Aerospace Executive Survey pdf

Aerospace Executive Survey:
Mergers & Acquisitions
May 2014
Executive Summary
n
The experts assign different levels of importance to current industry developments, depending
on their corporate strategy.
n
The suppliers’ willingness to invest in the USA and Asia within the context of the offset obligations of OEMs is mostly assessed positively by the experts.
n
The increasing competition from Asian competitors is viewed as one of the substantial challenges for the next (two) years.
n
The consolidation pressure within the aerospace industry is shifting from the Tier 1 supplier
level to the Tier 2 supplier level in the value chain.
n
The shift in consolidation pressure expectably leads to intensified M&A activities on the level of
Tier 2 suppliers.
n
Tier 1 suppliers will expectably emerge as the driving buyer group in all segments of the value
chain.
n
Approximately 50% of the experts surveyed perceive Private Equity as a significant acquirer
group in corporate transactions in the aerospace industry.
n
The increasing consolidation pressure expectably leads to intensified competition for acquisition­
candidates with elevated risks for the buy-side.
n
The essential driving forces for corporate transactions are and will remain vertical and horizontal­
integration.
n
Corporate transactions (M&A) are predominantly an integral component of corporate strategy.
Simultaneously, cooperation is considered as a sensible method of improving one’s own market
position.
n
The market participants do not strive for a realignment of their current M&A strategy over the
next (two) years.
3
Explanation of the survey results
The experts assign different levels of importance
to current industry developments, depending
on their corporate strategy
The experts primarily consider the following
market developments of the past two years as
relevant to corporate strategy:
a. the market entry of Asian providers/suppliers,
b. the relocation of production capacities into
Low Cost Countries,
c.the shift in commercial risks towards
suppliers­as part of Risk Sharing Models and
d.the formation of system providers on the
Tier 1 supplier level.
These four developments are assessed as either
important or very important by approx. 60%
of the survey participants. Interestingly, three
of the four developments listed above (Pos. b
to d) are originally driven by OEMs, whereas
the entry of Asian providers/suppliers can be
considered to be a result of the establishment
of OEMs outside of Europe and the USA.
Despite the importance stated by the majority
of survey participants, an admittedly smaller
group is of the opinion that the entry of Asian
providers/suppliers and the relocation of production capacities into Low Cost Countries
is not relevant to their corporate strategy
(approx­. 30% of survey participants). Approx­.
one out of five experts surveyed (22%) considers the shift in commercial risks towards
suppliers­as a part of “Risk Sharing Partnership”
models not to be relevant to their corporate
strategy. The findings indicate a dichotomous
situation dividing the survey participants into
a (larger) group, which perceives a significant
impact of the discussed developments on corporate strategy and a smaller group, which
does not see any impact on corporate strategy.
4
In this respect, the aforementioned developments are “polarising”, resulting in only a very
small number of survey participants assessing
these issues neutrally.
Specifically, it can be concluded that – with the
exception of a few survey participants – those
survey participants perceiving the entry of
Asian providers/suppliers and the relocation of
production capacities into Low Cost Countries
as relevant, simultaneously assess the shift in
commercial risks towards suppliers and the formation of system providers on the Tier 1 supplier level to be irrelevant (et vice versa). These
results show that survey participants from
larger companies assess developments in an
international context (Pos. a & b) to be more
important for their corporate strategy, whereas
survey participants from smaller companies
deem developments within or in between­
different levels of the value chain to be more
relevant­(Pos. c & d).
Interestingly, the discussion concerning a potential reduction in the depth of vertical integration of the OEMs is assessed predominantly
neutrally by the survey participants (44%).
However, in this context it can be seen that
those survey participants perceiving the developments within or in between different
levels of the value chain to be important also
consider­a potential reduction in the depth of
vertical integration as important.
