下载文档原格式
企业并购与重组企业并购与重组是指企业之间通过股权转让、资产收购、合并或分立等方式，以达到资源整合、市场扩张、风险分散等战略目标的行为。
在当前全球经济日趋一体化和竞争加剧的背景下，企业并购与重组成为企业发展重要的战略选择。
本文将从企业并购与重组的定义、原因、类型和影响等几个方面进行论述。
一、企业并购与重组的定义企业并购是指企业通过收购其它企业的股权来扩大自身规模和市场份额，实现资源整合和竞争优势的行为。
企业重组则是指企业通过整合内部资源，进行资产的调整与重构，以提高企业效率、盈利能力和核心竞争力。
二、企业并购与重组的原因1.市场扩张：企业通过并购与重组可以快速进入新的市场，并获取更多的销售机会和资源。
2.资源整合：通过收购或合并其他企业，企业可以整合资源，提高生产效率，降低成本。
3.品牌增值：企业通过收购知名品牌可以提高自身的品牌价值和市场地位。
4.风险分散：当一个行业或地区出现风险时，企业通过并购与重组可以实现风险的分散，降低经营风险。
5.技术引进：通过收购或并购技术优良的企业，可以快速引进先进的技术和管理经验。
三、企业并购与重组的类型1.股权收购：指企业通过购买目标公司的股权来实现并购的行为。
2.资产收购：指企业通过购买目标公司的重要资产或部门来实现并购的行为。
3.合并重组：指两个或多个企业将其股权合并成为一个新的公司，共享资源和利益。
4.分立重组：指企业通过将自身的某个部门或资产独立出来形成新公司，从而实现资源优化配置和独立运营。
四、企业并购与重组的影响1.增加市场份额：通过并购与重组，企业可以快速扩大市场份额，提升市场竞争力。
2.提高核心竞争力：通过整合内部资源和外部优势，企业可以提高核心竞争力，实现资源优化配置。
3.降低成本：通过并购与重组实现规模效益，企业可以降低成本，提高生产效率。
4.拓展产品线：通过企业并购与重组，企业可以进一步扩大产品线，满足市场多样化需求，降低市场风险。
5.风险管理：通过企业并购与重组，可以实现风险的分散与管理，降低经营风险。
常用十大翻译技巧之九：重组法!
译国译民
专心翻译做到极致常用十大翻译技巧之九：重组法！
9. 重组法：指在进行英译汉时，为了使译文流畅和更符合汉语叙事论理的习惯，在捋清英语长句的结构、弄懂英语原意的基础上，彻底摆脱原文语序和句子形式，对句子进行重新组合。
如：
Decision must be made very rapidly; physical endurance is tested as much as perception, because an enormous amount of time must be spent making certain that the key figures act on the basis of the same information and purpose.
必须把大量时间花在确保关键人物均根据同一情报和目的行事，而这一切对身体的耐力和思维能力都是一大考验。
因此，一旦考虑成熟，决策者就应迅速做出决策。
⏹一、企业重组的基本概念⏹企业重组是指对企业原有、既存或控制的经济资源，按照市场规律进行扩张、分拆、整合以及内部优化组合的过程。
⏹扩张，即通过兼并、联合经营等使企业的生产规模、业务范围等规模扩大。
⏹分拆，即通过资产剥离或企业分立的形式使企业生产规模、业务范围缩小的企业重组形式。
⏹整合，即在不改变企业规模的情况下企业内部通过资产、产权的置换提升企业整体实力和经营能了的企业重组形式。
⏹二、企业重组的分类⏹（一）按企业重组的内容分为：业务重组、资产重组、债务重组、产权重组、人员重组和管理体制重组。
业务重组，是指针对企业发展过程中对已有的业务进行调整和重新组合的过程。
从理论上说，企业存在着一个最优规模问题。
当企业规模太大，导致效率不高、效益不佳，这种情况下企业就应当剥离出部分亏损或成本、效益不匹配的业务；当企业规模太小、业务较单一，导致风险较大，此时就应当通过收购、兼并适时进入新的业务领域，开展多种经营，以降低整体风险。
资产重组，是指对企业现有的存量资产进行重新组合和重新配置，以达到盘活存量资产，提高存量资产使用效率的目标。
比如，由于企业后勤运力闲置可以考虑将专属企业的后勤运输部门独立出来成立物流公司。
或划归于企业先前成立的物流公司。
甚至还可包括一些办公设施和经营场地的重新配置。
债务重组，是指对债权债务关系进行重新调整以及对变更后的债权债务关系进行管理的活动。
债务重组多发生在债务人发生财务困难甚至是行将破产的情况下，债权人与债务人通过协议达成的改变债务履行条件的事项。
比如债权人同意部分减免债务或债务延期履行，或协议发生债务转移。
产权重组，即通过吸纳、转让、新增、分割等形式，对企业产权进行调整，对产权主体进行重新组合和整合，形成新的产权主体。
产权重组最大的不同在于重组后企业产权主体的变化。
比如大股东股权转让股权导致股权结构的变化。
昆钢被武钢控股即为产权重组一种方式。
人员重组，即以提高劳动效率为目的对企业人员进行工作上的重新安排和组合，。
Transition and enterprise restructuring the role of budget Abstract:The focus of analysis is on the impact of financial leverage as a measure of bankruptcy costs on enterprise restructuring, based on budget constraints in the economy. Data of Bulgarian manufacturing firms allow comparison of firm behavior under soft and hard budget constraints as distinguished by the inception of a currency board in 1997. Controlling for change in sales, firm size and type of ownership, statistically significant relationship between financial leverage and firm restructuring through labor adjustments is found to exist under hard budget.1 IntroductionThe impact of budget constraints on firm behavior in transition economies has been recognized in a number of studies where elimination of labor hording is identified as an important component of enterprise-restructuring policies (e.g., Grosfeld and Roland, 1996; Coricelli and Djankov, 2001). A large theoretical and empirical literature, summarized in Kornai et al. (2003), has identified the causes and channels of soft budget constraints (SBC). However, the effects of the heavy indebtedness resulting from SBC in transition economies and the influence of corporate capital structure on firm restructuring and economic efficiency have not been fully explored. In the finance literature, research has long been focused on how financial leverage and bankruptcy costs influence operating behavior and efficiency (e.g., Titman, 1984; Perotti and Spier, 1993; Sharpe, 1994; Rajan and Zingales, 1995). The main finding is that higher levels of debt in the capital structure discipline firms and force them to make optimal resource allocation decisions.This paper analyzes the impact of financial leverage on firm restructuring, based on budget constraints in the economy. The analysis explores an important channel through which the hardening of budget constraints is expected to cause active labor adjustment and enterprise restructuring. The empirical analysis uses data on more than 1500 Bulgarian manufacturing firms over the period 1994–2000. During the first half of the period, SBC