WHAT IS AN ACQUISITION?
Acquisition see: www.sterlingcooper.info
Main article: Takeover
An acquisition is the purchase of one business or company by another company or other business entity. Consolidation occurs when two companies combine together to form a new enterprise altogether, and neither of the previous companies survives independently. Acquisitions are divided into "private" and "public" acquisitions, depending on whether the acquiree or merging company (also termed a target) is or is not listed on public stock markets. An additional dimension or categorization consists of whether an acquisition is friendly or hostile.
Achieving acquisition success has proven to be very difficult, while various studies have shown that 50% of acquisitions were unsuccessful.[1] The acquisition process is very complex, with many dimensions influencing its outcome.[2]
Whether a purchase is perceived as being a "friendly" one or a "hostile" depends significantly on how the proposed acquisition is communicated to and perceived by the target company's board of directors, employees and shareholders. It is normal for M&A deal communications to take place in a so-called 'confidentiality bubble' wherein the flow of information is restricted pursuant to confidentiality agreements.[3] In the case of a friendly transaction, the companies cooperate in negotiations; in the case of a hostile deal, the board and/or management of the target is unwilling to be bought or the target's board has no prior knowledge of the offer. Hostile acquisitions can, and often do, ultimately become "friendly", as the acquiror secures endorsement of the transaction from the board of the acquiree company. This usually requires an improvement in the terms of the offer and/or through negotiation.
"Acquisition" usually refers to a purchase of a smaller firm by a larger one. Sometimes, however, a smaller firm will acquire management control of a larger and/or longer-established company and retain the name of the latter for the post-acquisition combined entity. This is known as a reverse takeover. Another type of acquisition is the reverse merger, a form of transaction that enables a private company to be publicly listed in a relatively short time frame. A reverse merger occurs when a privately held company (often one that has strong prospects and is eager to raise financing) buys a publicly listed shell company, usually one with no business and limited assets.[4]
There are also a variety of structures used in securing control over the assets of a company, which have different tax and regulatory implications:
The buyer buys the shares, and therefore control, of the target company being purchased. Ownership control of the company in turn conveys effective control over the assets of the company, but since the company is acquired intact as a going concern, this form of transaction carries with it all of the liabilities accrued by that business over its past and all of the risks that company faces in its commercial environment.
The buyer buys the assets of the target company. The cash the target receives from the sell-off is paid back to its shareholders by dividend or through liquidation. This type of transaction leaves the target company as an empty shell, if the buyer buys out the entire assets. A buyer often structures the transaction as an asset purchase to "cherry-pick" the assets that it wants and leave out the assets and liabilities that it does not. This can be particularly important where foreseeable liabilities may include future, unquantified damage awards such as those that could arise from litigation over defective products, employee benefits or terminations, or environmental damage. A disadvantage of this structure is the tax that many jurisdictions, particularly outside the United States, impose on transfers of the individual assets, whereas stock transactions can frequently be structured as like-kind exchanges or other arrangements that are tax-free or tax-neutral, both to the buyer and to the seller's shareholders.
The terms "demerger", "spin-off" and "spin-out" are sometimes used to indicate a situation where one company splits into two, generating a second company separately listed on a stock exchange.
As per knowledge-based views, firms can generate greater values through the retention of knowledge-based resources which they generate and integrate. Extracting technological benefits during and after acquisition is ever challenging issue because of organizational differences. Based on the content analysis of seven interviews authors concluded five following components for their grounded model of acquisition:
Improper documentation and changing implicit knowledge makes it difficult to share information during acquisition.
For acquired firm symbolic and cultural independence which is the base of technology and capabilities are more important than administrative independence.
Detailed knowledge exchange and integrations are difficult when the acquired firm is large and high performing.
Management of executives from acquired firm is critical in terms of promotions and pay incentives to utilize their talent and value their expertise.
Transfer of technologies and capabilities are most difficult task to manage because of complications of acquisition implementation. The risk of losing implicit knowledge is always associated with the fast pace acquisition.
Preservation of tacit knowledge, employees and literature are always delicate during and after acquisition. Strategic management of all these resources is a very important factor for a successful acquisition.
