NEW VENTURE DEVELOPMENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 WHAT
IS BUSINESS FAILURE 3
3.0 PERWAJA
STEEL, HOW A STEEL GIANT FALLS TO THE GROUND 5
3.1 How it start to fall down 6
3.2 The Damages 9
4.0 RENONG
BERHAD, A CASE STUDY 10
5.0 AVOIDING
BUSINESS FAILURE 10
5.1 External Advice 12
5.2 Planning, Budgeting and Forecasting 13
5.3 Audit 13
5.4 Cash Flow Statements 14
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 15
REFERENCES 17
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The significant
role of business in the Malaysia economy suggests that an understanding of why
businesses fail (or are successful) is crucial to the stability and health of
the economy. For this discussion we will define Business to be an enterprise
that is independently owned and operated for profit that is not dominant in its
industry.
It is widely
agreed that the growth of small businesses contributes greatly to the nation's
economic expansion. Entrepreneurship is linked to creation of jobs, increases
in productivity, and improvements of living standards, and to economic growth
in the Malaysia in general. Businesses help create new jobs, introduce new
products and provide specialized expertise to large corporations. Small firms
represent about 99 percent of employers, employ about half of the private
sector workforce and are responsible for about two-thirds to three-quarters of
the net new jobs.
Unfortunately,
according to the Prime Minister Office, over 50% of businesses fail in the
first year and 95% fail within the first five years. "Businesses with
fewer than 20 employees have only a 37% chance of surviving four years (of
business) and only a 9% chance of surviving 10 years", reports Companies
Commission of Malaysia and of these failed businesses, only 10% of them close
involuntarily due to bankruptcy and the remaining 90% close because the
business was not successful, did not provide the level of income desired, or
was too weak to continue.
The purpose of
this paper is to better understand why businesses fail and how those causes can
be avoided. To give a better explanation of the purpose of the assignment, two
well-known companies that failed during their venture are used as the case
study. At the end, a framework is presented to evaluate the existing resources
and understand their influence on the factors of failure from a firm level. The
intent is that this is one way that will promote adoption of necessary
preventive measures and a plan of action to avoid such failures.
2.0 WHAT
IS BUSINESS FAILURE
Some conclude
that a business failure occurs only when a firm files for some form of
bankruptcy protection while others contend that there are numerous forms of
"organizational death," including merger or acquisition. Still others
argue that failure occurs if the firm fails to meet its responsibilities to the
stakeholders of the organization, including employees, suppliers, customers and
owners.
From a
theoretical standpoint, entrepreneurial process is defined as the set of
activities through which innovations change existing combinations of factors of
production. The most widely recognized sources of inspiration for an
entrepreneur are market efficiencies and technological process. From this viewpoint, a business failure is
the termination of an entrepreneurial initiative that has fallen short of its
goals.
Every business
has a life span that is depicted by its business life cycle. A business life
cycle is normally defined by four stages; Introduction, Growth, Maturity and
Decline. Most business life cycles will experience a slow introduction and
growth stage, a short maturity stage and a rather quick decline stage. Some studies discuss business failures as
being the last stage of an organization's life cycle.
Losses that
entail one's own capital or someone else's, or any forn1 of capital reduces the
rate of business continuance. A business that is not earning an adequate return
(or is not meeting owner's objectives) may discontinue existence. Personal
reasons such as retirement, illness, death of the owner or selling the business
to make a profit accounted for 30% of discontinuance of businesses.
2.1 When does a business fail?
Berryman
(1982) observes that a number of businesses continue to trade while earning low
rate of return. When viewed from this rate-of-return perspective, a business is
said to have "failed" if it meets any of the following criteria:
·
Earnings
Criterion
A firm has failed if its return on capital is significantly and
consistently lower than that obtainable on similar investments.
·
Solvency
Criterion
A firm has failed if the owner, to avoid bankruptcy or loss to creditors
after such actions such as execution, foreclosure or attachment, voluntarily
withdraws leaving unpaid obligations.
