No / This paper analyses the differences in the way partner firms assess the performance of international joint ventures (IJV). It is argued that an understanding of these differences is important for the practice of, and for research into IJV management. From a managerial point of view, firms, as well as IJV management, need to know how the partners evaluate the venture's performance. From a research perspective such differences can distort the results of studies that compare the performance of IJVs with other organizational designs or aim to identify the determinants of IJV performance. A multiple constituency approach is employed to develop hypotheses and test them using empirical data gathered through a questionnaire survey among 110 managers of German¿Chinese joint ventures (GCJV) in the People's Republic of China. This is supplemented by qualitative data gathered through in-depth interviews with 25 managers. The findings highlight a number of differences regarding the way in which partner firms assess the performance of IJVs that are relevant for practice and research.

The purpose of the study is to empirically investigate the effect of international joint venture formation on shareholder wealth. The period under investigation was from 1972 to 1987. Based on the theoretical and empirical researches done in this area, several hypotheses were tested. The statistical significance of the capital market reation to the joint venture formations was examined by using the standard event study methodology. The Ordinary Least Squares method was used to estimate the coefficients of each firm's market model parameters. The results, in general, support the wealth effect of international joint venture formation. The capital market seems to react to the unexpected information of the international joint venture formation announcements. There is evidence to indicate that international joint ventures will provide firms' shareholders with positive net present values.

ENGLISH ABSTRACT: On 27 September 2010, the much anticipated entry of Walmart to the South African retail sector was announced. Walmart Stores Incorporated publicised that they would make a non-binding offer of R148 per share for the entire number of Massmart Holding’s outstanding shares. The offer presented a premium of 19.2 percent and valued Massmart at R31 billion rand. Walmart later altered the offer to purchase 51 percent of the outstanding shares at the same offer price which Massmart consequently accepted. This concluded the largest investment by an American company, the tenth largest corporate transaction in South Africa and the fifth largest acquisition by Walmart. From a Massmart shareholders’ perspective, was it the correct decision to accept Walmart’s offer? Academic literature suggests that most mergers and acquisitions fail to live up to their expectations and ultimately fail to create shareholder value. Some of the most common reasons listed are the failure to determine the fair market value of an acquisition and engaging in mergers and acquisitions for the wrong reasons. Another common pitfall is that valuation methods in general do not link the company’s strategy to the valuation process, to assess the potential impact of the merger or acquisition on company performance. This case study based research report analyses the Walmart-Massmart acquisition to review Walmart’s offer price. The analysis links both companies’ business model and strategy to the valuation process, to determine the outcome on shareholder value within Massmart following the acquisition.

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

published_or_final_version / Business Administration / Master / Master of Business Administration

As the economy shifts from a heavy emphasis on defense science and technology to a focus on the application of innovation to commercial markets, decision makers are eager to learn how to shape successful university-industry partnerships. Given that the trend is toward greater numbers of relationships, this national survey project investigated whether scientists and administrators involved in university-industry cooperation share similar perspectives. It explored the benefits, conflicts and mechanisms related to collaborative activity, and sought to determine the implications for universities, industry, and policies directed towards this collaborative activity. Sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation, this study is one of the first to solicit responses from persons not involved in university-industry collaborative activity as well as from those who are. This research successfully captured three aspects of conflicts: conflict of interest, conflict of commitment and conflict over internal equity. The study found that conflict of interest turns on potential financial gain and revenue generating activities. Conflict of commitment is viewed in terms of responsibility and loyalty to the academic or industrial sector to which the individual belongs. Conflict over internal equity centers on traditional academic duties such as teaching and interaction with students. The primary benefits society will receive as a result of collaborative activity are new knowledge and know-how of new techniques and technologies. Regarding specific mechanisms preferred by survey respondents, collaborative universities and firms will rely heavily on conflict of interest policies guide appropriate activities. These should be specific enough to counsel an individual who has come to a decision point with regard to loyalties and at the same time be general enough to treat each collaborative endeavor on its unique merits. Regardless of the type of collaborative relationship in which academics become involved, the study found that decision makers should hold firm in their promotion of teaching and equitable treatment of students. In order to be true to their academic identity, university representatives should ensure the scale is tipped in favor of teaching, or delicately balanced so that teaching activities are equal to collaborative activities.

by Wang Li Hua. / Thesis (M.B.A.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1996. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 45-51). / ABSTRACT --- p.ii / TABLE OF CONTENTS --- p.iii / LIST OF FIGURES --- p.iv / LIST OF TABLES --- p.v / ACKNOWLEDGMENT --- p.vi / Chapter / Chapter I. --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter II. --- DYNAMICS OF TRUST --- p.5 / Transaction Cost Economics (TCE) and Criticism --- p.6 / The Importance of Trust --- p.8 / The Concept of Trust --- p.8 / Definition --- p.9 / Components of Trust --- p.10 / "Related Concepts: Reciprocity, Opportunism and Forbearance" --- p.13 / Measurement of Trustworthiness of a partner and Trust Level of Partner Relationship --- p.17 / Measurement of trustworthiness of a partner --- p.17 / Measurement of Trust Level of Partner Relationship --- p.19 / "Trust Level Measurement and Control, Conflict, Instability and Cultural Difference" --- p.24 / The Relationship Between Trust and Performance and the Measurement of Performance --- p.27 / Chapter III. --- PROPOSED METHODOLOGY --- p.30 / Research Questions --- p.31 / Propositions --- p.32 / Data Collection --- p.34 / Stages for Case Study and survey --- p.34 / Theory Building and Practical Implications --- p.36 / Chapter VI. --- CONCLUSIVE REMARKS --- p.39 / APPENDIX --- p.40 / BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.45