Increase in acquisitions in our global business environment has pushed us to evaluate the key stake holders of acquisition very carefully before implementation. It is imperative for the acquirer to understand this relationship and apply it to its advantage. Retention is only possible when resources are exchanged and managed without affecting their independence.
Distinction between mergers and acquisitions
Although often used synonymously, the terms merger and acquisition mean slightly different things.This paragraph does not make a clear distinction between the legal concept of a merger (with the resulting corporate mechanics, statutory merger or statutory consolidation, which have nothing to do with the resulting power grab as between the management of the target and the acquirer) and the business point of view of a "merger", which can be achieved independently of the corporate mechanics through various means such as "triangular merger", statutory merger, acquisition, etc. When one company takes over another and clearly establishes itself as the new owner, the purchase is called an acquisition. From a legal point of view, the target company ceases to exist, the buyer "swallows" the business and the buyer's stock continues to be traded.
In the pure sense of the term, a merger happens when two firms agree to go forward as a single new company rather than remain separately owned and operated. This kind of action is more precisely referred to as a "merger of equals". The firms are often of about the same size. Both companies' stocks are surrendered and new company stock is issued in its place.For example, in the 1999 merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham, both firms ceased to exist when they merged, and a new company, GlaxoSmithKline, was created. In practice, however, actual mergers of equals don't happen very often. Usually, one company will buy another and, as part of the deal's terms, simply allow the acquired firm to proclaim that the action is a merger of equals, even if it is technically an acquisition. Being bought out often carries negative connotations; therefore, by describing the deal euphemistically as a merger, deal makers and top managers try to make the takeover more palatable. An example of this would be the takeover of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz in 1999 which was widely referred to as a merger at the time.
A purchase deal will also be called a merger when both CEOs agree that joining together is in the best interest of both of their companies. But when the deal is unfriendly (that is, when the target company does not want to be purchased) it is always regarded as an acquisition.
Business valuation
The five most common ways to valuate a business are
asset valuation,
historical earnings valuation,
future maintainable earnings valuation,
relative valuation (comparable company & comparable transactions),
discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation
Professionals who valuate businesses generally do not use just one of these methods but a combination of some of them, as well as possibly others that are not mentioned above, in order to obtain a more accurate value. The information in the balance sheet or income statement is obtained by one of three accounting measures: a Notice to Reader, a Review Engagement or an Audit.
Accurate business valuation is one of the most important aspects of M&A as valuations like these will have a major impact on the price that a business will be sold for. Most often this information is expressed in a Letter of Opinion of Value (LOV) when the business is being valuated for interest's sake. There are other, more detailed ways of expressing the value of a business. While these reports generally get more detailed and expensive as the size of a company increases, this is not always the case as there are many complicated industries which require more attention to detail, regardless of size.
Financing M&A
Mergers are generally differentiated from acquisitions partly by the way in which they are financed and partly by the relative size of the companies. Various methods of financing an M&A deal exist:
Cash
Payment by cash. Such transactions are usually termed acquisitions rather than mergers because the shareholders of the target company are removed from the picture and the target comes under the (indirect) control of the bidder's shareholders.
Stock
Payment in the form of the acquiring company's stock, issued to the shareholders of the acquired company at a given ratio proportional to the valuation of the latter.
Which method of financing to choose?
There are some elements to think about when choosing the form of payment. When submitting an offer, the acquiring firm should consider other potential bidders and think strategically. The form of payment might be decisive for the seller. With pure cash deals, there is no doubt on the real value of the bid (without considering an eventual earnout). The contingency of the share payment is indeed removed. Thus, a cash offer preempts competitors better than securities. Taxes are a second element to consider and should be evaluated with the counsel of competent tax and accounting advisers. Third, with a share deal the buyer’s capital structure might be affected and the control of the buyer modified. If the issuance of shares is necessary, shareholders of the acquiring company might prevent such capital increase at the general meeting of shareholders. The risk is removed with a cash transaction. Then, the balance sheet of the buyer will be modified and the decision maker should take into account the effects on the reported financial results. For example, in a pure cash deal (financed from the company’s current account), liquidity ratios might decrease. On the other hand, in a pure stock for stock transaction (financed from the issuance of new shares), the company might show lower profitability ratios (e.g. ROA). However, economic dilution must prevail towards accounting dilution when making the choice. The form of payment and financing options are tightly linked. If the buyer pays cash, there are three main financing options:
Cash on hand: it consumes financial slack (excess cash or unused debt capacity) and may decrease debt rating. There are no major transaction costs.