With regard to the shift in currency ratios, it is
interesting to note that almost no survey participant assesses this issue as (largely) irrelevant
for corporate strategy. Nearly half of the (other)
survey participants assess this development as
either neutral (41%) or having a high to very
high (53%) degree of importance, respectively. This also holds true – albeit to a lesser
extent – for the development of customers
In summary, it can be concluded that the corporate strategy of suppliers is affected by a
variety of different developments. The intensity
as well as the extent of these developments
on the corporate strategy significantly differ
among the survey participants, substantially
depending on the position of the company
within the value chain as well as its size.
more frequently coming from the “Emerging
Markets”. This development is considered to
be important or very important for corporate
strategy by more than half (56%) of the experts surveyed.
Figure 1: How do you assess the relevance of the following developments in the past 24 months
for corporate strategy?
Estimation of the relevance for the past 24 months...
0%
Market entry of Asian
providers/suppliers
20%
6%
28%
Relocation of production
capacities into Low Cost Countries
Shift in commercial risks
onto suppliers
22%
6%
Emerging Markets
on the customer side
6%
Shift in currency ratios
6%
Reduction in the depth of
vertical integration of the OEMs
Kerosene price development
& emission trading
11%
6%
60%
6%
6%
11%
Formation of system providers
on the level of Tier 1 suppliers
40%
19%
50%
6%
24%
44%
24%
strong
29%
33%
47%
neutral
22%
59%
41%
weak
11%
39%
29%
very weak
17%
50%
17%
17%
100%
44%
11%
19%
80%
6%
24%
6%
very strong
5
The suppliers’ willingness to invest in the
USA and Asia within the context of the offset
obligations of OEMs is mostly assessed
positively by the experts
Parallel to the development of suppliers’ customers (OEMs) increasingly coming from
“Emerging Markets”, the share of OEMs’ customers coming from outside of the traditional
markets in Europe and the USA has also increased (among others: Asia and Gulf States).
So-called “offset obligations” for OEMs result
from this internationalisation, which also present the suppliers with new challenges.
Figure 2:
How high is the willingness of the suppliers
to invest in new production sites in Asia
and the USA with the OEMs?
13%
19%
19%
50%
very weak
6
weak
neutral
strong
very strong
“Offset obligations” are contractual obligations of OEMs to perform a certain share of
the value creation in production of airplanes in
those countries where the customer is located
(“customer countries”). In order to be able to
meet these contractual obligations, OEMs are
increasingly demanding that suppliers create
value in these customer countries. However, as
supply chain structures are less sophisticated
than in industrialised countries, it is first necessary to develop a sustainable supplier structure
in these customer countries.
As a result of European OEMs increasingly selling more airplanes in the USA, they are shifting
an increasing share of their value creation from
the Euro zone into the US Dollar zone in order
to compensate for currency fluctuations. This
does not only affect the original production by
OEMs, but also the value creation by suppliers.
The willingness of the suppliers to follow the
OEMs into the aforementioned customer countries (among others: Asia and Gulf States, but
also into “Developed Markets ” such as the USA)
and to invest in new production capacities is
perceived to be high to very high by 63% of
the surveyed experts. However, almost one out
of five survey participants (19%) assesses this
relevance to be low, with another 19% evaluating the issue to be neutral.
The increasing competition from Asian
competitors is viewed as one of the substantial
challenges for the next (two) years
The survey participants generally expect the
importance of the currently relevant drivers of
corporate strategy to either stay the same or
even increase within the next two years. This
holds particularly true for the four developments which are currently considered to be of
primary relevance (pos. a to d).
In particular, 76% of the experts consider the
increasing competition resulting from the
entry of Asian market participants on different
levels of the value chain to be one of the key
challenges which will become more relevant
in the following years. According to 63% of
the survey participants, the shift in commercial
risks towards suppliers in the context of “Risk
Sharing Partnership” models will become more
important for the companies’ strategic focus.
A majority (53%) of the participants considers the relocation of production capacities into
Low Cost Countries and the formation of system providers on the level of Tier 1 suppliers, as
increasingly important.
The expected developments will inevitably
lead to changes in the market and competitive situation, to which the European supplier
companies will have to adapt. As one particular
consequence of these developments, the structure and especially the number of suppliers can
be expected to change sustainably.
