Archives for posts with tag: Honeywell

Crain’s Chicago Business wrote several months ago about how big companies are putting increased pressure on their much smaller trade creditors to extend their payment terms. A small Chicago stamping plant with $10 million in annual revenue, makes parts for Honeywell whose revenues are $39 billion and whose free cash flow is about $5 billion. Until recently Honeywell paid this firm slowly, by most manufacturing measures, at 60 days. Now they have asked for 120 days. This makes the smaller firm their Banker.

Chicago based Boeing, whose sales are even larger at $100 billion last year, recently asked suppliers for 120 day terms as well, according to the same article.

Both Boeing and Honeywell have an “A” credit rating, the best in corporate America.   This means they can borrow money pretty much whenever and from whoever they want and, in today’s financial world, very cheaply. So why do these giant companies penalize  very small suppliers by not paying their bills in a timely fashion? Because they can. Today there are plenty of small suppliers willing to accept these credit terms just for the chance to sell to a giant customer. At least for awhile or until it crushes the small firm’s own credit situation.

Is this a new phenomenon you might ask? Of course not. This has gone on forever in business. What is new is who is doing this and why.

Years ago, my wife Tricia sold office furniture to the then giant telecommunication firm MCI which became Worldcom which became Verizon. Standard terms from small furniture distribution firms were 30 days. One day MCI just decided to take 60 days. As a commissioned sales person, Tricia was charged a financing charge by her own firm which reduced her, already small, commission. At the time, MCI was just starting to have  financial problems, a falling stock price and eventually declared bankruptcy.  So, in the past, large firms often leaned on trade creditors to try to buy time to restructure their business.

My old firm USG Corporation went through its own financial restructuring due to excess debt taken on to avoid a hostile takeover. One of the many things we did to survive was to maximize our days outstanding with our trade creditors. But we did this after talking to the creditors and sometimes making special accommodations with them.

But what is going on today is totally different. Honeywell, Boeing and I am sure a host of other very large and very financially solid firms are unilaterally and without much communication or rationale just stretching out their credit terms to the severe detriment of a lot of small and struggling suppliers. A former USG Corporation financial colleague of mine was concerned that by not paying our bills according to their standard terms we were being “immoral and unethical”.  I never agreed with that characterization at the time or in our circumstances.  But what is going on today I do consider bad business practices that border on unethical.

Business like life relies on relationships. This credit practice is very bad for relationships and karma. And it will likely lead to more failures of small firms which are so critical for our economy.

The Wall Street Journal had an article called “AT&T to Keep Time Warner’s Culture.” This refers to the proposed acquisition of the media firm by the  telecommunications firm. The deal is currently being challenged by the Justice Department. The article goes on to quote the CEO of AT&T saying he is “not a media tycoon” and he does not want to “screw it (Time Warner’s culture) up” by bringing them “a telephone company culture”.

Then the Journal had an interview with Amazon’s second in command, Jeff Wilke. In talking about their recent acquisition of Whole Foods, he said that Amazon “works hard to respect cultures that have been successful,” but that perhaps they can “help” Whole Foods with “resources, ideas and maybe IT services that Amazon has.”

This all sounds very smart and maybe even noble, but sadly, it will probably not play out this way for one or both companies. The larger, acquiring firm almost always screws up the leadership and culture of the smaller firm they spent a lot of money to buy. AT&T has offered $85 billion for Time Warner; Whole Foods cost Amazon $14 billion.

In most acquisitions, within three years two-thirds of the senior management of the acquired firm are gone. The Chairmen/CEOs go first, sometimes immediately with a huge payout for their stock and retention bonus (often equal to three years total pay.)   Sometimes they hang around a couple years to collect an additional bonus. But Chairmen/CEOs go fast followed by their key reports. With these people goes some of the knowledge and value that the acquiring firm paid for. And after the senior leaders are gone, the culture of the company starts to fade away as well. Leadership and Culture are, after all, the flip side of each other.

Why do smart companies willingly or sometimes subconsciously change the successful culture and leadership of the firms they spend a fortune to buy?

First, the acquiring firm, by definition, is the winner in the deal. Thus, they believe that their systems, procedures, people and business strategies are far superior to the firm they just acquired. When the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers took over the legendary consulting firm Booz, the PWC people felt they were in charge, regardless of the rich 100 year history of Booz.

Second, the acquiring firms have lots of staff that are dying to “help” the firm they just took over. From Information Technology to accounting to Human Resources to legal, etc. etc., there are plenty of people who just want to “help.” The building material firm, USG Corporation, acquired my old Donn Corporation which was one tenth its size. USG setup 24 committees to “help” integrate Donn into USG. Donn was a loosely structured, oral culture company with few charts and procedures. USG was much the opposite. A few years later only three of the top dozen Donn leaders remained.

Third, strategies and circumstances change rapidly in business. An old friend said that large firms can change core businesses and strategies faster than people change their underwear. Honeywell just announced that they will spin off two large business groups with $7 billion of sales, so that they can focus more on their core businesses, the remaining $30 billion. Ironically, the original Honeywell business, thermostats, will be spun off with a number of businesses that were acquired in more recent years.

In closing, having been both an acquirer and one who was acquired, I would like to wish the Time Warner and Whole Foods leaders and their culture the best of luck! Things will never really be the same. It will help if you keep in mind that your firm sold and those other guys bought. There are winners and losers in deals just like in everything.