·
Bankruptcy
Criterion
A firm has failed if deemed to be legally bankrupt. Bankruptcy is
normally accompanied by insolvency liquidation.
·
Loss
cutting criterion
A firm has failed if the owner disposes of the firm or its assets with
losses, in order to avoid further losses.
2.2 Why does a business fail?
Determining
why most businesses fail can be a helpful identification of the eventual
decline phase of a business. Small firm performance has been studied from a
variety of approaches to better understand why some firms fail and why others
succeed. Some researchers classify business failures as catastrophic or general
lack of success. About two-thirds of those businesses that cite economic
factors as a reason for failure, indicate that a lack of profits is the primary
reason. Catastrophic failures also result from fire, fraud, burglary and acts
of God. While no person starts a new venture preparing for failure, they can
have a clear plan for success which involves actions if things do go wrong.
According
to statistics from Companies Commission, 88.7% of all business failures are due
to management mistakes. Some of the leading management mistakes that lead to
business failures are: going into business for the wrong reasons; the
entrepreneur gets worn-out and/or underestimated time requirements; family
pressure on time and funds; pride; lack of market awareness; the entrepreneur
falls in love with the product business; lack of financial responsibility and
awareness; lack of a clear focus etc.
3.0 PERWAJA
STEEL, HOW A STEEL GIANT FALLS TO THE GROUND
Perwaja was
first established in the early 1980s in a joint venture between the Malaysian
government and Nippon Steel Corp of Japan, with a capital of some RM1.2bil. A
few years later, it had to be restructured and the asset was taken over by the
Government, after which more capital was injected into the company.
In the
mid-1990s, Abu Sahid acquired Perwaja from the Government. However it took many
years for the deal to be inked and only in 2003 did Maju Holdings actually
assume control. Abu Sahid had subsequently sought the assistance of the Pheng
family who controlled Kinsteel, to lend their expertise to run Perwaja.
The Pheng family
took over the running of Perwaja and now Kinsteel is also in trouble
financially. Perwaja is one entity where the crown weighs heavy on its owners.
Under such circumstances, getting a buyer will not be easy unless the
valuations are undemanding.
On 20 August
2008, Perwaja reached a new milestone in its history by making its debut on the
main board of Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad. At an initial public offering
(IPO) price of RM2.90, the shares were oversubscribed by 189%. Since then,
however, the company’s stock had traded at below its IPO price, reaching a low
of RM0.60 in March 2009. In mid-2009, the company reported net losses exceeding
RM100 million for the first half of 2009 compared to profits of more than RM200
million for the same period in 2008. This was attributed partly to the decrease
in steel demand and prices worldwide amidst the global recession. Henry Pheng,
Perwaja’s CEO, told Reuters in an interview in March 2009 that the goal for the
year was to ride out the recession by planning purchases carefully and taking
other cost-saving measures rather than to make profits. Industry observers,
however, wondered how much more market uncertainties the company could
withstand and what strategic moves it would make to strengthen its market
position and succeed in the competitive and volatile steel industry.
3.1 How it start to fall down
It
all started on April 22, 1982. With a paid-up capital of RM250 million, Perwaja
Terengganu Sdn Bhd was born. The construction of the plant began six months
later.
By
the end of 1986, Perwaja Terengganu was already in the red, with a total loss
of RM131 million due to management problems and also the appreciation of the
yen.
One
doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why Perwaja ran into
trouble.
The
plant at Kemaman is just a big steel factory planted smack in a plot surrounded
by jungle and far from the sea. Economically speaking, it is an impossible
location due to a DNA deficiency of export competitiveness from Day 1.
Secondly,
why would any sane person want to open a steel factory in the east cost of the
peninsula when steel is consumed in huge volumes on the west coast? Anyone with
common sense would locate the steel plant in the west coast to save transport
costs. However, Mahathir justified the decision by claiming he was taking
industrialization to the east coast.
To
make matters worse, Perwaja had a management team that lacked experience. In
fact, this was a major blunder.