It consumes financial slack, may decrease debt rating and increase cost of debt. Transaction costs include underwriting or closing costs of 1% to 3% of the face value.
Issue of stock: it increases financial slack, may improve debt rating and reduce cost of debt. Transaction costs include fees for preparation of a proxy statement, an extraordinary shareholder meeting and registration.
If the buyer pays with stock, the financing possibilities are:
Issue of stock (same effects and transaction costs as described above).
Shares in treasury: it increases financial slack (if they don’t have to be repurchased on the market), may improve debt rating and reduce cost of debt. Transaction costs include brokerage fees if shares are repurchased in the market otherwise there are no major costs.
In general, stock will create financial flexibility. Transaction costs must also be considered but tend to have a greater impact on the payment decision for larger transactions. Finally, paying cash or with shares is a way to signal value to the other party, e.g.: buyers tend to offer stock when they believe their shares are overvalued and cash when undervalued.[5]
Specialist M&A advisory firms
Although at present the majority of M&A advice is provided by full-service investment banks, recent years have seen a rise in the prominence of specialist M&A advisers, who only provide M&A advice (and not financing). These companies are sometimes referred to as Transition companies, assisting businesses often referred to as "companies in transition."
Motives behind M&A
The dominant rationale used to explain M&A activity is that acquiring firms seek improved financial performance. The following motives are considered to improve financial performance:
Economy of scale: This refers to the fact that the combined company can often reduce its fixed costs by removing duplicate departments or operations, lowering the costs of the company relative to the same revenue stream, thus increasing profit margins.
Economy of scope: This refers to the efficiencies primarily associated with demand-side changes, such as increasing or decreasing the scope of marketing and distribution, of different types of products.
Increased revenue or market share: This assumes that the buyer will be absorbing a major competitor and thus increase its market power (by capturing increased market share) to set prices.
Cross-selling: For example, a bank buying a stock broker could then sell its banking products to the stock broker's customers, while the broker can sign up the bank's customers for brokerage accounts. Or, a manufacturer can acquire and sell complementary products.
Synergy: For example, managerial economies such as the increased opportunity of managerial specialization. Another example are purchasing economies due to increased order size and associated bulk-buying discounts.
Taxation: A profitable company can buy a loss maker to use the target's loss as their advantage by reducing their tax liability. In the United States and many other countries, rules are in place to limit the ability of profitable companies to "shop" for loss making companies, limiting the tax motive of an acquiring company.
Geographical or other diversification: This is designed to smooth the earnings results of a company, which over the long term smoothens the stock price of a company, giving conservative investors more confidence in investing in the company. However, this does not always deliver value to shareholders (see below).
Resource transfer: resources are unevenly distributed across firms (Barney, 1991) and the interaction of target and acquiring firm resources can create value through either overcoming information asymmetry or by combining scarce resources.[6]
Vertical integration: Vertical integration occurs when an upstream and downstream firm merge (or one acquires the other). There are several reasons for this to occur. One reason is to internalise an externality problem. A common example is of such an externality is double marginalization. Double marginalization occurs when both the upstream and downstream firms have monopoly power, each firm reduces output from the competitive level to the monopoly level, creating two deadweight losses. By merging the vertically integrated firm can collect one deadweight loss by setting the downstream firm's output to the competitive level. This increases profits and consumer surplus. A merger that creates a vertically integrated firm can be profitable.[7]
"Acqui-hire": An "acq-hire" (or acquisition-by-hire) may occur especially when the target is a small private company or is in the startup phase. In this case, the acquiring company simply hires the staff of the target private company, thereby acquiring its talent (if that is its main asset and appeal). The target private company simply dissolves and little legal issues are involved. Acqui-hires have become a very popular type of transaction in recent years.[citation needed]
Absorption of similar businesses under single management: similar portfolio invested by two different mutual funds (Ahsan Raza Khan, 2009) namely united money market fund and united growth and income fund, caused the management to absorb united money market fund into united growth and income fund.
