe as a region for making acquisitions. The US bankers agreed that this was the case, citing the fact that the Chinese currency has been tied to the weak US dollar, which made their products more competitive in Europe than in the US. The Shanghai-based analyst specifically identified Italian furniture manufacturers as more appealing acquisition targets for Chinese companies because of the latter’s superior design, techniques and production. American companies would be acquired “mainly for their brand,” the analyst said.
An executive at Huahe Group, a Chinese furniture manufacturer, confirmed that the firm had no plans to acquire in the US. The executive said Huahe was focused on its domestic investment and production bases in Beijing and Xinjiang’s Qiqihar and pointed out that the US housing slump did not make takeovers there very compelling .
“I believe very few Chinese furniture maker would go to buy US furniture companies,” said the executive. “The current situation is that the US furniture market is declining,..Making profit is the first thing we consider when making investment decision. From this angle, buying into the US seems not so realistic.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mergermarket is an M&A intelligence tool focused on providing actionable, origination intelligence to its client base of the world’s principal advisory firms, investment banks, law firms, private equity firms and corporates. mergermarket provides clients with articles such as the one above in real-time via an online platform and personalized email, BlackBerry alerts and an online platform. For more information;
please email ft@mergermarket.com or call EMEA: + 44 (0)20 7059 6105 Americas: +1 212 686-5277 Asia-Pacific: +852 2158 9730