Perwaja’s
Japanese partner, Nippon Steel, as well as the Korean company POSCO and the
Korean government engaged BHP, an Australian mining firm, to review the
engineering plans. Apart from that wise and calculated move, a Korean
consultant was also engaged to check on the Australian firm.
Whom
did Perwaja hire to check on its plans? No one.
Perwaja
did not take any precautions in its strategies and believed wholesale in a
proposal from Nippon Steel to produce Direct Reduced Iron (DRI) to use a new
gas-based technology to convert ore into sponge iron for making steel,
bypassing traditional and proven iron ore sintering and blast furnace
procedures.
Such
a move proved costly and detrimental to Perwaja.
In
other words, one can surmise Malaysia foolishly paid for this new and untested
technology because Perwaja foolishly trusted the Japanese who enjoyed the
benefits of the new technology on the Perwaja bill. Hence, it was not a case of
Perwaja learning from the Japanese, but the Japanese using Perwaja to learn the
new technology.
When
the technology failed, the one-third paid back by the Japanese in 1987 as
compensation was not enough to take Perwaja out of deep waters.
Caught
in a bind, Perwaja had to use scrap metal for a few years. Obviously, with the
plant in the east coast, costs escalated, as the company had to bring in scrap
metal from the west coast.
It
was too little too late again when Mahathir realized the management failure of
Perwaja. In February 1987, instead of turning to experts in the downstream
steel industry, due to his pride, he set up a new management team headed by
Eric Chia, who was then UMW chief, to steer Perwaja out of troubled waters.
In
1988, Mahathir ushered Eric Chia into Perwaja and strapped him firmly in the
driver’s seat. Mahathir lubricated Perwaja’s pistons with Government funds (RM
1.01 billion) and loans from EPF (RM 130 million) and BBMB (RM 860 million). He
then gave Chia a free hand at doing whatever he deemed necessary in turning
Perwaja around. For some years, Chia appeared triumphant in ameliorating
circumstances, granting Mahathir seven years of calm before a storm that was to
further undermine his regime.
When
Chia resigned abruptly in 1995, the nation was jolted with reports of
corruption as auditors revealed accounts with colossal arrears. Mahathir’s
handpicked chieftain had apparently plunged Perwaja further into debt, with
losses estimated at RM1.49 billion in excess of the amount owed when Chia first
took over.
Ironically,
both the police and the ACA dragged their feet over Perwaja during Mahathir’s
remaining tenure. Mahathir defended their hesitance by implicating the Swiss
authorities, who he accused of withholding information pertinent to fraud
investigations involving Chia. Mahathir was referring to the details of an
account to which RM76 million was allegedly channelled to after being siphoned
off from Perwaja’s coffers.
But
the alleged wheeling and dealing that took place in Perwaja went beyond RM76
million. A year before handing over the baton to Abdullah Badawi, Mahathir came
clean on the incidence of mismanagement and fraud during a dialogue with some
Malaysians in London, estimating losses at a staggering RM10 billion. But his
reluctance in implicating Chia convinced many of his complicity in a massive
conspiracy to whitewash Chia’s alleged crime. Compounding to the air of
skepticism that wafted around Mahathir was an internal report by the
corporation’s new management which listed out several irregularities.
Among
them were;
·
inaccurate accounting records
·
unauthorized contracts (hundreds of millions of
ringgit worth)
·
dubious maintenance contracts amounting to RM292
milliion
·
RM 957 million in contracts to long time
associates of Chia
Mahathir’s
claims appeared to be nothing but sophistry aimed at pacifying dissenters.
Datuk Ahmad Zaki of the ACA claimed it impossible to ascertain when
investigations on Perwaja would wrap up. According to Zaki, the ACA was
prepared to continue investigations “even if it took 10 or 20 years.” Now, this
is coming from a body that otherwise burned rubber in getting to alleged
fraudsters.
3.2 The
Damages
An internal audit report
released in early 1996 detailed an array of alleged irregularities during the
tenure of Chia, who resigned shortly before the audit report was completed.