Figure 3: How do you value the relevance of the following developments in the following next 24 months for
corporate strategy?
The relevance will...
0%
20%
Market entry of Asian
providers/suppliers
40%
24%
Shift in commercial risks
onto suppliers
60%
80%
76%
38%
63%
Relocation of production
capacities into Low Cost Countries
47%
53%
Formation of system providers
on the level of Tier 1 suppliers
47%
53%
Shift in currency ratios
53%
Reduction in the depth of
vertical integration of the OEMs
47%
71%
Emerging Markets
on the customer side
Kerosene price development
& emission trading
29%
64%
7%
decrease
100%
36%
71%
stay the same
21%
increase
7
The consolidation pressure within the aerospace
industry is shifting from the Tier 1 supplier level
to the Tier 2 supplier level in the value chain
The change in the structure as well as the reduction in the number of suppliers in the value
chain is commonly referred to as consolidation. In the proper sense of the word, consolidation in the aerospace industry is not limited
to supplier companies, but basically also refers
to OEMs and service contractors – defining
consolidation as a synonym for the process of
“concentrating” the value chain. In the past
two years, the survey participants mainly observed strong consolidation pressure on the
supplier level, which is primarily related to Tier
1 suppliers according to the experts’ assess-
ment. This assessment reflects the enhanced,
acquisition-driven formation of system providers on this level of the value chain during the
past couple of years. Reference is made to the
expansion of the product portfolios of Zodiac
Aerospace, Diehl Aerospace or B/E Aerospace
by means of various acquisitions during this
time period.
Figure 4: How strong do you value the consolidation pressure?
In the past two years the consolidation pressure was...on the level of...
100%
80%
65%
56%
60%
41%
40%
29%
29% 29% 29%
18%
20%
12%
12%
12%
6%
6%
6%
6%
0%
0%
weak
neutral
strong
11%
6%
0%
er-1-Suppliers
Tier-1-Suppliers
OEMs
very weak
8
28%
very strong
er-1-Suppliers
Tier-2-Suppliers
ervice
Contractor
Service
Contractor
er-1-Suppliers
Over the next few years, experts assume a continuation of the strong consolidation pressure.
However, the direction is expected to shift increasingly from Tier 1 to Tier 2 suppliers. This
assessment is a consequence of the already far
progressed consolidation of Tier 1 suppliers
which by themselves impose pressure on the
lower levels of the value chain. The expected
development additionally coincides with the
regularly observed principles of consolidation
processes in other industries. For OEMs and
service contractors on the contrary, the moderate consolidation pressure of the past two
years is assumed to remain stable.
Figure 5: How strong do you value the consolidation pressure?
In the next two years the consolidation pressure will be...on the level of the ...
100%
80%
56%
60%
50%
44%
38%
40%
20%
38%
38%
31%
31%
19%
19%
13%
13%
6%
0%
6%
0%
OEMs
very weak
Tier-1-Suppliers
er-1-Suppliers
weak
neutral
strong
Tier-2-Suppliers
er-1-Suppliers
0%
ervice
Contractor
Service
Contractor
er-1-Suppliers
very strong
9
whereas 35% of the participants expect the
current level to remain unchanged.
The shift in consolidation pressure expectably
leads to intensified M&A activities on the level
of Tier 2 suppliers
The expected shift in the consolidation pressure within the supplier segment is also reflected in the survey participants’ expectations
regarding the development of M&A activities
over the next two years. The majority of the
survey participants expects the acquisition
activity within the supplier industry to intensify during this period. This particularly holds
true for Tier 2 suppliers, for which 82% of the
industry experts assume an increase in M&A
activity, whereas only 6% expect a decrease.
With regard to Tier 1 suppliers, 59% assume
an increase in company sales transactions,
With regard to OEMs and service contractors,
approx. 40% of the survey participants expect
an increase of M&A activities. Particularly for
the OEM segment, approx. 18% of the experts
expect a future reduction in acquisitions.