However, on average and across the most commonly studied variables, acquiring firms' financial performance does not positively change as a function of their acquisition activity.[8] Therefore, additional motives for merger and acquisition that may not add shareholder value include:
Diversification: While this may hedge a company against a downturn in an individual industry it fails to deliver value, since it is possible for individual shareholders to achieve the same hedge by diversifying their portfolios at a much lower cost than those associated with a merger. (In his book One Up on Wall Street, Peter Lynch memorably termed this "diworseification".)
Manager's hubris: manager's overconfidence about expected synergies from M&A which results in overpayment for the target company.
Empire-building: Managers have larger companies to manage and hence more power.
Manager's compensation: In the past, certain executive management teams had their payout based on the total amount of profit of the company, instead of the profit per share, which would give the team a perverse incentive to buy companies to increase the total profit while decreasing the profit per share (which hurts the owners of the company, the shareholders).
Effects on management
A study published in the July/August 2008 issue of the Journal of Business Strategy suggests that mergers and acquisitions destroy leadership continuity in target companies’ top management teams for at least a decade following a deal. The study found that target companies lose 21 percent of their executives each year for at least 10 years following an acquisition – more than double the turnover experienced in non-merged firms.[9] If the businesses of the acquired and acquiring companies overlap, then such turnover is to be expected; in other words, there can only be one CEO, CFO, et cetera at a time.
M&A research and statistics for acquired organizations
Given that the cost of replacing an executive can run over 100% of his or her annual salary, any investment of time and energy in re-recruitment will likely pay for itself many times over if it helps a business retain just a handful of key players that would have otherwise left.[10]
Organizations should move rapidly to re-recruit key managers. It’s much easier to succeed with a team of quality players that you select deliberately rather than try to win a game with those who randomly show up to play.[11]
Brand considerations
Mergers and acquisitions often create brand problems, beginning with what to call the company after the transaction and going down into detail about what to do about overlapping and competing product brands. Decisions about what brand equity to write off are not inconsequential. And, given the ability for the right brand choices to drive preference and earn a price premium, the future success of a merger or acquisition depends on making wise brand choices. Brand decision-makers essentially can choose from four different approaches to dealing with naming issues, each with specific pros and cons:[12]
Keep one name and discontinue the other. The strongest legacy brand with the best prospects for the future lives on. In the merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines, the United brand will continue forward, while Continental is retired.
Keep one name and demote the other. The strongest name becomes the company name and the weaker one is demoted to a divisional brand or product brand. An example is Caterpillar Inc. keeping the Bucyrus International name.[13]
Keep both names and use them together. Some companies try to please everyone and keep the value of both brands by using them together. This can create a unwieldy name, as in the case of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has since changed its brand name to "PwC".
Discard both legacy names and adopt a totally new one. The classic example is the merger of Bell Atlantic with GTE, which became Verizon Communications. Not every merger with a new name is successful. By consolidating into YRC Worldwide, the company lost the considerable value of both Yellow Freight and Roadway Corp.
The factors influencing brand decisions in a merger or acquisition transaction can range from political to tactical. Ego can drive choice just as well as rational factors such as brand value and costs involved with changing brands.[13]
Beyond the bigger issue of what to call the company after the transaction comes the ongoing detailed choices about what divisional, product and service brands to keep. The detailed decisions about the brand portfolio are covered under the topic brand architecture.