The Anti-Corruption Agency
(ACA) began a probe in October 1996, after it was revealed that Perwaja
suffered losses of 2.98 billion ringgit (US$784.2 million) as at Dec 31, 1995.
The investigation has centered
on a 76.4 million ringgit payment that Perwaja made to NKK Corporation through
a non-existent company, Frilsham Enterprises Inc, in Hong Kong. Company
officials had also used a 490 million ringgit loan, intended for the purchase
of equipment for its mills in Terengganu, for other purposes. Other
irregularities included a false purchase order worth 58 million ringgit and a
payment of US$234 million (889.2 million ringgit) from a Japanese company.
However, almost four years later,
the ACA has yet to complete its investigation. No one has been arrested or
charged. The agency's failure to wrap up its investigation sooner and nab the
culprits responsible for the staggering losses at Perwaja has been criticized
by members of both the opposition and ruling National Front coalition.
The long-standing investigation
may finally be coming to an end. Early last month, an ACA official confirmed
that the investigation is expected to be completed in "a few months."
Like Mahathir, the ACA, which
comes under the Prime Minister's Department, has also been frustrated by the
Perwaja debacle.
4.0 RENONG BERHAD, A CASE STUDY
Renong Berhad
was established in 1982 in Malaysia and is known as one of the biggest
Malaysian conglomerates that has close ties with the government. Renong also
held their company reputation as a “political blue chip” company on Kuala
Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE). The main reason on why the company grew rapidly
and diversely was due to the influence of Tun Daim Zainuddin who was the
economic advisor of former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tun Dr Mahathir. The main
ideology behind this was seen as a transformation plan in which Malaysia would
become an industrial power house, and at the same time creating a new class of
bumiputra entrepreneurs. Hence due to this, Renong Group was able to secure
many government contracts, licenses, and privatization deals, which in return
lead to a diversified portfolio of investments which included Expressway &
tolls; Engineering, Construction & Infrastructure; Oil & Gas; Property
Development; Transportation; Telecommunication, Power, IT; Healthcare;
Financial & Advisory Services and many more.
However, when
the Asian Financial Crisis hit the country in 1997, Renong suffered from a
sharp fall of its share price. Halim Saad, the executive chairman of Renong,
refused to restructure Renong to repay the creditors. UEM was at that time a
subsidiary of Renong in which they had 37% shares of the company. Before the Asian Financial Crisis, Renong’s
market capital was RM8billion which signified 3% of Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange
(KLSE) total market capitalization. During the crisis period this capital had
dropped to RM1.7billion, or 80% within a period of 3 months. Therefore in a bid
to salvage the company, Halim Saad engineered a move in which United Engineer’s
Malaysia (UEM) bought over 32.6% of Renong Berhad shares for RM2.34 billion or
RM3.24 per share. This acquisition was not informed to UEM’s minority shareholders
and in return led to investors selling Renong shares which resulted to share
price dropping from RM3.24 to RM1.49. UEM lost about RM1.81billion on its
investment of Renong stock. Moreover, UEM was also fined for breaching the
Companies Act 1965 under section 69(e) and damaged Renong and UEM credibility
as a blue chip company. Malaysia’s economy took a further hit due to this as it
was seen as a meltdown of a blue chip company which caused investors to pull
out of Malaysia and caused a riptide effect in which many other companies took
a hit on the KLSE.
In order to
appease the unhappy minority shareholders of UEM and to restore confidence into
Renong Group, Halim Saad promised to buy the shares back with his own personal
money in three years. He had to pay
RM3.2billion option price in four installments, which is the first three of
which RM100million each and the remaining will be paid with interest on
February 14, 2001. He managed to pay the first RM100million but failed to pay
up the second when it was due which resulted in Khazanah taking over.