were widespread and combined with inconsistent economic policies led to a severe financial crisis, which was followed by the inception of a currency board in mid-1997 and significant hardening of the budget constraints. Thus, data allow us to compare firm behavior under soft and hard budget constraints. Under hard budget constraints, a statistically significant relationship is found between determinants of the level of bankruptcy costs, such as firm size and financial leverage, and restructuring through labor adjustments. Ceteris paribus, the elimination of excess labor is more substantial in smaller and more highly leveraged firms. This relationship is not present under SBC.2 Analytical framework and hypothesesThe costs of adjusting firm labor force arise through the costs of hiring, training and firing employees, or the quasi-fixed components of the labor input (Oi, 1962; Fay andMedoff, 1985). The presence of such costs ought to induce firms to dampen fluctuations in their labor force relative to fluctuations in demand for their output, a pattern of behavior commonly referred to as labor hording. In the context of former centrally planned economies, an important reason for labor hording has been the pursuit of objectives other than profit maximization, such as full employment and other social and political goals. These considerations are in fact determinants of the SBC, which are identified as the major obstacle to efficient enterprise restructuring during transition (Kornai et al., 2003).If the costs of deviating from the profit-maximizing employment–sales ratio are high relative to the costs of adjusting labor, firms will choose to restructure. As deviations from the optimal employment–sales ratio are more costly for smaller firms and more highly leveraged firms, these ought to be quicker to adjust to changes in the economic environment (e.g., Sharpe, 1994). Firms that experience relativelyhigh opportunity costs of capital are prone to do less labor hording and to restructure when demand shifts or financial conditions change so as to preserve their capitalWhile firm (capital) size can reasonably be thought of as exogenous in this framework, such an assumption would be less tenable for firm leverage. Titman (1984) suggests that the more valuable is firm-specific capital at any given firm, the less debt that firm should have in its capital structure. Lower debt assures fewer states in which specific capital is destroyed due to liquidation.4 Under this interpretation, firms with relatively high leverage may have chosen such a capital structure either because firm-specific capital adds relatively little value to their labor force, or because such firms operate under SBC. Firms may thus be thought of as balancing the benefits of debt finance with the benefits of more highly trained labor force.5 Under SBC, however, the perceived risks and bankruptcy costs are much lower. The low bankruptcy costs thus render high leverage irrelevant both to borrowing/lending decisions and to labor hording decisions, as new loans often are the only means of (temporary) survival for indebted/insolvent firms.This hypothesis could also reasonably be supported by the view that adjustment costs are largely psychological costs that managers incur when they lay off employees (Jensen, 1988). Managers behave inefficiently, favoring their own interests rather than those of firm owners when they avoid cutting employment during recession. Using a higher level of debt in the capital structure may be the best way to reduce such management-related agency costs. Under soft budget constraints, however, the owners themselves would often pursue strategies other than profit maximization, avoid cuts to employment and thus render the level of leverage irrelevant.过渡和企业重组在预算的作用摘要:分析的重点是财务杠杆，作为破产企业重组成本，预算约束为基础的经济措施受到影响。
企业重组后的调研报告1.引言1.1 概述企业重组是指企业为了适应市场需求、提高竞争力或优化资源配置而进行的重大调整和改革。
随着市场环境的不断变化，许多企业都面临着重组的挑战和机遇。
本调研报告旨在对企业重组后的情况进行深入分析和评估，并提出相关建议，以帮助企业更好地应对重组带来的影响和挑战。
通过调研报告，我们将全面了解企业重组的背景、重组方案及实施情况，以及重组后的影响与变化，最终评价重组效果并提出建议与展望，期望能够为企业的发展提供有益的参考和支持。
1.2 文章结构文章结构部分的内容可以包括对整篇调研报告的组织架构和逻辑流程进行简要介绍。
可以描述整篇报告的分析框架和方法论，以及各个部分之间的内在关联和逻辑衔接。
同时还可以简要说明每个章节的主要内容和重点论点，以便读者在阅读报告时能够清晰地掌握整个调研内容的脉络和重点，让读者能够更好地理解和消化报告内容。