The Great Merger Movement
The Great Merger Movement was a predominantly U.S. business phenomenon that happened from 1895 to 1905. During this time, small firms with little market share consolidated with similar firms to form large, powerful institutions that dominated their markets. It is estimated that more than 1,800 of these firms disappeared into consolidations, many of which acquired substantial shares of the markets in which they operated. The vehicle used were so-called trusts. In 1900 the value of firms acquired in mergers was 20% of GDP. In 1990 the value was only 3% and from 1998–2000 it was around 10–11% of GDP. Companies such as DuPont, US Steel, and General Electric that merged during the Great Merger Movement were able to keep their dominance in their respective sectors through 1929, and in some cases today, due to growing technological advances of their products, patents, and brand recognition by their customers. There were also other companies that held the greatest market share in 1905 but at the same time did not have the competitive advantages of the companies like DuPont and General Electric. These companies such as International Paper and American Chicle saw their market share decrease significantly by 1929 as smaller competitors joined forces with each other and provided much more competition. The companies that merged were mass producers of homogeneous goods that could exploit the efficiencies of large volume production. In addition, many of these mergers were capital-intensive. Due to high fixed costs, when demand fell, these newly-merged companies had an incentive to maintain output and reduce prices. However more often than not mergers were "quick mergers". These "quick mergers" involved mergers of companies with unrelated technology and different management. As a result, the efficiency gains associated with mergers were not present. The new and bigger company would actually face higher costs than competitors because of these technological and managerial differences. Thus, the mergers were not done to see large efficiency gains, they were in fact done because that was the trend at the time. Companies which had specific fine products, like fine writing paper, earned their profits on high margin rather than volume and took no part in Great Merger Movement.[citation needed]
Short-run factors
One of the major short run factors that sparked The Great Merger Movement was the desire to keep prices high. However, high prices attracted the entry of new firms into the industry who sought to take a piece of the total product. With many firms in a market, supply of the product remains high.
A major catalyst behind the Great Merger Movement was the Panic of 1893, which led to a major decline in demand for many homogeneous goods. For producers of homogeneous goods, when demand falls, these producers have more of an incentive to maintain output and cut prices, in order to spread out the high fixed costs these producers faced (i.e. lowering cost per unit) and the desire to exploit efficiencies of maximum volume production. However, during the Panic of 1893, the fall in demand led to a steep fall in prices.
Another economic model proposed by Naomi R. Lamoreaux for explaining the steep price falls is to view the involved firms acting as monopolies in their respective markets. As quasi-monopolists, firms set quantity where marginal cost equals marginal revenue and price where this quantity intersects demand. When the Panic of 1893 hit, demand fell and along with demand, the firm’s marginal revenue fell as well. Given high fixed costs, the new price was below average total cost, resulting in a loss. However, also being in a high fixed costs industry, these costs can be spread out through greater production (i.e. Higher quantity produced). To return to the quasi-monopoly model, in order for a firm to earn profit, firms would steal part of another firm’s market share by dropping their price slightly and producing to the point where higher quantity and lower price exceeded their average total cost. As other firms joined this practice, prices began falling everywhere and a price war ensued.[14]
One strategy to keep prices high and to maintain profitability was for producers of the same good to collude with each other and form associations, also known as cartels. These cartels were thus able to raise prices right away, sometimes more than doubling prices. However, these prices set by cartels only provided a short-term solution because cartel members would cheat on each other by setting a lower price than the price set by the cartel. Also, the high price set by the cartel would encourage new firms to enter the industry and offer competitive pricing, causing prices to fall once again. As a result, these cartels did not succeed in maintaining high prices for a period of no more than a few years. The most viable solution to this problem was for firms to merge, through horizontal integration, with other top firms in the market in order to control a large market share and thus successfully set a higher price.[citation needed]
Long-run factors
In the long run, due to desire to keep costs low, it was advantageous for firms to merge and reduce their transportation costs thus producing and transporting from one location rather than various sites of different companies as in the past. Low transport costs, coupled with economies of scale also increased firm size by two- to fourfold during the second half of the nineteenth century. In addition, technological changes prior to the merger movement within companies increased the efficient size of plants with capital intensive assembly lines allowing for economies of scale. Thus improved technology and transportation were forerunners to the Great Merger Movement. In part due to competitors as mentioned above, and in part due to the government, however, many of these initially successful mergers were eventually dismantled. The U.S. government passed the Sherman Act in 1890, setting rules against price fixing and monopolies. Starting in the 1890s with such cases as Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States, the courts attacked large companies for strategizing with others or within their own companies to maximize profits. Price fixing with competitors created a greater incentive for companies to unite and merge under one name so that they were not competitors anymore and technically not price fixing.