In my opinion,
one of the main reasons why the company failed was because Renong Berhad had
invested in too many different types of sector. When the Asian Financial Crisis
hit, the Malaysian Ringgit was very weak against the US Dollar and foreign investors
were pulling their money out in fear of losing more. This meant that all of the
sectors in Malaysia were affected badly, and because of the weakening dollar
and investors pulling out Renong as a group with all its diversified assets was
hit badly by the crises. Another reason for Renong’s failure is because Halim
Saad was known for relying on other people’s money hence making Renong the
country’s biggest debtor.
5.0 AVOIDING
BUSINESS FAILURE
Entrepreneurs
should be ready to take up all the necessary actions in order to prevent a
business failure. Businesses rarely fail suddenly: Failure is a gradual process
which usually involves a downward spiral. However, sometimes failure results
from ambitious expansion plans not accompanied by the appropriate level of
finance. It should be stressed that entrepreneurs should have a proactive
approach, taking the necessary actions as soon as financial problems become
apparent.
External causes
of business failure cannot always be predicted with accuracy in advance, while
the overwhelming majority of factors leading to failure are preceded by
premonitory signs of insolvency. Therefore, entrepreneurs should be trained in
order to be able to detect and identify warning signs in good time.
5.1 External Advice
Advice
from professionally qualified financial accountants should be sought regularly,
beginning at the startup phase, and continuing through all the stages of
business life. Entrepreneurs need to be aware of the benefits of acquiring
basic financial management skills to take advantage of any opportunities of
growth and to anticipate any threats to the survival of the business, reacting
to them promptly. Management education should be provided even before starting
out in business.
There
is a key role of professionally qualified accountants in areas such accounting,
financial planning and credit management. Bookkeeping and Financial Reporting
practices should be according to recognized accounting principles and sound
business practice, in order to produce high quality financial information,
which sets the ground for the efficient and effective growth and the survival
of the business.
5.2 Planning, Budgeting and Forecasting
A
well-run business will have controls in place to monitor the business plans and
an information system which regularly updates the management on progress
towards its objectives. Controls should also give an early warning that the
trading performance is deteriorating and provide pointers to steps which should
be taken to correct the situation.
Many
large companies undertake some very advanced financial modeling based on a
number of possible future possibilities. However, planning, budgeting and
forecasting are vital tools for SMEs as well, although they will not usually
need to be as sophisticated as the corresponding procedures in larger
companies.
5.3 Audit
Where
the financial statements of the company are audited, the entrepreneur will have
a higher level of assurance that the company’s financial information provides a
sound basis for economic decisions. Independent audit is also a deterrent
against fraud and increases the likelihood that any frauds committed will be
detected.
For
this reason, it is advisable also for those companies for which audit is not
compulsory by national law to commission a voluntary audit of their financial
statements. This will enhance the credibility of the company’s financial
reporting and results, especially from the perspective of banks.
If
the audit report includes a qualified, disclaimer of or adverse opinion, or an
‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph in which the auditors stress a going concern
problem or a significant uncertainty of which the resolution is dependent upon
future events and which may affect the financial statements (tax or other
litigations etc.), it is important for entrepreneurs to solve the identified
problems as they represent causes of potential insolvency of the business. To
this extent, the audit process can offer helpful early warnings of possible
problems the business is facing.
5.4 Cash
Flow Statements
Information
about the cash flows of an enterprise is useful in providing users of financial
statements with a basis to assess the ‘ability of the enterprise to generate
cash and cash equivalents and the needs of the enterprise to utilize those cash
flows’. The economic decisions that are taken by users require an evaluation of
the ability of an enterprise to generate cash and the timing and certainty of
their generation.
When
used in conjunction with the rest of the financial statements, a cash flow
statement provides information that enables users to evaluate the changes in
net assets of an enterprise, its financial structure (including its liquidity
and solvency) and its liability to affect the amounts and timing of cash flows
in order to adapt to changing circumstances and opportunities. A cash flow
statement is a key to understanding the investment and financing philosophy of
a borrower; it will be used by banks to assess whether the business has enough
cash to generate cash to repay a loan.
Cash
flow information also enables users to develop models to compare the present
value of the future cash flows of different enterprises; It enhances the
comparability of the reporting of operating performance by different
enterprises because it eliminates the effects of using different accounting
treatments for the same transactions and events.
