Search
-
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives
Today’s Top Stories
- Obama Calls for Nuclear-Arms Reduction (WSJ.com: World News)
- Berlusconi Loses Tax-Fraud Ruling (WSJ.com: World News)
- Stocks slide on hints of stimulus slowdown (Business and financial news - CNNMoney.com)
- Dolce and Gabbana guilty of tax evasion (Financial Times - Europe homepage)
- Dolce and Gabbana guilty of tax evasion (UK Homepage)
- Dolce and Gabbana guilty of tax evasion (Financial Times - US homepage)
- Kerry calls Karzai to defuse tension (BBC News - Home)
- Economix Blog: Live Updates on the Fed Announcement (NYT > Business Day)
- This graph shows how bad the Fed is at predicting the future (Business News, Financial News, Business Headlines & Analysis - The Washington Post)
- Lytro releases new iPhone app for its camera (Business and financial news - CNNMoney.com)
- Futures Movers: Oil drops after rise in supplies, Fed news (MarketWatch.com - Top Stories)
Other Blog Headlines
- Blog Finance: Advertising, Sponsorship, Advertorial, Subscription? (The Big Picture)
- Analysis on Tapering QE3 (Calculated Risk)
- Fed Watch: FOMC Statement: Second Reaction (Economist's View)
- Twitter Digest: 2013-06-09 (Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed)
Blogroll
Pages
Category Archives: International StrategyOffshores Coming HomeA recent issue of The Economist magazine contained a timely special report on offshoring and outsourcing. In a series of insightful articles, the magazine highlighted the trend of companies rethinking their offshoring strategies and bringing work back home (see Welcome Home). According to The Economist, the “reshoring” trend is being driven not only by increased automation in manufacturing, but also by rising labor costs. …The pull of low-wage countries is weakening. In a survey of big American manufacturers by the Boston Consulting Group last spring, nearly two-fifths of firms said they were either planning to move or thinking about moving production facilities from China back home…Consultants at both BCG and Alix Partners reckon that by 2015 it will cost about the same for an American firm to manufacture in America as in China. It is only natural that as labor becomes increasingly more expensive overseas, and as automation tools become increasingly cost competitive, companies will reconsider their decision to offshore work. But the calculus doesn’t end there. Western firms are also finding that innovation is easier when manufacturing is in the same place as research…early pioneers of services offshoring are bringing work back home, having discovered that looking after customers and developing new IT tools are in fact a “core” part of business. It’s not solely about the nominal wage differences, but the hidden costs associated with managing far-flung activities. In many cases, cost differentials don’t compensate for quality differentials or its long-term strategic consequences. As I mentioned in prior blog posts (see Small Business Reevaluate Outsourcing and Revisiting Outsourcing Again): …managers typically overestimate the benefits of offshore outsourcing (i.e., the ability to access cheap labor) and underestimate its costs (e.g., those born out of cultural, political, economic, and regulatory differences across countries)…[offshore] outsourcing is not without strategic consequences. Although the economics of outsourcing can seem compelling on its face, the trend toward “reshoring” seems to suggest that managers are finally starting to recognize that the benefits are not quite what they seem. With all that in mind, I invite you to take a closer look at The Economist special report. You can also watch the accompanying (embedded) video introducing the special report. Enjoy!
More on this topic
(What's this?)
Industry Spotlight: Pacnet’s Jim Fagan
(Telecom Ramblings, 5/20/13)
Chinese Manufacturing Slump
(Wealth Daily, 5/2/13)
What These Data Have to Say About the So-Called Economic Growth Coming to the U.S.
(Jutia Group, 6/5/13)
Undervalued or Unaffordable?The New York Times’ Dealbook recently highlighted Fiat’s offer of $198 million for 3.3% of Chrysler’s stock. Fiat, which currently owns 58.5% of Chrysler, is looking to consolidate ownership and further integrate its American subsidiary. The offer implies an enterprise valuation of $6.7 billion for the entire firm. However, many, including the article’s author, believe that Chrysler is worth much more (see Valuing Chrysler Too Cheaply). Mr. Marchionne’s offer values Chrysler at just four times his own expectation of the company’s 2012 net income. General Motors, meanwhile trades above nine times expected earnings for last year, and Ford Motor’s multiple is just over 10 times. The Fiat proposal also pegs the enterprise value of Chrysler at $6.7 billion, scarcely more than the company’s $5.5 billion of…Ebidta…Ford’s enterprise value-to-Ebidta multiple is over five times; G.M.’s is just 2.6 times, partly thanks to $20 billion of net cash. That makes Mr. Marchionne look mighty cheap. Sergio Marchionne, Fiat’s chief executive, admits that the offer might not be in line with Chrysler’s current performance. However, I am more interested in understanding why Fiat would undervalue Chrysler. Given Fiat’s current struggles, I can’t help but wonder if the real issue is that Fiat can’t afford to buy it anymore…
More on this topic
(What's this?)
Chrysler "Imported from Detroit," weed from Mexico and beer from St. Louis! (Video)
(The Political and Financial Mark..., 12/12/12)
Ford, Chrysler Canadian sales up in November, GM drops
(Penny Stock DD, 12/3/12)
The Market’s Next BIG Turnaround Story
(Jutia Group, 11/1/12)
Sinodependency IndexI recently stumbled upon the following graphic from the Economist that details corporate exposure to China (see Chindependence or click the screenshot below to take you to the original interactive graphic on the Economist’s site). According to the Economist: The index includes all of the firms in the S&P 500 index that provide a useable geographical breakdown of their revenues. This amounts to 135 firms. Each company’s weight in the index is supposed to reflect their China revenues…Some companies report their China revenues explicitly. Many others report only their revenues for Asia-Pacific, excluding Japan. In these cases, we assume that China’s share of those revenues matched China’s share of the region’s GDP. In principle, I think creating such a graphic is a great idea. However, a true China dependence graphic should also include exposure to the supply side, not just the demand side. In most cases, S&P 500 companies have a greater dependence on China’s supply chain than its consumers…
More on this topic
(What's this?)
11.8% provisional duty on Chinese produce, temporary relief for Chinese Solar Panel Manufacturers
(Green World Investor, 6/6/13)
What These Data Have to Say About the So-Called Economic Growth Coming to the U.S.
(Jutia Group, 6/5/13)
Chinese Companies who stand to benefit from European duties on Chinese Solar Panels
(Green World Investor, 6/10/13)
|







