銀行界與卡夫的愛情買賣

????顯然，卡夫食品（Kraft Foods）認為目前最明智的做法莫過于將公司一分為二。然而，就在8月3日之前，公司還認為規模翻番更為明智。

????有一些規律是永恒不變的。最常見的莫過于晝夜交替，還有生老病死。經濟的運行也有自己的一整套規律，盡管每個新的輪回表現各有差異。對于金融來說，有并購也有剝離——這是銀行家們賴以生存的搖錢樹。

????并購和剝離，無論哪一種方式，都是從事并購銀行家們的養料——先建后拆，周而復始。今天，他們會強調規模效應很重要，明天他們又改口說要專注于“核心競爭力”。

????上周，卡夫食品（KFT）在華爾街最熱衷的游戲當中扮演了主角。在經過多年的擴張后，公司今天的宣布無異于180度轉彎。昨日的舉足輕重變成了今日的無足輕重。

????卡夫食品聲稱，公司正計劃拆分成兩部分——1/3為北美雜貨業務，2/3為全球零食業務。為了給自己尋找依據，他們不惜重拾部分總加法分析這一陳詞濫調。然而這與公司一年前所公布的計劃大相徑庭。典型的虛偽。

????卡夫食品的首席執行官羅森菲爾德2010年是這么說的：“我比較喜歡將能帶來現金的業務和增長態勢良好的業務整合在一起…”

????現在，僅僅一年之后——雖然經濟形勢仍與一年前如出一轍——羅森菲爾德的看法已是大有不同。她現在認為應該將增長緩慢、生錢有道的雜貨業務與增長迅猛、囊中羞澀的零食業務分而治之。公司將債務攤給了雜貨公司，而零食公司則搖身一變成為了人見人愛的增長型企業。

????市場對此消息反響十分熱烈，卡夫公司的股票在上周四逆勢上揚。根據《華爾街日報》（Wall Street）的報道，卡夫公司的以為發言人聲稱：“幾年前我們就已經開始策劃類似的交易了，而且分析人士和投資者們都建議我們這么做”等一等，什么？難道他們一邊在策劃類似的交易一邊還在繼續并購其他的公司，比如2010年并購糖果公司吉百利（Cadbury）？難道這些人連自己想干什么都弄不清楚嗎，到底是要壯大還是要瘦身？

????該報同時還列舉了剝離游戲中的其他一些玩家。石油巨頭康菲公司（ConocoPhillips）（COP）最近否定了其垂直整合的決策，轉而決定拆分成兩家公司——一家采油，一家煉油。根據該報的報道，首席執行官穆禮懷認為拆分后公司的核心業務將更具競爭力也更有價值。換句話說，之前的合并就是一餿主意。

????再回頭來說卡夫公司。當然分析人士已經“建議這么做”。其實這是在提醒大家準備好銀兩。這只是卡夫公司結構調整歷史長河中最新的插曲：經過幾十年的分分合合，2000年，菲利普?莫里斯集團（Philip Morris）【現更名為奧馳亞集團（Altria）（MO）】將卡夫與納貝斯克控股公司（Nabisco Holdings）合并，隨后卡夫公司于2001年上市。接下來的幾年當中，卡夫食品在出售箭牌糖果公司（Wrigley）之后以200億美元并購了英國糖果生產商吉百利（這與其知名股東沃倫?巴菲特的理念背道而馳）。在這期間，無數的禮包和賤賣足夠將一批銀行家養得腦滿腸肥?！咀罱歇?，負責卡夫拆分的贏家包括森特爾維尤合伙公司（Centerview Partners），Evercore Partners（EVR）和高盛（Goldman Sachs GS）】

????這次我更傾向于認為，卡夫的管理層正啟用大規模重組這一極為古董的做法來保住自己的飯碗，藉此繼續為公司效力18個月。管理層盤算的很清楚，在如此關鍵的時期，董事會是不會炒任何高層魷魚的。

????巴克萊銀行（Barclays）分析師安德魯?拉扎寫了一篇（篇幅很長）文章詳盡地分析了此次拆分的幕后原因。他對于拆分的做法并不十分贊成——他預計拆分后，成長型公司股價將為23美元，生錢型公司股價將為16美元——兩者相加也不只過是剛剛超過未拆分前公司35美元的股價。難道這筆交易不是“利”字當頭嗎？卡夫的“故事”自然無法瞞過“市場”雪亮的眼睛。所以，別天真了。一切本來就與市場無關，甚至于拆分和股東們無關。它不過是一小撮銀行家們與公司高層之間的勾當而已。大家都習以為常了。

????Apparently, the best possible strategy for Kraft Foods is to split the company in half. That is, until yesterday, when the best possible strategy was to double its size.