1.3 目的目的部分：本调研报告的目的在于对企业重组后的情况进行深入调查和研究，以便全面了解重组的背景、方案及实施情况，以及重组所带来的影响与变化。
通过对重组效果的评价和重组后可能出现的问题与挑战进行分析，为企业提供合理的建议与展望，以帮助企业更好地应对重组后的挑战，实现长期可持续发展。
2.正文2.1 企业重组的背景企业重组是指企业内部各种资源重新组合的过程，其目的是为了提高企业的经济效益、资源利用效率和市场竞争力。
企业重组是一种管理手段，可以通过资本、技术、人员等资源的重新配置，实现企业的战略调整和结构优化，以适应市场变化和发展需要。
企业重组的背景可以包括多个方面，如市场环境的变化、产业结构的调整、企业经营状况的需求等。
在市场经济体制下，企业需要不断适应和变革，才能不断提高自身的竞争力和生存能力。
因此，企业重组往往是在适应市场需求和产业结构调整的背景下进行的。
除此之外，企业重组的背景还可能包括公司战略的调整、业务结构的优化、资本运作的需要等。
在全球化和信息化的时代背景下，企业需要不断调整自身结构和发展战略，以应对变化中的市场和竞争。
企业重组方案随着市场的变化和竞争的加剧，企业必须不断调整自身的结构和资源，来保持自身的竞争优势。
在这个过程中，企业重组成为了一种常见的方式。
本文将探讨企业重组的定义，类型和重组方案的制定。
一、企业重组的定义和类型企业重组是指企业通过重新组合内部或外部资源，来优化其结构和资源配置，以达成更好的经营目标。
企业重组通常包括以下类型：1. 资产重组：将企业的资产进行重新组合和转移，以提高效率和效益。
比如，公司可以通过出售不相关业务或不必要的资产来减少成本，或者通过收购其他企业来获取更多的市场份额和资源。
2. 股权重组：企业可以通过调整其内部股权结构，来实现股东的利益最大化。
比如，公司可以发行新股份来对原有股东进行提议，或者通过收购其他公私有企业来获取更多的控股权。
3. 业务重组：将现有的业务进行重新组合和调整，以提高企业的效率和效益。
比如，公司可以将不相关的业务进行出售或者注销，以减少成本和提高现有业务的营运质量。
二、企业重组的重要性企业重组在现代商业中变得越来越重要。
这是因为企业重组可以帮助企业优化其结构和资源配置，进而提高企业经营效率和竞争优势。
以下是企业重组的几大优势：1. 提高企业的经营效率和盈利水平。
通过去除不必要的业务或资源，企业可以获得更高的利润和更高的效率水平，进而使得企业在市场中更具有竞争力。
2. 帮助企业进一步提高其市场份额。
通过并购或合并其他企业，可以帮助企业进一步扩大市场份额和规模，获得更多地资源和客户。
3. 提高企业产品和服务的质量。
通过更好地整合企业内部和外部资源，企业可以提高其产品和服务的质量，从而提高客户的满意度和忠诚度。
三、企业重组方案的制定企业重组方案是企业重组的核心，也是企业重组成功的关键。
一个成功的企业重组方案应该包含以下几个关键要素：1. 目标的明确性。
企业应该明确自身需要进行的重组类型，以及应该达到的目标和具体措施。
这可以帮助企业在重组过程中保持一个清晰的方向和目标。
企业重组的5个条件企业重组是指企业为了适应市场竞争和经济环境的变化，通过多种方式进行的组织和结构调整。
重组可以是合并、收购、分立、兼并等多种形式，目的是优化资源配置，提高企业效益。
但是，企业重组也存在一定的风险和挑战。
因此，在进行企业重组之前，需要满足一定的条件。
本文将介绍企业重组的5个条件。
一、明确重组目标企业重组的目标必须明确。
重组的目标应该是具体、明确、可实现的，并且应该与企业战略和经营目标相一致。
企业重组的目标可以是实现规模效益、优化资源配置、提高市场竞争力、降低成本、增加利润等。
只有明确的目标才能指导企业重组的具体实施方案，避免重组过程中的盲目和随意性。
二、充分准备和调研企业重组需要充分的准备和调研。
准备工作包括财务、法律、人力资源等方面的准备工作。
调研工作包括市场环境、竞争对手、潜在合作伙伴等方面的调研工作。
只有充分准备和调研，才能有效降低企业重组的风险和提高重组的成功率。
三、强大的管理团队企业重组需要强大的管理团队。
管理团队需要具备丰富的经验和专业知识，能够有效地指导重组工作的实施。
管理团队还需要具备创新精神和领导力，能够有效地推动企业重组的进程，确保重组的成功。
四、充足的资金和资源企业重组需要充足的资金和资源。
资金和资源是企业重组的基础和保障。
企业重组需要支付相关的费用，包括法律、财务、人力资源等方面的费用。
企业重组还需要充足的资金和资源，以确保重组的顺利进行和成功实施。
五、良好的企业文化企业重组需要良好的企业文化。
企业文化是企业的核心价值观和行为准则。
企业重组需要遵循良好的企业文化，以确保重组过程中的合法性和合规性。
企业重组还需要遵循良好的企业文化，以确保企业的可持续发展和长期成功。
结语企业重组是企业发展的必然选择。
但是，企业重组也面临着一定的风险和挑战。
只有满足上述5个条件，企业重组才能取得成功。
因此，在进行企业重组之前，企业需要认真思考和准备，制定科学合理的重组方案，确保重组的成功。
M & Financial AnalysisCorporate mergers and acquisitions have become a major form of capital operation. Enterprise use of this mode of operation to achieve the capital cost of the external expansion of production and capital concentration to obtain synergies, enhancing competitiveness, spread business plays a very important role. M & A process involves a lot of financial problems and solve financial problems is the key to successful mergers and acquisitions. Therefore, it appears in merger analysis of the financial problems to improve the efficiency of M & Finance has an important practical significance.A financial effect resulting from mergers and acquisitions1. Saving transaction costs. M & A market is essentially an alternative organization to realize the internalization of external transactions, as appropriate under the terms of trade, business organizations, the cost may be lower than in the market for the same transaction costs, thereby reducing production and operation the transaction costs.2. To reduce agency costs. When the business separation of ownership and management, because the interests of corporate management and business owners which resulted in inconsistencies in agency costs, including all contract costs with the agent, the agent monitoring and control costs. Through acquisitions or agency competition, the incumbent managers of target companies will be replaced, which can effectively reduce the agency costs.3. Lower financing costs. Through mergers and acquisitions, can expand the size of the business, resulting in a common security role. In general, large companies easier access to capital markets, large quantities they can issue shares or bonds. As the issue of quantity, relatively speaking, stocks or bonds cost will be reduced to enable enterprises to lower capital cost, refinancing.4. To obtain tax benefits. M & A business process can make use of deferredtax in terms of a reasonable tax avoidance, but the current loss of business as a profit potential acquisition target, especially when the acquiring company is highly profitable, can give full play to complementary acquisitions both