Merger waves
The economic history has been divided into Merger Waves based on the merger activities in the business world as:[15]
Period Name Facet
1897–1904 First Wave Horizontal mergers
1916–1929 Second Wave Vertical mergers
1965–1969 Third Wave Diversified conglomerate mergers
1981–1989 Fourth Wave Congeneric mergers; Hostile takeovers; Corporate Raiding
1992–2000 Fifth Wave Cross-border mergers
2003–2008 Sixth Wave Shareholder Activism, Private Equity, LBO
Deal objectives in more recent merger waves
During the third merger wave (1965–1989), corporate marriages involved more diverse companies. Acquirers more frequently bought into different industries. Sometimes this was done to smooth out cyclical bumps, to diversify, the hope being that it would hedge an investment portfolio.
Starting in the fourth merger wave (1992–1998) and continuing today, companies are more likely to acquire in the same business, or close to it, firms that complement and strengthen an acquirer’s capacity to serve customers.
Buyers aren’t necessarily hungry for the target companies’ hard assets. Now they’re going after entirely different prizes. The hot prizes aren’t things—they’re thoughts, methodologies, people and relationships. Soft goods, so to speak.
Many companies are being bought for their patents, licenses, market share, name brand, research staffs, methods, customer base, or culture. Soft capital, like this, is very perishable, fragile, and fluid. Integrating it usually takes more finesse and expertise than integrating machinery, real estate, inventory and other tangibles.[16]
Cross-border M&A
In a study conducted in 2000 by Lehman Brothers, it was found that, on average, large M&A deals cause the domestic currency of the target corporation to appreciate by 1% relative to the acquirers.
The rise of globalization has exponentially increased the necessity for MAIC Trust accounts and securities clearing services for Like-Kind Exchanges for cross-border M&A. In 1997 alone, there were over 2333 cross-border transactions, worth a total of approximately $298 billion. Due to the complicated nature of cross-border M&A, the vast majority of cross-border actions have unsuccessful anies seek to expand their global footprint and become more agile at creating high-performing businesses and cultures across national boundaries.[17]
Even mergers of companies with headquarters in the same country are very much of this type and require MAIC custodial services (cross-border Mergers). After all, when Boeing acquires McDonnell Douglas, the two American companies must integrate operations in dozens of countries around the world. This is just as true for other supposedly "single country" mergers, such as the $29 billion dollar merger of Swiss drug makers Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis).
M&A failure
Despite the goal of performance improvement, results from mergers and acquisitions (M&A) are often disappointing. Numerous empirical studies show high failure rates of M&A deals. Studies are mostly focused on individual determinants. A book by Thomas Straub (2007) "Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions"[18] develops a comprehensive research framework that bridges rival perspectives and promotes a modern understanding of factors underlying M&A performance. The first important step towards this objective is the development of a common frame of reference that spans conflicting theoretical assumptions from different perspectives. On this basis, a comprehensive framework is proposed with which to understand the origins of M&A performance better and address the problem of fragmentation by integrating the most important competing perspectives in respect of studies on M&A Furthermore according to the existing literature relevant determinants of firm performance are derived from each dimension of the model. For the dimension strategic management, the six strategic variables: market similarity, market complementarities, production operation similarity, production operation complementarities, market power, and purchasing power were identified having an important impact on M&A performance. For the dimension organizational behavior, the variables acquisition experience, relative size, and cultural differences were found to be important. Finally, relevant determinants of M&A performance from the financial field were acquisition premium, bidding process, and due diligence. Three different ways in order to best measure post M&A performance are recognized: Synergy realization, absolute performance and finally relative performance.
