With increasing globalism, most firms are expanding operations into many different countries. Company operations are not single location; the plants, warehouses, and distribution centers are located in terms of the proximity of the resource base and the cost benefits derived from the most advantageous locations. Multinational enterprises were resulted because of markets of products in a specific nation were too mature to increase the sales volume. Firms could no longer gain profits from domestic markets and revenue from the domestic markets were shrinking. The development of a multinational enterprise must be relevant to its different foreign entry modes. Its selection is a complex process in that the firm must evaluate multiple factors, such as the extent of the risk of investing in a nation and how much the firm is involved in the host countries. The research aim of this thesis is to compare the cases ACER of Taiwan and Samsung Electronics co. (SEC) of Korea in terms of how each firm dealt with barriers to entry in the electronics industry and thus become strong competitors in the world. The thesis also focuses on the selection of foreign entry mode to achieve success in business expansion. This research focuses on the internationalization process of Acer, a Taiwanese firm and Samsung Electronics Co. (SEC), a Korean firm, in European markets.

Lots of researches and reports analyzed the success of Samsung Electronics (SEC) mostly focusing on Samsung Group. This paper attempts to look into the relationship between SEC and Samsung Group in terms of SEC¡¦s capital management, and intends to find out if Samsung Group brings advantages to SEC. The analysis in this paper is divided into two parts: ¡]1¡^ examining the source and the use of SEC¡¦s capital by comparing with AUO and PSC¡F¡]2¡^scrutinizing SEC and the Group's financial performances. Firstly, from cash flow's point of view, AUO and PSC depend on substantial financing to meet their capital gap. Differences in working capital also cause impact on cash flow from operating activities. Same results are found similarly in analyzing the SEC and the Group. Moreover, regarding the purpose the capital, SEC evidently shows higher weights in cash outflows from investment activities than in property, plant and equipment. The difference mainly lies in the cross-investments between SEC and Samsung Group. On the other hand, based on the computation of financial ratios, SEC benefits from Samsung Group's integrated supply chains in comparison with AUO and PSC, especially in terms of account receivables and inventories. However, the same advantages are not shown in account payables conversely. It is inferred that SEC supports Samsung Group through giving looser credits. To sum up, as far as cash flows are concerned, SEC is capable of operating with sufficient working capital because of diversification and cross-investment within the Group. Meanwhile, SEC exhibits superior financial ratios than its peer companies as Group's cooperation. Subsequently, it is concluded that SEC gains much stronger competitive advantages from Samsung Group.