Recently, corporate strategy has shifted from the traditional emphasis on expansion to one that emphasizes precision. Across the industry, executives are reconsidering their portfolio strategies and asking tough questions about what should and should not be included at the core of their strategies.
As a result, carve-outs increase dramatically. In fact, most carve-outs are not driven by a strategic deck, but by the realization that strategic focus is spread too thinly across too many priorities. As a result, organizations are spinning out or selling non-core businesses.
Carve-out transactions themselves are not new. I can count many such transactions in my nearly 40 years of experience. The only thing that has changed is the pace and frequency. That makes sense, especially as growth rates decline, the cost of capital rises, technological advances such as digital and artificial intelligence continue to accelerate, and shareholders need instant liquidity as much as superior investment returns.
For many companies, selling a business can be a faster and riskier way to rethink strategy and refocus than pursuing a major merger or transformation.
What actually is a carve out
A carve-out involves separating a business, group of assets, or operations from a parent company. Such a separation could take several different forms, including a sale to a strategic or private equity buyer, a spin-off to shareholders, or an equity carve-out through a partial IPO.
At the heart of carve-out is a portfolio optimization decision. It draws a clear line between what makes a differentiated company unique and what distracts from it. Done properly, it has the potential to transfer assets to better owners and create a more coherent strategic platform for the rest of the company.
Why companies choose carve-outs
Several factors contribute to the faster pace of carve-outs. First, companies are facing pressure to become more focused and increase capital discipline. This means focusing and increasing investment only on the areas that matter. Second, carve-outs allow companies to overcome the value-diminishing “conglomerate discount” that can arise from conglomerate structures.
There is also a role for strategic agility. A focused business responds quickly to changing markets and technology. There may also be an increased preference for simpler structures given increased regulation and risk. Boards of directors and shareholders alike have come to expect active portfolio management rather than merely passive asset holdings. Independent businesses may also have advantages in terms of accountability and stronger leadership incentives.
How to decide if a carve-out makes sense
However, an effective carve-out move relies on more than just instinct. The important steps to consider are:
- Define the core: The ones that companies have a sustainable right to win over, and the ones that bring them higher profits than anyone else.
- Building an independent economics: This includes excluding allocations to check profitability.
- Map interdependencies. This step involves shared services, including separation or ongoing support of shared systems, contracts, IP, personnel and information.
- Identify natural owners: Who is the best future owner of the asset?
- Stress test structure and timing: Compare different sale, spin, and equity carve-out options, including costs, tax effects, and risks.
- fully commit: Half-measures introduce permanent complexity and destroy value.
Execution is where value is decided.
The success or failure of most carve-outs is determined by their execution or strategy. Key priorities include identifying specific transaction boundaries, developing carve-out financing and auditing, eliminating or managing stuck costs within the parent company, developing disciplined transition service agreements, managing separation with a focus on technology and data, retaining customers and revenue, and communicating effectively.
For example, momentum has already been lost before a transition services contract is extended or renegotiated.
The separation of technology and retained costs is always underestimated. This is usually due to treating them as secondary workstreams rather than an integral part of the transaction.
Common pitfalls to avoid
Carve-outs often have difficulty making progress due to the same issues. Defining assets and contracts too broadly can create confusion and slow the process. It is often underestimated when dealing with the complexities associated with technology and data. In addition, stranding costs can last longer than expected and ultimately erode overall value.
Over-engineered transition services agreements are also a relatively common pitfall, trapping organizations in complexity when simplicity is desired rather than facilitating easy dissolution of the organization. A lack of communication with employees and customers can lead to a loss of trust at the wrong time. The inopportune timing of tax and legal issues is also an enforcement consideration.
Finally, destructive problems can occur when leadership incentives are misaligned and treat day one as a conclusion or finish line rather than the beginning of a new working reality.
Why is this trend structural rather than cyclical?
The forces driving carve-outs will accelerate these processes by creating new and persistent headwinds such as higher costs of capital, economics of digital and AI platforms, regulatory fragmentation, activist pressures, industry specialization, and limits on large-scale organic growth. Private equity's appetite for carve-outs remains strong and is growing stronger.
A carve-out is not an admission of failure.
These are strategically focused tools. Executed with discipline, it sharpens strategy, unlocks trapped value, and positions the parent company as well as the spin-off business for stronger performance under the right ownership structure.
In an environment defined by uncertainty and speed, the ability to proactively reshape corporate portfolios is no longer an option. It's a competitive advantage.
