Kamikaze Defense

Definition

Kamikaze Defense is a high-risk, aggressive, and unconventional strategy employed by a company facing a hostile takeover attempt. It involves taking actions that can potentially harm the company’s value, such as selling its valuable assets, accumulating debt, or implementing a massive restructuring. The goal of this desperate measure is to make the acquiring company reconsider their takeover attempt, as the target company becomes less attractive or financially viable due to the self-inflicted damage.

Phonetic

The phonetic representation of the keyword “Kamikaze Defense” using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) would be: /ˌkɑmɪˈkɑzi dɪˈfɛns/

Key Takeaways

1. Kamikaze Defense is a business strategy where a company facing a hostile takeover employs aggressive actions to make itself less attractive to the potential acquiring firm.
2. Some common methods include selling valuable assets, taking on excessive debt, or adopting poison pill provisions, thereby making the company more challenging and less desirable to acquire.
3. The term “kamikaze” refers to World War II Japanese fighter pilots who sacrificed their lives in suicide missions to inflict maximum damage on enemy forces, as the targeted companies often suffer significant damage from the defensive measures employed.

Importance

The Kamikaze Defense is an important business/finance term as it refers to a strategic approach taken by a targeted company to prevent a hostile takeover. In this strategy, the target company deliberately takes actions that could lead to significant operational and financial harm to itself, but could also make it less attractive to the hostile bidder. This may include selling off prized assets, taking on massive debt, or engaging in unprofitable investments. By deploying a Kamikaze Defense, the targeted company essentially shows its determination to protect its independence at any cost, which may deter the hostile bidder from proceeding with the takeover attempt. The importance of this term lies in its representation of the lengths a company may go to in order to protect its autonomy and preserve the interests of its shareholders and management.

Explanation

Kamikaze Defense is a high-risk, self-destructive tactic employed by a target company to deter hostile takeovers during a corporate merger or acquisition. This approach significantly lowers the value, viability, and attractiveness of the company to the prospective acquirer, which ultimately aims to thwart their takeover intentions. By making the cost of acquisition too high or the impact on the acquirer too detrimental, the target company leverages its disadvantageous position in order to protect its sovereignty, management, and overall operational structure from the bidder. The purpose of the Kamikaze Defense is to preserve and maintain control of the company by its current management and board of directors. The scheme often involves implementing drastic measures such as selling off high-value assets, taking on massive debt, or conducting significant business-shifting projects that drive down the company’s valuation. These self-inflicted decisions reinforce the notion that a complete takeover would not be in the best interest of the acquiring entity, as the consequences of such an acquisition could be more detrimental than beneficial. Although a seemingly desperate attempt to maintain the status quo, the Kamikaze Defense ultimately underscores the target company’s relentless pursuit of autonomy and long-term sustainability amid an unpredictable financial landscape.

Examples

The term “Kamikaze Defense” refers to a strategic move taken by a company facing a hostile takeover, in which it sabotages its own profitability or corporate value to prevent the takeover, consequently causing harm to both the target company and the acquiring company. Here are three real-world examples of Kamikaze Defense: 1. Crown Cork & Seal Company: In 1989, the American conglomerate Crown Cork & Seal Company faced an unwanted takeover from Robert M. Bass’s Heron International Firm. In an attempt to deter Heron from moving forward with the takeover, Crown sold its most profitable businesses and assumed a considerable amount of debt, reducing the company’s overall value. This move proved to be effective as Heron abandoned its plans, but it also led to Crown experiencing a decline in profitability. 2. Martin Marietta: In 1992, Bendix, an American-based company, made a hostile bid for Martin Marietta, a US aerospace, and defense company. In response, Martin Marietta sold off its two most lucrative divisions and purchased shares in its own stock. Furthermore, the company also authorized a costly stock repurchase program, borrowing heavily to finance it. All of these moves significantly increased Martin Marietta’s debt, making it less appealing to Bendix. As a result, Bendix was acquired by Allied Corporation, and Martin Marietta survived, but at the cost of substantial damage to its own financial condition. 3. People’s Express airline: In the 1980s, People’s Express faced a hostile takeover attempt by the larger, better-financed Texas Air Corporation. In a bid to make itself less attractive and avoid the takeover, People’s Express purchased several small regional airlines and made significant expansions, causing a large amount of debt. In the end, the kamikaze defense tactics failed, and People’s Express was acquired by Texas Air Corporation in 1986. However, the actions they took to try to deter the takeover caused significant damage to the company and made the integration with Texas Air Corporation challenging.

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQ)

Related Finance Terms

• Hostile Takeover
• Shareholder Rights Plan
• Poison Pill
• White Knight
• Golden Parachute

Sources for More Information

• Investopedia
• Corporate Finance Institute
• The Business Professor
• Wikipedia