Figure 6: What effects will this have on the M&A activity in the next two years?
The activity will most likely...
70%
65%
59%
60%
53%
50%
41% 41%
40%
35%
35%
30%
20%
18%
18%
12%
10%
0%
6%
0%
OEMs
strongly decrease
10
6%
6%
6%
0%
Tier-1-Suppliers
er-1-Suppliers
slightly decrease
not change
er-1-Suppliers
Tier-2-Suppliers
increase
strongly increase
Service
Contractor
ervice
Contractor
er-1-Suppliers
Tier 1 suppliers will expectably emerge as
the driving buyer group in all segments of the
value chain
According to the experts´ assessment, primarily Tier 1 supplier companies are considered to
be the driving acquirer group in the context of
M&A-related consolidation. Tier 1 suppliers will
represent the main acquirer group targeting all
levels of the value chain (i.e., Tier 1 suppliers,
Tier 2 suppliers and service contractors).
62% of the survey participants expect Tier 1
suppliers to emerge as acquirers of Tier 2
companies (backward integration) and 54%
consider Tier 1 suppliers to be a driving acquirer within its own Tier level. These findings
clearly indicate the intensified positioning of
Tier 1 suppliers as system providers with an increasing share of added value, as desired by
OEMs. On the contrary, 23% of those surveyed
expect M&A-induced consolidation to occur
within the Tier 2 supplier segment (horizontal
integration).
Interestingly, almost one out of three survey
participants (31%) expects Tier 2 suppliers to
also emerge as acquirers of Tier 1 level companies. Taking into account the size ratios of
market participants on different levels of the
value chain, it is to be assumed in this context that the survey participants do not refer to
the acquisition of Tier 1 suppliers in total, but
rather to the acquisition of specific Tier 1 level
supplier divisions. In any case, almost one third
of those surveyed assumes a forward integration of Tier 2 suppliers and expects them to
increase their strength as well as their share of
added value.
OEMs as well as Private Equity firms and service
contractors are consistently considered not to
be driving forces of M&A-related consolidation
activities of Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers.
Figure 7: Which effects will this have on the M&A activities in the next two years?
The driving buyer group will be...
Target segment
ment
Buyer segment
OEMs
Tier 1 suppliers
Tier 2 suppliers
Service
contractors
Private Equity
Total
Tier 1 suppliers
8%
54%
31%
0%
8%
100%
Tier 2 suppliers
0%
62%
23%
8%
8%
100%
Service contractors
8%
42%
17%
33%
0%
100%
11
Approximately 50% of the experts surveyed
perceive Private Equity as a significant acquirer
group in corporate transactions in the aerospace industry
Even if Private Equity firms are not considered
to be the driving acquirer group within the
aerospace industry, nonetheless approx. half
of the survey participants attribute a high level
of significance to Private Equity investors over
the past two years. Over the next two years,
approx. 44% of those surveyed expect the
significance of Private Equity investors within
the industry to further increase, whereas only
Figure 8: What level of importance do you attribute
to Private Equity investors in the aerospace
industry in the past 24 months?
The importance of Private Equity investors in the
past 24 months was...
6%
13%
44%
38%
very weak
12
weak
neutral
strong
very strong
6% assume a declining relevance. According to
the interpretation of the results from the figure
above, particularly Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers
are equally expected to be potential target segments of Private Equity investors.
This relevance assessment of Private Equity
investors in the context of consolidation constitutes an interesting and significant change
compared to the results of the Deloitte Expert
Survey carried out in 2012, which among
other results had attributed a very insignificant
relevance to Private Equity investors within
the aerospace industry (for further information regarding the Deloitte Expert Survey
and its authors, please refer to the chapter
“Methodology”). In our opinion, this discrepancy primarily results from the higher level of
internationalisation of the participants of the
survey at hand. In the USA and UK, Private
Equity investors in the aerospace industry are
clearly better represented compared to the rest
of Western Europe, including Germany. Analogous to the expectations regarding the relevance of M&A drivers, the relevance of Private
Equity in Western Europe and Germany can be
assumed to increase over the next years.