tax advantage. Since dividend income, interest income, operating income and capital gains tax rate difference between the large mergers and acquisitions take appropriate ways to achieve a reasonable financial deal with the effect of tax avoidance.5. To increase business value. M & A movement through effective control of profitable enterprises and increase business value. The desire to control access to the right of the main business by trading access to the other rights owned by the control subjects to re-distribution of social resources. Effective control over enterprises in the operation of the market conditions, for most over who are in competition for control of its motives is to seek the company's market value and the effective management of the condition should be the difference between the market value.Second, the financial evaluation of M & ABefore merger, M & A business goal must be to evaluate the financial situation of enterprises, in order to provide reliable financial basis for decision-making. Evaluate the enterprise's financial situation, not only in the past few years, a careful analysis of financial reporting information, but also on the acquired within the next five years or more years of cash flow and assets, liabilities, forecast.1. The company liquidity and solvency position is to maintain the basic conditions for good financial flexibility. Company's financial flexibility is important, it mainly refers to the enterprises to maintain a good liquidity for timely repayment of debt. Good cash flow performance in a good income-generating capacity and funding from the capital market capacity, but also the company's overall Profitability, Profitability is the size of which can be company's overall business conditions and competition prospects come to embody. Specific assessment, the fixed costs to predict the total expenditures and cash flow trends, the fixed costs and discretionary spendingis divided into some parts of constraints, in order to accurately estimate the company's working capital demand in the near future, on the accounts receivable turnover and inventory turnover rate of the data to be reviewed, should include other factors that affect financial flexibility, such as short-term corporate debt levels, capital structure, the higher the interest rate of Zhaiwu relatively specific weight.2. Examine the financial situation of enterprises also have to assess the potential for back-up liquidity. When the capital market funding constraints, poor corporate liquidity, the liquidity of the capital assessment should focus on the study of the availability of back-up liquidity, the analysis of enterprise can get the cash management, corporate finance to the outside world the ability to sell convertible securities can bring the amount of available liquidity. In the analysis of various sources of financing enterprises, the enterprises should pay particular attention to its lenders are closely related to the ease of borrowing, because once got in trouble, helpless to the outside world, those close to the lending institutions are likely to help businesses get rid of dilemma. Others include convertible securities are convertible at any time from the stock market into cash, to repay short-term corporate debt maturity.3 Determination of M & A transaction priceM & M price is the cost of an important part of the target company's value is determined based on M & A prices, so enterprises in M & Juece O'clock on targeted business Jinxing scientific, objective value of Ping Gu, carefully Xuanze acquisition Duixiang to Shi Zai market competition itself tide in an invincible position. Measure of the value of the target company, generally adjusted book value method, market value of comparative law, price-earnings ratio method, discounted cash flow method, income approach and other methods.1. The book value adjustment method. Net balance sheet shall be the company's book value. However, to assess the true value of the target company must also be on the balance sheet items for the necessary adjustments. On the one hand, on the asset should be based on market prices and the depreciation of fixed assets,business claims in reliability, inventory, marketable securities and changes in intangible assets