MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132068626

Budweiser APAC Spinoff (B): The Financial Strategy for Localization

2022· other· W7132068626 on OpenAlexaff
Shimin 陈世敏, David H. Erkens, 薛文婷

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2022
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal strategyFinancial managementPosition (finance)Financial planKey (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

案例讲述了百威亚太(百威英博的亚太区子公司)的IPO历程。啤酒巨头百威英博在并购领域动作频频,同时也亲历了亚洲市场前景广阔的发展进程。百威亚太在中国和韩国市场占据领先地位,并计划进一步扩大在东南亚市场的份额。然而,面对啤酒行业陷入低谷、人才争夺战日益激烈等诸多挑战,百威亚太不得不放慢了业务拓展的步伐。2019年,百威英博发布新闻稿称,百威亚太计划在香港联合交易所上市,但随后又叫停了这一计划。接着,公司迅速剥离其澳大利亚业务,将卡尔顿联合啤酒公司(CUB)出售。此后,百威亚太终于在香港成功上市。 案例并没有平铺直叙地讲述这个IPO故事,而是在结构上精心安排,将其分为两个部分。在案例A中,学生将看到IPO功败垂成,并从百威英博亚太区总裁、百威亚太首席执行官(CEO)兼执行董事杨克的视角,了解其中的前因后果。授课者可先提供背景信息,让学生了解全球啤酒行业的概况,以及不同地区不同公司之间的竞争格局,然后要求学生为百威英博和百威亚太找到备选方案。学生将根据案例A中的信息,积极思考并提出各种方案,例如出售资产、削减股息、再度尝试IPO等等。 之后,授课者可分发案例B,让学生了解实际发生的情况:百威英博剥离了澳大利亚业务,将卡尔顿联合啤酒公司出售给日本朝日集团;此后,百威亚太在香港联合交易所成功上市。剥离澳大利亚业务后重启上市计划,这表明百威英博把业务重心放在了中国、印度和越南等增长更为快速的市场上,而舍弃了澳大利亚这个规模庞大但业已成熟的市场。此举不仅彰显了百威英博推进区域整合的决心,而且对于在新兴市场寻求机会的投资者来说,也大大增强了百威亚太IPO的吸引力。

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207