The increasing consolidation pressure
expectably leads to intensified competition for
acquisition candidates with elevated risks for
the buy-side
The majority of the experts additionally expects
increasing purchase price levels as a consequence of the intensified competition.
Due to the fixed number of potential acquisition candidates, the expected increase in M&A
activities within the supplier segments of the
aerospace industry directly influences the expectation regarding the competition for attractive acquisition targets. Consequently, 78% of
the industry experts expect competition for
target companies to intensify in future periods. According to the assessment of more than
80% of the survey participants, the essential
implications are:
a. an increasing time pressure in the M&A
process,
b. the related increase in uncertainty concerning the transaction decision,
c. a shift in the transaction risk at the expense
of the acquirer,
d. as well as a more frequent use of structured
bidding processes.
Figure 9: In your opinion, which effects will the development of the competition
for attractive targets have?
% of participants
0%
Purchase price levels
will increase.
Time pressure in the
M&A process will increase.
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
61%
83%
Transaction risk will shift at
the expense of the acquirer.
Auction sales will
become more frequent.
100%
88%
81%
13
According to the experts surveyed, the most
frequent M&A drivers are
a. access to new customers and markets by
horizontal integration as well as
b. the increase in the share of value added
along the value chain by vertical integration.
The essential driving forces for corporate
transactions are and will remain vertical and
horizontal integration
In general, the motives for corporate transactions are diverse, as is also reflected in the survey results. Accordingly, different causes and
drivers – which on their part can change for
an acquiring company as time passes – are
generally relevant for each transaction. In this
respect, the following statements are generally
to be understood as indicative and relative in
nature.
87% and 82% of the experts, respectively,
state that their acquisitions often or very often
result from these motives.
Additionally, the majority of the survey participants (82% and 75%, respectively) states
technological motives (access to products
or technologies) as well as the expansion of
production capacities to be frequent or very
frequent causes of company transactions. As
opposed to the motives of horizontal and vertical integration, which are irrelevant for no
Figure 10: Which drivers were most significantly responsible for the M&A activities in the past two years?
Driver was...relevant for transaction.
% of participants
0%
Access to new customers/markets
(horizontal integration)
10%
40%
6%
Consolidation pressure/efficiency/costs
6%
13%
6%
6%
13%
Securing the value chain
6%
Opportunity/opportunistic
6%
60%
70%
80%
90%
47%
19%
Access to products/technologies
50%
40%
63%
19%
63%
19%
69%
13%
13%
25%
44%
19%
rarely
13%
50%
19%
19%
very rarely
14
30%
13%
Increase in the share of value added
along the value chain by vertical
integration
Expansion of production capacities
20%
neutral
31%
often
very often
19%
25%
100%
survey participant, 6% and 13%, respectively,
assess the technological and capacity-related
motives stated above to be infrequently relevant.
For 82% of those surveyed, M&A processes
are often or very often driven by consolidation
pressure immanent to the industry or by (intended) cost saving measures. On the contrary,
13% of those surveyed rarely or very rarely consider these aspects to be a motive for corporate
transactions. In light of the statements above
concerning vertical and horizontal integration,
this assessment is hardly surprising. Due to
the cost pressure on the supplier companies
induced by the OEMs, the suppliers attempt
to achieve an increase in value added (vertical integration) as well as an improved utilisation of the pre-existing capacities (horizontal
integration) in order to leverage economies of
scale and scope.
Securing the value chain was of particular
importance in the recent past, especially for
OEMs, e.g., in the context of the acquisition of
51% of the shares in the target PFW Aerospace
GmbH by the Airbus Group in 2011. Hence, it
is not surprising that 63% of those surveyed
consider this aspect to be a frequent or very
frequent motive for the execution of corporate
transactions. With regard to the (timely and
qualitative) deliverability as a crucial factor of
success in this industry this aspect should gain
further importance – especially in light of the
initiation of new airplane programs.