to adjust. On liabilities subject to detailed presentation of its details for the verification and adjustment. M & A for these items one by one consultations, the two sides, both sides reached an acceptable value of the company. Mainly applied to the simple acquisition of the book value and market value of the deviation from small non-listed companies.2. The market value of comparative law. It is the stock market and the target company's operating performance similar to the recent average trading price, estimated value of the company as a reference, while analysis and comparison of reference of the transaction terms, compared to adjust, according to assessment to determine the value of the target company. However, application of this method requires a fully developed, active trading market. And a subjective factors and more by market factors, the specific use of time should be cautious. Mainly applied to improve the market system in the acquisition of listed companies.3. PE method. It is based on earnings and price-earnings ratio target companies to determine the value of the method. The expression is: target = target enterprise value of the business income × PE. Where PE (price earnings ratio) can choose when the target company's price-earnings ratio M, with the target company's price-earnings ratio of comparable companies or the target company in which the industry average price-earnings ratio. Corporate earnings targets and the target company can choose the after-tax income last year, the last 3 years, the average after-tax income, or ex post the expected after-tax earnings target company as a valuation indicator. This method is easy to understand and easy to apply, but its earnings targets and price-earnings ratio is very subjective determination, therefore, this valuation may bring us a great risk. This method is suitable for the stock market a better market environment, a more stable business enterprise.5. Income approach. It is the company expected future earnings discounted using appropriate discount rate to assess the present value of the base date, and thus determine the value of the company's assessment. Income approach in principle, thatis the reason why the acquirer acquired the target company, taking into account the target company can generate revenue for themselves, if the company's returns, but the purchase price will be high. Therefore, according to the company level can bring benefits to determine the value of the company is scientific and reasonable way. The use of this method must have two conditions: First, assess the company's future earnings are to be predicted, and can predict the basic income guarantee and the possibility of a reasonable amount; second, and enterprises to obtain expected benefits associated with future risk can be invaluable, and can provide convincing evidence. When the purpose is to use M & A target long-term management and enterprise resources, then use the income approach is suitable.Activities in mergers and acquisitions, M & A business through the acquisition of a variety of financing sources of funds needed. M & M financing enterprises in financing before the deal with a variety of M & A comprehensive analysis and evaluation, to select the best financing channels. M & A financing from the actual situation analysis, M & A financing is divided into internal financing and external financing. Internal financing is an enterprise to use their own accumulated profits to pay for acquisitions. However, due to the amount of funds required for mergers and acquisitions are often very large, and limited internal resources, after all, the use of M & A business operating cash flow to finance significant limitations, the internal financing generally not as the main channel for financing mergers and acquisitions. Of external financing is divided into debt financing, equity financing and hybrid financing.Channels of financing the actual response to determine their capital structure analysis, if the acquisition of their funds sufficient, using its own funds is undoubtedly the best choice; if the business debt rate has been high, as far as possible should be financed without an increase to equity of companies debt financing. However, if the business prospects for the future, can also increase the debt financing, in order to ensure all future benefits enjoyed by the existing shareholders.Whether M & A business development and expansion as a means or aninevitable result of market competition, will play an important stage in the socio-economic role. As an important participant in M & A and policy-makers, from the financial rational behavior on M & A analysis and selection of the same time, also taking into account the market, and management elements that will lead the enterprise's decision making provide the most effective Xin Xi .企业并购财务问题分析企业并购已成为企业资本运营的一种主要形式。
