Talk:Corporate spin-off

message: Coming from : Spin off , company section. Mion 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: A spin-off is defined as a pro-rata distribution of a majority, (often 80% or more) of
shares of the subsidiary to the parent's shareholders.10 As a result of a 100% spin-off,
the subsidiary11 becomes a totally independent company, with initially the same shareholder
base as the parent company. Following the transaction, the former parent shareholders
own two securities: The shares from the parent company and the shares from the spun-off subsidiary. Hence a spin-off leaves the portfolio decision (of whether to be
shareholder of the parent and the subsidiary company or not) up to the shareholders.
Unlike carve-outs, a spin-off does not involve exchange of any cash. Thus, a spin-off is not motivated by the company's desire to generate immediate cash, while carve-outs
(and trade sales) often become a source of liquidity for financially distressed firms.
A well-known example of a firm resulting from a spin-off is Syngenta AG, resulting
from the spin-off and merger of the agrochemical divisions of Novartis and AstraZeneca.
A split-up is an alternative type of spin-off in which a company separates into several
parts, distributes stock of each part to its shareholders, and ceases to exist. The most
well-known example is the split-up of AT&T Corporation into three companies in 1996.
AT&T Corporation was split-up in AT&T Corporation (national telephone network and
cellular services), Lucent Technologies Inc. (communications hardware business and
Bell Laboratories) and NCR Corp. (computer manufacturing). Mion 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  coming from spinoff - Corporate spinoff 

message: Starburst is not an alternative term for a spinout or spinoff.  As the ref titled "Starbursting" explains, it's when a company breaks itself into a bunch of pieces, rather than splitting off a piece.  Nobody would call a spinoff a starburst; that's just someone's misinterpretation of an article.  Let's fix it, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally they're the same thing. One company is the direct legal successor to the pre-starburst company. The others are spin-offs of that company. A starburst is just one company creating multiple spin-offs at or around the same time. Most importantly, the term redirects here, so it needs to remain in the lead. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A starburst is multiple spin-offs.  We can say that in the lead, and it would be a lot more sensible than suggesting that it's a synonym. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starburst 

message: This is jargon and unclear. Putting "splits off" in inverted commas doesn't excuse the obscurity and "second incarnation" is also opaque. The definition is perhaps best written by describing how spinning off actually happens. Maybe what happens is that part of a company is transferred to a new company, with or without appropriate branding. A company may be split, such that various divisions of the old companies become companies in their own right, leaving the old company to do less than what it did, or nothing, or to be closed. The key point to make is that spinning off is jargon which may be used to make such processes sound more interesting than they actually are! Company A could take five of its divisions and create company A*, leaving the other four divisions still with company A. Company A could create A* and also create company B out of the four divisions, while abolishing itself. There's little actual spinning involved, except perhaps by the companies' PR departments. It may be to avoid the use of "split" which can sound negative.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.135.190 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: "splits off" a section as a separate business or creates a second incarnation