15
pants. Whereas the Deloitte Expert Survey primarily focused on companies from the D-A-CH
region (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) as
participants, the group of participants of the
expert survey at hand is significantly more international. In light of the time delay between
market developments in the USA and the UK on
the one hand and the rest of Western Europe
including Germany on the other hand, it can
be hypothesised that the M&A drivers deemed
to be relevant on an international level will as
well gain an importance in Western Europe and
Germany in the next years.
Regarding the expected future relevance of
individual M&A drivers, the experts generally
assume an intensification of these developments of the past two years. Particularly horizontal and vertical integration, as well as securing the value chain and access to new products
and technologies are considered to be future
strategic goals of M&A activities.
Compared to the Deloitte Expert Survey from
2012 – which among other things also included questions regarding the relevance of (comparable) M&A drivers – the majority of the acquisition motives are assumed to be of higher
relevance in the expert survey at hand. From
our point of view, the diverging survey results
do not primarily result from changes over the
course of time, but rather from the higher level
of diversity within the group of survey partici-
Figure 10a: How will the importance of the currently relevant drivers of M&A activity change?
% of participants
0%
10%
Access to new customers/
markets (horizontal integration)
20%
30%
50%
60%
70%
Access to products/technologies
33%
Increase in the share of value added
along the value chain by vertical
integration
33%
Securing the value chain
33%
67%
67%
67%
Expansion of production capacities
40%
Consolidation pressure/efficiency/costs
40%
43%
increase
no change
80%
80%
20%
Opportunity/opportunistic
16
40%
decrease
60%
60%
57%
90%
100%
Corporate transactions (M&A) are predominantly an integral component of corporate strategy. Simultaneously, cooperation is considered
as a sensible method of improving one’s own
market position
Approx. 56% of the survey participants state to
have M&A rooted strongly or very strongly in
their corporate strategy. On the contrary, approx. 25% of those surveyed do not consider
inorganic growth to be an integral part of their
corporate strategy.
As an alternative approach to inorganic growth
strategies, particularly companies on the supplier level of the value chain take into consid-
Figure 11: What importance does M&A generally
have within your corporate strategy?
M&A is ... anchored in our corporate strategy.
eration cooperation, e.g., in order to meet the
consequences resulting from the offset obligations and further challenges posed by the OEMs.
Closing cooperative agreements is considered
to be a sensible method of optimising one’s
own market position by the majority (>80%) of
experts. Almost 70% of the survey participants
are additionally of the opinion that the willingness for closing cooperative agreements is
strongly pronounced. However, approx. 15% of
those experts considering cooperation among
suppliers to be sensible assess the willingness to
enter into such cooperation to be weak. In this
respect, the majority of the experts is convinced
of the sensibility of cooperative agreements as
a means of creating growth opportunities aside
from M&A, yet there is still a need for increasing
the acceptance of this strategic option.
Figure 12: To what degree do you find cooperation
between suppliers to be a sensible tool for
facing the challenges presented by the OEMs?
6%
13%
19%
13%
13%
19%
19%
63%
38%
very weakly
weakly
neutrally
strongly
very strongly
very weak
weak
neutral
strongly very strongly
17
The market participants do not strive for a
realignment­of their current M&A strategy over
the next (two) years
44% of the surveyed experts do not intend to
change their selected strategy over the next
two years, notwithstanding the question if and
how the topic of M&A is rooted in their corporate strategy, i.e., 56% of the experts plan to
intensify their current strategy. In this respect,
the surveyed experts are convinced of their
selected­M&A strategy.
This result is also consistent with the other survey results: since no significant changes in the
M&A drivers are expected and their relevance
– even if weighted differently – will rather
increase­, there is no need for a fundamental
change in the current M&A strategy.
18
Methodology
About the expert survey
The expert survey at hand focuses on the current and expected M&A activities (“Mergers &
Acquisitions” – “M&A”) of supplier companies­
in the aerospace industry as well as their essential drivers. As a first step, the goal of the
expert survey is to derive an assessment of
the factors of the development of suppliers
in the aerospace industry which are generally
perceived­to be relevant for corporate strategy,
independent of their connection to M&A. On
this basis, conclusions about the consolidation
activities­as well as the essential acquisition
motives on the individual levels of the value
chain of the supplier companies over the past
two and next two years are drawn.