企业重组的原因
企业重组是指企业通过重新组合、整合和调整资源，以期望提高整体绩效和适应外部环境的变化。
以下是一些企业进行重组的常见原因：
1. 战略调整：
-随着市场条件和竞争格局的变化，企业可能需要调整战略，以更好地适应市场需求和趋势。
2. 业务优化：
-企业可能通过重组来优化业务结构，集中资源于核心业务，剥离或关闭不盈利或不符合战略方向的业务部门。
3. 成本削减：
-通过合并重叠的职能和资源，企业可以实现规模效益，减少重复性成本，提高整体效率。
4. 提高竞争力：
-通过整合资源，企业可以提高在市场上的竞争力，实现更高的市场份额或更好的定位。
5. 适应市场变化：
-当市场需求、技术或法规发生变化时，企业可能需要重组以适应这些变化，确保持续经营和发展。
6. 并购和收购：
-企业可能进行重组以进行并购或收购，以扩大市场份额、获取新技术或进入新市场。
7. 提高运营效率：
-通过重新设计流程、优化组织结构和引入新技术，企业可以提高运营效率，降低生产和管理成本。
8. 人才管理：
-企业重组可能涉及人员结构的调整，包括优化人员配置、提高组织灵活性和确保人才与企业战略的匹配。
9. 应对经济周期：
-在经济不景气或其他不利条件下，企业可能通过重组来增强财务韧性，减少不确定性。
10. 技术变革：
-随着科技的不断进步，企业可能需要调整组织结构以适应新技术的应用和业务模式的变革。
企业重组是一项复杂的任务，需要慎重考虑各种因素，包括组织文化、员工关系、法律和财
务等方面的影响。
成功的重组通常需要领导层的明智决策和有效的执行。
兼并重组方案1. 简介兼并重组（Merger and Acquisition，M&A）是指企业为了实现战略上的需要，通过合并、收购、分立等方式，来改变已有的企业组织结构、资产配置等，进而提高企业的市场竞争力。
本文将探讨兼并重组的基本概念和目的，以及制定兼并重组方案的步骤和注意事项。
2. 兼并重组的概念和目的2.1 概念兼并重组是企业战略管理的重要手段之一，它通过并购、合并等方式，将两个或多个企业组织合为一个，实现资源整合和优化配置，以达到提高企业市场地位、增加经济规模、降低成本、优化生产布局等目的。
2.2 目的兼并重组的目的主要包括： - 拓展市场份额：通过合并、收购等方式快速增加市场份额，提高市场竞争力； - 获取核心技术和资源：通过并购或合并，获取对方的核心技术、人才和资源，提升自身研发能力和创新能力； - 实现规模经济效应：通过资源整合和优化配置，实现规模经济效应，降低成本，提高运营效率； - 分散风险：通过兼并重组，实现业务多元化，降低风险； - 增加利润和股东价值：通过兼并重组，提高企业利润水平，创造更大的股东价值。
3. 制定兼并重组方案的步骤制定兼并重组方案需要经过以下步骤： ### 3.1 确定兼并重组的目标在制定兼并重组方案之前，需要明确兼并重组的具体目标，包括增加市场份额、获取核心技术和资源等。
3.2 进行兼并重组的可行性研究进行兼并重组的可行性研究是制定方案的重要基础。
可行性研究主要涉及对目标企业的财务状况、市场地位、技术水平等进行评估，确定兼并重组的可行性和潜在风险。
3.3 确定兼并重组的方式和对象根据可行性研究的结果，确定兼并重组的具体方式和对象，包括并购、合并、分立等，以及兼并重组的目标企业。
3.4 进行谈判和协商在确定兼并重组方式和对象后，进行谈判和协商。
谈判和协商的内容包括兼并重组的交易价格、股权结构、管理层安排等。
3.5 实施兼并重组方案在谈判和协商达成一致后，正式实施兼并重组方案。
外文翻译Corporate RestructuringMaterial Source: Author:Giuliano Iannotta The Holdout ProblemWhen claimants are unable to find an agreement, they might not approve the restructuring plan, even when this will produce a sub-optimal outcome, such as a liquidation (which will waste the value of the firm “as a going concern”) or a formal bankruptcy procedure (which is more expensive and possibly leads to inferior result for creditors): this is the holdout problem. The likelihood of approval of the restructuring plan will depend on several factors, such as the number and sophistication of the claimants, the relative cost of the plan relative to other solutions, etc.For example, in the presence of many small bondholders it might be very difficult to get the restructuring plan approved, as some of them might believe they will be better off not approving the proposed plan. In other terms, when there is public debt (i.e., bonds) outstanding the holdout problem can be particularly severe. Scale down, maturity extension, or debt-for-equity swap might be very difficult if every bondholder has to agree to the term changes. Consider for example an exchange offer where outstanding debt is exchanged with equity (debt-for-equity swap): in other words, creditors take over the distressed firm. In such a situation, the bondholders who do not tender might benefit at the expense of those who do. Suppose the firm’s asset value is $100, with public debt outstanding for$120 (10 bondholders, each holding one bond with face value $12). The firm’s asset liquidation value is only$80: there is therefore an incentive to keep the firm doing business. Suppose the exchange offer is contingent on achieving a 50% tendering rate. If all bondholders tender, the firm will have the balance sheet reported in Table 10.1.The value to each bondholder will be $10, with a loss of $2: under liquidation each bondholders would receive just $8. Now suppose that only five bondholders tender: the exchange offer would succeed, but the five “holdout” bondholders will be better off. Indeed, the balance sheet of the firm would be that reported in Table 10.2.The five holdout