The
cash flow statement should report cash flows during the period classified by
operations, investing and financing activities.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
To address the issues that lead to business success
or failure a firm has to be viewed in a broad perspective. Some of the causes
are directly related to the owner/manager skills while others are more related
to the environmental variables such as financials, competition, customer
behavior etc.
In considering the owners/managers skills it is
regrettable that in some cases the very strengths that an entrepreneur
possesses may be the same ones that may lead to the failure of their
enterprise. It often behooves the entrepreneur to seek out and use the council
of outside advisors and experts to avoid the pitfalls that appear due to the
owner/managers individual areas of management inexperience.
Preventive measures are mostly limited to what can be
done on a firm level. Policy makers and firms can collectively influence the
environment, but have limited ability to influence it individually. Once the
causes are broadly identified, the ones that require high attention are
addressed at the firm level. For a small business it is healthier (i.e. has a
greater potential to succeed) to adapt to the environment in which it operates
than to try to make the environment adapt to the firm's needs.
In today's competitive markets, the buzz-phrase is
'customer is king'. For a business, the reason for existing is its customers.
Furthermore, the customer depends on a firm because of its resources. A careful
examination of the resources that a firm possesses can enable it to evaluate
opportunities and threats and act accordingly. Although this resource approach
is only an example of the various methodologies that can be used to minimize
the risk of failure, it does demonstrate that a firm must assess itself and act
on that assessment. Under this approach, the assessment focuses on resources. Resources
can be anything that helps produce, either in terms of
intellectual/technological capital or properties/equipment. Some resources have
long-term effect while others are useful short-term and in daily operations.
Some others focus on building internal efficiencies while others strengthen a
firm's relationship with its external stakeholders. All these resources,
considered in a balanced approach, help reduce the risks of a firm's failure
and sustain healthy growth.
ATTACHMENT
REFERENCES
All
Business: Champions of Small Business. 2004. Ten (10) Reasons for Business to
fail. Available at: www.allbusiness.com/articles/content/10207.asp - 36k -
(accessed on 5 July 2015).
Badenhorst, J.A.,
Cronje, G. de.J., du Toit, G.S, Gerber, P.D., Kruger, L.P., Marais, A. de K.,
Strydom, J.W., van der Walt, A. & van Reenen, M.J. 1997. Introduction to
Business Management. 4thedition. Southern Africa: International Thomson
Publishing (Southern Africa).
Bradley III, Don
B. (1999), “Poor Planning and Marketing Causes Small Business Bankruptcy,”
Small Business Advancement National Center, University of Central Arkansas, http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1999/WDSI/99wds820.htm
1999.
Glocal Vantage,
Inc, “Reasons for Failure”, p.4, Retrieved 7/16/2004 from http://www.glocalvantage.com/BusinessStartupFailureandSuccess/Failure1.html.
Holland, Rob
(1998), “Planning Against A Business Failure,” Agricultural Development Center,
University of Tennessee, http://cpa.utk.edu/pdffiles Oct 1998.
Legal Match.com,
“Business Bankruptcy,” p. 2, Retrieved 7/18/2004 from
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/Link?ar=business-bankruptcy.html.
Hussey, J. &
Hussey, R. 1997. Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
Students. London. Macmillan Publishing.
Raphael Pura (1998). Renong's Asset,
Its History, Reveals It's Also a Liability. Available at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB885153708408176000. [Last Accessed 6 July 2015].
The Economist (2001). Wrongs and
Renong. Available at:
http://www.economist.com/node/709988. [Last Accessed 5 July 2015].
The Small
Business Advisor. 1999. The Entrepreneur Magazine. 2nd edition. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
V. Anbalagan (2014). Halim Saad
fails in bid to reinstate RM2 billion suit over Renong deal. Available at:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/halim-saad-fails-in-bid-to-reinstate-rm2-billion-suit-over-renong-deal.
[Last Accessed 5 July 2015]