At this point, we would like to explicitly point
out that the results of this expert survey reflect
the subjective opinions of the surveyed experts
and/or the companies they represent and raise
no claim to scientific correctness or completeness. From a statistical perspective, this already
results from the relatively small sample size.
Nonetheless, we assume that the survey results
adequately reflect the general assessment of
the aerospace industry regarding the topic of
future consolidation activities due to the fact
that the group of participants comprises experts from prestigious suppliers in the international aerospace industry.
Regarding further information, suggestions
and hints concerning the expert survey and its
results, the authors are happy to be at your
disposal.
Methodology and group of
participants­
The survey was carried out in the context of the
workshop “Consolidation of SMEs” during the
AVIATION FORUM 2013 on December 4th and
5th 2013 in Hamburg. The AVIATION FORUM
Hamburg is an annual conference and trade exhibition for companies in the aviation industry with
topical emphasis on procurement, innovation
and supply chain management. The competency
partner of the conference is Airbus, and the patron of the event is Dr. Klaus Richter, EVP Airbus
Procurement. The emphasis of the workshop was
the assessment of the consolidation pressure of
supplier companies in the aerospace industry with
a focus on medium-sized companies (“SME” or
“KMU” in German). All of the surveyed experts
have their origins in the aerospace industry, represent companies of different levels of the value
chain and work in positions with focus on M&A
specific questions.
With regard to a number of questions, the presented survey results diverge considerably from the
results of the Deloitte Expert Survey “M&A Aerospace & Defence” from 2012, which was also carried out by the RBS authors of the survey at hand.
The differences do not solely result from changes
in the perception of the market participants over
the past two years, but particularly relate to the
higher level of internationality within the group of
participants of the survey at hand. In this regard,
an intertemporal comparison of the survey results
is not possible or only possible with significant restrictions. Nonetheless, in light of the time delays
between developments in the USA and UK on the
one hand and in Western Europe on the other
hand frequently observed historically, the “gap”
between the different results can potentially be
an indication that the market developments perceived to be relevant internationally will prospectively also gain an importance in Western Europe.
19
Authors
Stephan Brunke, Partner,
RBS RoeverBroennerSusat GmbH & Co. KG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
E-Mail: [email protected]
Florian Funcke, Senior Consultant,
RBS RoeverBroennerSusat GmbH & Co. KG
Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
E-Mail: [email protected]
20
Prof. Dr. Johannes Walther, CEO,
IPM GmbH
E-Mail: [email protected]
Daniel Wäldchen, Principal,
IPM GmbH
E-Mail: [email protected]
21
About RBS RoeverBroennerSusat
About IPM
RBS RoeverBroennerSusat is one of Germany’s
leading independent medium-sized audit and
tax consultancy firms. RBS RoeverBroenner­
Susat Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, a medium-sized law firm, is also a member of the RBS
RoeverBroennerSusat Group. 54 partners and
around 700 employees support clients in the
areas of auditing, tax and legal advice, as well
as corporate finance and consulting services.
In a dynamic and highly complex world, the
IPM supports its partners within the context
of research and qualifications measures as well
as the planning of trade conferences, with
identification and internalisation of competition-relevant implicit and explicit knowledge
and the construction of application-oriented
competencies. To this end the institute develops and implements target group adequate formats for qualification and competence
development­in the areas of procurement,
innovation and global supply chain management. The IPM requires an academic claim
of itself which is based on a practice guided
scientific concept.
www.rbs-partner.de
www.ipm-scm.com
Copyright © 2014 RBS RoeverBroennerSusat GmbH & Co. KG & IPM GmbH
All rights reserved. RBS RoeverBroennerSusat and its logo are trademarks of RBS RoeverBroennerSusat GmbH & Co. KG.
IPM and its logo are trademarks of IPM GmbH.