bondholders will still have one bond each, with face value $12: in contrast the five tendering bondholders would each receive equity worth $8, which corresponds to the liquidation value. Of course, rational bondholders will anticipate this outcome, and none of them will tender. The exchange offer will fail, unless the bondholders are able to coordinate. The success of the exchange offer also depends on the difference between the firm value “as a going concern” and under liquidation. As we will see in the next section, things can become even more complex when other classes of creditors are involved.Private and Public DebtA benefit of borrowing from banks is that private debt is much easier to restructure in financial distress than public debt. Indeed banks are sophisticated and (normally) fewer than bondholders. However, since bank lenders are usually secured, they have little incentive to make concessions when a firm also has unsecured public debt outstanding. Banks are generally limited in their stockholdings in non-financial firms, with a remarkable exception in case of financial distress (in many jurisdictions). Whether a bank will decide to take an equity position in a financially distressed firm, will depend on several variables: again the cost of restructuring relative to liquidation, but also the amount of public debt and the bondholders willingness to restructure their claims. To understand how the financing mix might affect the outcome of the restructuring process consider a very simple model.2 Fig. 10.2 A model of distress resolutionAt time 0 a firm is in financial distress as debt outstanding (D=120) is larger than both the liquidation value (K= 80) and the value as going concern (M=100). Liquidation is not necessarily the optimal solution as the value “as a going concern” is higher than liquidation: let’s call this difference “growth potential”. Now suppose that management/shareholders propose to restructure debt by extending the maturity to time 1. The firm can undertake two alternative projects: (a) a safe project that will produce a cash flow equal to 100 without uncertainty and (b) a risky project which might result in 300 or 0 with equal probability. Note that the risky project is not inefficient as the expected value is 150 (with risk), while the expected cash flow of the safe project is only 100 with no risk. Figure 10.2 provide the time structure of the model.Without specifying the composition of debt it is clear that creditors will force liquidation, losing the growth potential. Indeed, if they accept the maturity extension, managers/shareholders will opt for the risky project, which in turn is suboptimal tocreditors. Table 10.3, reports the payoff to creditors and shareholders under the two projects.If creditors accept to restructure the debt by extending the maturity, managers/shareholders can keep running the firm: if they choose the safe project, the payoff tocreditors will be $100 (more than liquidation), while shareholders will receive nothing. In contrast, if the risky project is undertaken, the expected payoff to creditors is only $60 (less than liquidation) while sh areholders’ expected payoff is $90. It is therefore rational for shareholders to choose the risky project: creditors will anticipate the shareholders’ incentive, thus rejecting the restructuring proposal and forcing liquidation. It is an under-investment problem, as the firm is liquidated even if keeping it on business would generate more value. The real-life intuition is simple: creditors do not accept changes in terms, as they believe that managers/ shareholders will go “for broke” since they have “nothing to loose”.An alternative to liquidation is the use of some sort of “equity kicker” (e.g., convertible bonds or warrants) which align the incentive of shareholders with that of creditors. For example, suppose that creditors are offered 60% of the equity payoff (cash flow less debt) in addition to their credit. Under this agreement, creditors would get $114 with the risky project (versus $100 with the safe project): depending on their risk appetite they might prefer the risky project as the shareholders do. Table 10.4 reports the payoffs with an equity kicker.Suppose that creditors are not willing to accept