Comments on: Executive View – How should a chemical company measure risk when evaluating investment opportunities? Part 1 of 2. http://acswebinars.org/executive-view-how-should-a-chemical-company-measure-risk-when-evaluating-investment-opportunities-part-1-of-2 CLICK * WATCH * LEARN * DISCUSS Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:34:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Evans Amlalo http://acswebinars.org/executive-view-how-should-a-chemical-company-measure-risk-when-evaluating-investment-opportunities-part-1-of-2/comment-page-1#comment-14 Evans Amlalo Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:59:14 +0000 http://boilthisdown.org/?p=1367#comment-14 Ansoff's matrix in a bigger picture will ultimately allow companies to look extensively and carefully at their core competencies and strategically make effective decisions to restructure them accordingly, as well as expanding and penetrating other markets. Overall good insight. Ansoff’s matrix in a bigger picture will ultimately allow companies to look extensively and carefully at their core competencies and strategically make effective decisions to restructure them accordingly, as well as expanding and penetrating other markets.

Overall good insight.

]]> By: Hap http://acswebinars.org/executive-view-how-should-a-chemical-company-measure-risk-when-evaluating-investment-opportunities-part-1-of-2/comment-page-1#comment-13 Hap Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:35:48 +0000 http://boilthisdown.org/?p=1367#comment-13 Doesn't the pharmaceutical merger analysis assume that 1) the reduction in the resources will not diminish the ability of the combined company to produce drugs and 2) the ability to sell the drugs (the channels, as the post put it) is dominant is making the deal work? It doesn't seem as if merging drug companies and cutting R+D has increased development of drugs, and while drug development isn't a skill lots of places have, sales is probably a skill that lots of people have. A preferential sales position for drug companies over other sales units seems to depend on increased trust (which would seem to have eroded lately) or a copious supply of new drugs (which would have made the merger unnecessary). If the above factors are dominant in deciding to merge, then they would seem to imply a problem with merging rather than an opportunity in doing so. Doesn’t the pharmaceutical merger analysis assume that 1) the reduction in the resources will not diminish the ability of the combined company to produce drugs and 2) the ability to sell the drugs (the channels, as the post put it) is dominant is making the deal work? It doesn’t seem as if merging drug companies and cutting R+D has increased development of drugs, and while drug development isn’t a skill lots of places have, sales is probably a skill that lots of people have. A preferential sales position for drug companies over other sales units seems to depend on increased trust (which would seem to have eroded lately) or a copious supply of new drugs (which would have made the merger unnecessary). If the above factors are dominant in deciding to merge, then they would seem to imply a problem with merging rather than an opportunity in doing so.

]]>