INVESTORS can get very excited about IPOs (initial public offerings) and M&A (merger and acquisition) activity, which has been booming over the past year.
But not all generate positive returns for shareholders. IPOs that initially do well tend to be priced at a discount to fair value, and one important factor driving longer term performance is whether the incentives of the sponsoring company are aligned with investor interests.
It is well known that M&A tends to benefit the target more than the buyer - the target gets a premium on day one, but the buyer bears all the risk of executing its strategy and extracting synergies, which do not always succeed.
Both strategies present problems for private investors.
When it comes to IPOs, choosing those which are attractive and then getting a reasonable, or any, allocation of shares can also be challenging. With respect to M&A, identifying the potential targets is, of course, very difficult. The hype surrounding the Royal Mail float may encourage people to think that buying shares when a company floats is a surefire way to make money but investors should be careful not to get their fingers burnt.
They must be aware that companies always float for a reason. One reason could be to maximise profit for the company's current owners, and as with any share investment, investors should consider how well their own interests will be served by the deal. Investors can seek a third way. In the recent past some companies have created shareholder value by divesting divisions. These companies tend to be easier to identify (management teams announce their intentions) and controversies such as price, regulatory issues and anti-trust (competition law) are easily identifiable.
Our research suggests that, instead of focussing on those companies that hit the headlines because of M&A activity or IPOs, investors should seek out companies that are about to divest part of their existing assets.
Despite huge public interest, just over half of IPOs over the last 12 months were down in price one month after trading, but companies that have divested divisions have outperformed their peers.
The highest profile example is Vodafone's $130bn sale of its stake in Verizon Wireless and huge return of value to shareholders.
Also in the telecoms sector, Cable and Wireless has benefitted from the divestment of Monaco and Islands (M&I) and Macau divisions over the last two years.
Another recent example is insurer RSA, which has benefitted from the sale of several small, non-core divisions for greater than book value.
Also in the financials space, when Phoenix sold Ignis Asset Management to Standard Life, both Phoenix and Standard Life shares outperformed when the deal was announced.
We have identified some companies that could be the next to divest assets.Reckitt Benckiser has been trying to sell its pharma business for some time - a successful divestment (such as an IPO) could help Reckitt Benckiser shares.
We also believe Smiths Group could benefit from the sale of its medical division. BG Group could benefit from the further sell-down of its stake in QCLNG (the Australian liquid natural gas business) and the sale of a stake in its Brazilian assets.
Vodafone could outperform if it is able to IPO its Indian business, which is a possibility in 2015.
Companies that divest divisions appear to be creating significant value for their investors, which may make them a better bet than high profile flotations.
Nik Stanojevic is an equity analyst at Brewin Dolphin
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article