any equity kicker because the risky project is inefficient.For example, the risky project would be clearly inefficient if the resulting cash flow could be either $140 or $0 with equal probability. Table 10.5shows the payoff to shareholders and creditors under this assumption.Even with a 100% equity kicker (i.e., creditors get 100% of the equity payoff) creditors would still prefer the safe project. Since shareholders would opt for the risky one, creditors would force liquidation. Alternatively, creditors might consider to take over the firm (i.e., accepting a debt-for-equity swap), in which case they could undertake the safe project realizing the growth potential. That would be the outcome if the debt structure is composed by a single non-naı¨ve lender (i.e., a bank or a group of banks). Also, if the whole debt outstanding is public (i.e. bonds) the debt-for-equity swap would be a feasible outcome, provided the holdout problem is resolved (an investment bank might help, as we will see in the next section). However, things are more complex when the debt composition is mixed.If DB < K, then the bank will accept equity only if M – DP > DB, i.e., M > D.But in this case external finance would be feasible, thus violating the definition of distress. Only if public debt holders scale down their claims too, the bank will accept the offer. If it is impossible to restructure the public debt (due to the holdout problem), the bank will never accept equity in exchange for its unimpaired secured claim. Consider a numerical example: suppose DB=30, DP=90, and K=80. The bank debt is unimpaired (DB=30<K=80). The bank could get paid its money by forcing liquidation and would accept equity only if it can get more than 30. If the bank accepts equity and undertakes the efficient project, it will get 100–90=10<DB=30. There would be a wealth transfer from the bank to the ondholders. The bank will accept equity only if also public debt holders scale own their claims: suppose the bondholders accept to scale down their claims to 60. The bank would hence get 100–60=40 >DB=30. If it is impossible to convince the bondholders, the firm is liquidated.This model tries to explain what happens in the real life. James (1995) empirically investigates which factors affect the likelihood that a bank takes equity in exchange for some concession of principal: he finds that this likelihood increases with the market-to-book-value ratio (which is a proxy of growth potential), with the debt-to-asset ratio, and when public debt holders also accept equity. In contrast the probability that banks accept equity decreases with the weight of public debt to total debt.Conclusion:This chapter has described the main restructuring transactions. Restructuring is usually associated to a condition of financial distress, but is not necessarily so.Indeed, a firm might undertake a restructuring transaction simply to enhance value creation or to prevent a situation of distress. In a distress condition there are mainly two alternatives: either restructuring or liquidation, both of which can be realized either with a formal bankruptcy procedure or with an out-of-Court workout. Workouts are normally less expensive and therefore should be preferred to formal procedures. Nonetheless, it often happens that different claimants of the distressed company cannot find an agreed solution. As a result the only solution is going to Court. The solution of a distressed situation normally involves restructuring the firm’s debt contracts. Investment bank can play an important role in debt restructuring,by coordinating the different claimants and certifying the quality of theproposed restructuring plan. Also the asset side of a firm can be restructured. Beside divestures (i.e., sale of a subsidiary or division), the typical assetrestructuring is a stock break-up. Stock break ups consist in separating a subsidiary or a division from the parent company with the purpose of creating value to the parent’s shareholders by means of enhanced information or better managerial incentives. The extant empirical evidence suggests that stock break ups do create value.译文企业重组资料来源： 作者:詹姆斯兰诺抵抗问题:当申索人无法达成共识，他们可能不批准重组计划,即使这将产生一个最优的结果,如清算(会浪费企业的价值“为赢利”)或者是一个正式的破产程序(这更贵,并可能导致劣质的结果给债权人):这是在抵抗问题。
