美國化工巨頭陶氏化學(xué)與杜邦公司日前正就合并深入談判。據(jù)報道,，合并后的陶氏化學(xué)與杜邦將分拆為三部分,，現(xiàn)任陶氏化學(xué)的首席執(zhí)行官安德魯?利偉誠（Andrew Liveris）有望擔(dān)任新公司的執(zhí)行董事長，同時,，杜邦首席執(zhí)行官愛德華?布林（Edward Breen）則在新公司繼續(xù)保持原有頭銜,。合并后的新公司將會是聯(lián)合年銷售額近一千億美元的新化工巨頭。

要是在以前,，這個消息可能會讓人感到意外,，但華爾街眼下的氛圍意味著，除了合并,，兩家公司別無選擇,。

其中原因，必然和經(jīng)濟(jì)長期增長緩慢,，以及市場看重短期表現(xiàn)有關(guān),。激進(jìn)投資者已經(jīng)成功地“傳染”了其他市場參與者,，讓他們變得和自己一樣急不可耐。這就是這種市場風(fēng)氣的原因,。

一年來,，來自對沖基金的激進(jìn)投資者一直緊咬著陶氏和杜邦。杜邦和華爾街赫赫有名的激進(jìn)投資者納爾遜?佩爾茨(NelsonPeltz)大干了一場,，而且似乎已經(jīng)獲勝,。但杜邦前CEO柯愛倫今年9月份辭了職，而之前他一直備受佩爾茨旗下另類投資公司Trian Partners的抨擊?，F(xiàn)在,，杜邦正在推進(jìn)的合并看來恰好符合佩爾茨的思路。

問題在于回報,。增長緩慢的世界經(jīng)濟(jì)以及表現(xiàn)強勁的美元,，正在拖累陶氏和杜邦的全球化工與農(nóng)業(yè)業(yè)務(wù)，但市場并不在乎,，而且也不打算等待,。

柯愛倫曾指出，研發(fā)預(yù)算對杜邦的未來而言很關(guān)鍵,。佩爾茨則說,，眼下很難看到杜邦的投資會帶來回報。過去幾年中,，杜邦的平均業(yè)務(wù)投資為21億美元,。今年，它的現(xiàn)金流預(yù)計將同比下降5億美元左右,。

陶氏的情況好于杜邦,。陶氏預(yù)測，今年的資本支出為39億美元,，經(jīng)營性現(xiàn)金流則有望增加4億美元,，對應(yīng)的稅后權(quán)益回報率略高于6.5%。

即使這樣的業(yè)績也不足以讓陶氏躲過激進(jìn)投資者丹?羅伯（Dan Loeb）的攻擊,。一年前,，羅伯旗下對沖基金公司Third Point，在獲得了兩個董事席位后同意和陶氏停戰(zhàn),，但最近一個月，Third Point再次讓雙方的爭斗升級,。它希望陶氏剝離石化業(yè)務(wù),。

和杜邦一樣，陶氏也認(rèn)為自身的規(guī)模帶來了更大的協(xié)同研發(fā)效應(yīng),。對此,，羅伯并不買賬,，他說剝離后市場會賦予該項業(yè)務(wù)更高的價值。今年,，在市場表現(xiàn)平平的情況下,，陶氏的股價上漲了11%，但這并未改變羅伯的想法,，他仍認(rèn)為應(yīng)該促使陶氏做得更好,。

本次的方案是將兩家公司合并，然后拆分為三家較小的公司,。在此期間可能會大幅壓縮成本并大量裁員,。也可能意味著陶氏和杜邦的研發(fā)支出都將減少。這當(dāng)然會改善短期業(yè)績,，特別是對杜邦來說,。

但和兩家公司獨立運作相比，合并后的長期回報率會更高嗎,？誰知道呢,？最近的研究表明，激進(jìn)投資者在長期回報率方面表現(xiàn)不一,。

另一方面可以確定的是,，市場再也不會靜待答案揭曉了。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Charlie

校對：詹妮

A deal to merge Dow Chemical and DuPontmay have been a surprise. The two companies are reportedly in advance talks to combine. But the chemistry of Wall Street these days means there wasn’t any way around a deal.

The reason has to do with the long-term slow pace of the economy and the market’s short-term focus, fueled by the success of activist investors in getting the rest of the market on their stop-watch.

For the past year, both companies have been hounded by activist hedge fund investors. DuPont fought a pitched battle with Nelson Peltz, which it appeared to have won. But in September DuPont’s Ellen Kullman, whom Peltz’sTrian Partners had heavily criticized, exited the company. Now DuPont looks to be doing a deal that was along the lines of what Peltz was thinking.

The problem was returns. Never mind that the global chemical and agricultural businesses of Dow and DuPont are being dragged down by a slow world economy, and a strong dollar. The market wasn’t prepared to wait.

Kullman had argued DuPont’s research and development budget was essential to the company’s future. Peltz said it was hard to see a current return on DuPont’s investment. DuPont has invested an average of $2.1 billion in its businesses over the past few years. Yet its cash flow this year is expected to drop about $500 million from last year.

Dow has done better. This year Dow predicted it will invest $3.9 billion in capital expenditures, yet its cash flow from operations this year is on track to rise by just $400 million. After taxes that’s an ROE of just over 6.5%.

Even that number wasn’t enough to get Dow out of the cross-hairs of activist investor Dan Loeb. Loeb’s Third Point, which had agreed to a truce with Dow a year ago after being granted two board seats, has been re-escalating its battle with the chemical giant for the past month or so. Third Point wants the company to spin off its petrochemicals business. Like DuPont, Dow has argued that its size creates better research synergies. Loeb hasn’t bought that, saying the market would value the petrochemical business higher on its own. The fact that Dow’s stock is up 11% this year, when the market is essentially flat, hasn’t deterred Loeb that Dow should be pushed to do better.

The plan is to merge the two companies, and then break up the combined chemical giant into three smaller companies. Along the way there will probably be plenty of cost cutting and layoffs. It will also likely mean a reduction in research spending for both companies. That’s sure to produce better short-term returns, especially for DuPont.

But will it produce a company that has better long-term returns than the two companies would have on their own. Who knows? (Recent studies show that activist investors tend to have mixed results when it comes to long-term returns.) But what we do know is the market no longer will wait around to find out.