????Certain cycles are immutable. There's night-and-day, for starters. There's also birth-to-death. Then there's the whole notion of the economic cycle, even though that does vary in each new incarnation. And when it comes to finance, there is acquisition and divestiture -- otherwise known as the feeding trough for bankers.

????Action (in either direction) is the sustenance of the M&A banker -- and it comes with a rotating rationale for building companies and then breaking them apart. Today, conglomeration is crucial. Tomorrow, a focus on "core competency."

????This week's candidate in one of Wall Street's favorite games: Kraft Foods (KFT). After years of building up the joint, today the company announced a 180-degree turn. What was crucial yesterday is evidently no longer important.

????Kraft says it plans to split the company into two parts -- one-third North American Grocery and two-thirds Global Snacks. They're using that old chestnut, the sum-of-the-parts analysis, to justify the move. Which is, of course, totally contradictory to their stated plan as of a year ago. It's just basic hypocrisy, people.

????Here's what Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld said in 2010: "I kind of like the combination of some very strong cash generating businesses [and] some very nice growth businesses..."

????Now, just a year later -- a time of the exact same economic uncertainty -- Rosenfeld clearly feels much differently. Rosenfeld now thinks that they should separate the slow-growing cash-flow-generating grocery businesses from the fast-growing, money-hungry snack businesses. Push the debt onto the grocery folks, and you've suddenly got a hot snack seller growth story!

????The market has cheered the news, sending Kraft shares up Thursday in defiance of an overall swoon. According to the Wall Street Journal, a Kraft spokesman had this to say: "We have been evaluating this type of transaction over the past several years, and analysts and investors have also suggested this." Wait, what? They had been evaluating this "type" of transaction while they continued to buy other companies, including the early 2010 purchase of Cadbury? Can't these people figure out whether they want to bulk up or slim down?

????The Journal also pointed to other recent players in the divestiture game. Oil giant ConocoPhillips (COP) recently decided that vertical integration makes no sense. It should actually be split into two companies -- one that produces oil, and one that refines it. According to the Journal, chief executive Jim Mulva thinks the company's core businesses would be more competitive and highly valued as separate companies. So building it up was a bad idea, in other words.

????Back to Kraft. Of course analysts had "suggested this." That's called setting up banking dollars, people. And this is only the latest in a long history of structural rearrangement for Kraft: After decades of acquisitions and divestitures, the company was merged with Nabisco Holdings by Philip Morris (now Altria (MO)) in 2000, before being spun out in an IPO in 2001. In the years that followed, it sold its sugar confectionary business Wrigley before buying British confectionary Cadbury for nearly $20 billion last year (against the wishes of its most notable shareholder, Warren Buffett). In between there were countless other shopping sprees and fire sales -- enough to fund an army of well-paid bankers. (The lucky winners of the latest jackpot are Centerview Partners, Evercore Partners (EVR), and Goldman Sachs (GS).)

????This time around, though, I'm more inclined to think that the Kraft executive team has decided on the age-old way to keep their jobs for another 18 months—by initiating a large-scale restructuring. What board in their right mind would fire an executive in the midst of something so crucial?

????Barclays analyst Andrew Lazar put out a quite thoughtful (and lengthy) piece on the rationale behind the move. He's not entirely sure it's the right thing to do—his prediction for stock prices of the two companies is $23 for the growth half and $16 for the cash cow half—hardly more than the $35 target he had for the combined company. So, wait. This transaction doesn't need to happen from an obvious money standpoint? It's not like the "market" doesn't "understand" the Kraft "story." Oh, don't be na?ve. This isn't about the market, the story, or even shareholders. It's just a bunch of bankers and executives doing their thing. No surprise there.