RBS-NATWEST CASE QUESTIONS, MASTERS OF
INTEGRATION
Case: RBS: Masters of Integration
Case Questions (3 out of 7 – Attempt all questions)
1. Describe in detail how RBS, which was a much smaller bank than NatWest, was able to
achieve sufficient credibility in its bid to be able to successfully acquire NatWest?
2. RBS does not specifically distinguish between “control benefits” and “synergies”, however
a careful reading of the case may infer some distinctions. What are some of the control
benefits of the acquisition?
3. What are some of the key combination synergies of the acquisition? Separate these into
revenue enhancement, cost reduction and other synergies.
4. The key cost reduction combination synergy revolved around the creation of a common
“manufacturing” division. Using Exhibit 5 and 6 as well as the case study itself, describe in
detail your understanding of what this synergy actually involved? What saving resulted
from this strategy and over what timeframe was it achieved?
5. RBS incorporated a number of principles into their integration - which may have actually
reduced possible cost efficiencies - on the basis the revenue benefit was greater than the
cost saving. Describe some of these? Why do you think RBS was not solely focused on cost?
6. What were some of the things that RBS did to engage their management and employees in
the integration process?
7. What is the risk in a hostile deal in the context of determining synergies and integration?
In RBS’s case, how did this risk actually turn out once integration commenced?
8. The market believed that RBS’s integration of Natwest was a success. What do you believe
are some of the key success measures that lead the market to draw this conclusion?
Long Form Question (1 out of 7 - 2/3 pages)
Most of the combination benefits between RBS and Natwest were actually “control
benefits” because Natwest was so poorly run. Combination synergies, on the other
hand, were low because RBS decided to keep much of the Natwest branding and branch
network in place.
IF affirmative discuss what you believe the control benefits were and why these
improvements were not necessarily specific to RBS (ie any other well run bank could have
exploited them). Discuss what elements of RBS’s integration strategy kept combination
synergies low. Discuss generally the differences between control benefits and synergies.
https://www.stuvia.com/
INTEGRATION
Case: RBS: Masters of Integration
Case Questions (3 out of 7 – Attempt all questions)
1. Describe in detail how RBS, which was a much smaller bank than NatWest, was able to
achieve sufficient credibility in its bid to be able to successfully acquire NatWest?
2. RBS does not specifically distinguish between “control benefits” and “synergies”, however
a careful reading of the case may infer some distinctions. What are some of the control
benefits of the acquisition?
3. What are some of the key combination synergies of the acquisition? Separate these into
revenue enhancement, cost reduction and other synergies.
4. The key cost reduction combination synergy revolved around the creation of a common
“manufacturing” division. Using Exhibit 5 and 6 as well as the case study itself, describe in
detail your understanding of what this synergy actually involved? What saving resulted
from this strategy and over what timeframe was it achieved?
5. RBS incorporated a number of principles into their integration - which may have actually
reduced possible cost efficiencies - on the basis the revenue benefit was greater than the
cost saving. Describe some of these? Why do you think RBS was not solely focused on cost?
6. What were some of the things that RBS did to engage their management and employees in
the integration process?
7. What is the risk in a hostile deal in the context of determining synergies and integration?
In RBS’s case, how did this risk actually turn out once integration commenced?
8. The market believed that RBS’s integration of Natwest was a success. What do you believe
are some of the key success measures that lead the market to draw this conclusion?
Long Form Question (1 out of 7 - 2/3 pages)
Most of the combination benefits between RBS and Natwest were actually “control
benefits” because Natwest was so poorly run. Combination synergies, on the other
hand, were low because RBS decided to keep much of the Natwest branding and branch
network in place.
IF affirmative discuss what you believe the control benefits were and why these
improvements were not necessarily specific to RBS (ie any other well run bank could have
exploited them). Discuss what elements of RBS’s integration strategy kept combination
synergies low. Discuss generally the differences between control benefits and synergies.
https://www.stuvia.com/