Turnover contributes to M&A failures. The turnover in target companies is double the turnover experienced in non-merged firms for the ten years following the merger.[19]
Major M&A
1990s
Top 10 M&A deals worldwide by value (in mil. USD) from 1990 to 1999[20]:
Rank Year Purchaser Purchased Transaction value (in mil. USD)
1 1999 Vodafone Airtouch PLC[21] Mannesmann 183,000
2 1999 Pfizer[22] Warner-Lambert 90,000
3 1998 Exxon[23][24] Mobil 77,200
4 1998 Citicorp Travelers Group 73,000
5 1999 SBC Communications Ameritech Corporation 63,000
6 1999 Vodafone Group AirTouch Communications 60,000
7 1998 Bell Atlantic[25] GTE 53,360
8 1998 BP[26] Amoco 53,000
9 1999 Qwest Communications US WEST 48,000
10 1997 Worldcom MCI Communications 42,000
Top 10 M&A deals worldwide by value (in mil. USD) from 2000 to 2010[20]:
Rank Year Purchaser Purchased Transaction value (in mil. USD)
1 2000 Fusion: America Online Inc. (AOL)[27][28] Time Warner 164,747
2 2000 Glaxo Wellcome Plc. SmithKline Beecham Plc. 75,961
3 2004 Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Shell Transport & Trading Co 74,559
4 2006 AT&T Inc.[29][30] BellSouth Corporation 72,671
5 2001 Comcast Corporation AT&T Broadband & Internet Svcs 72,041
6 2009 Pfizer Inc. Wyeth 68,000
7 2000 Spin-off: Nortel Networks Corporation 59,974
8 2002 Pfizer Inc. Pharmacia Corporation 59,515
9 2004 JP Morgan Chase & Co[31] Bank One Corp 58,761
10 2008 Inbev Inc. Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc 52,000
M&A in popular culture
In the novel American Psycho the protagonist Patrick Bateman, played by Christian Bale in the film adaptation, works in mergers and acquisitions, which he once referred to as "murders and executions" to a potential victim.
In the film The Thomas Crown Affair, Thomas Crown is the CEO of a fictional mergers and acquisitions firm, called Crown Acquisitions.
In the sitcom How I Met Your Mother, Marshall Eriksen and Barney Stinson work at a large bank, Goliath National Bank (GNB), involved in M&A transactions.
References
^ {Investment banking explained pp.223,224
^ "Mergers and acquisitions explained". Retrieved 2009-06-30.
^ Harwood, 2005
^ Reverse Merger in the glossary of mergers-acquisitions.org
^ mergers.acquisitions.ch
^ King, D. R.; Slotegraaf, R.; Kesner, I. (2008). "Performance implications of firm resource interactions in the acquisition of R&D-intensive firms". Organization Science 19 (2): 327–340. doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0313.
^ Maddigan, Ruth; Zaima, Janis (1985). "The Profitability of Vertical Integration". Managerial and Decision Economics 6 (3): 178–179. doi:10.1002/mde.4090060310.
^ King, D. R.; Dalton, D. R.; Daily, C. M.; Covin, J. G. (2004). "Meta-analyses of Post-acquisition Performance: Indications of Unidentified Moderators". Strategic Management Journal 25 (2): 187–200. doi:10.1002/smj.371.
^ Mergers and Acquisitions Lead to Long-Term Management Turmoil Newswise, Retrieved on July 14, 2008.
^ "M&A Research and Statistics for Acquired Organizations" MergerIntegration.com
^ "The Right Human Resources Approach to M&A Turnover" MergerIntegration.com
^ http://merriamassociates.com/2010/10/newsbeast-and-other-merger-name-options/
^ a b http://merriamassociates.com/2010/11/caterpillar%E2%80%99s-new-legs%E2%80%94acquiring-the-bucyrus-international-brand/
^ Lamoreaux, Naomi R. “The great merger movement in American business, 1895-1904.” Cambridge University Press, 1985.
^ http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/58912001c091cdc8852569300055bbf9/1e37719232517fd0852571ef00701385/$file/merger%20waves_toronto_lipton.pdf
^ “Mergers: New Game, New Goals” MergerIntegration.com
^ M&A Agility for Global Organizations
^ [Straub, Thomas (2007). Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A comprehensive analysis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag (DUV), Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. ISBN 978-3-8350-0844-1.]
^ "Acquired Companies Prior to Close" MergerIntegration.com
^ a b [1]
^ "Mannesmann to accept bid - February 3, 2000". CNN. February 3, 2000.
^ Pfizer and Warner-Lambert agree to $90 billion merger creating the world's fastest-growing major pharmaceutical company
^ "Exxon, Mobil mate for $80B - December 1, 1998". CNN. December 1, 1998.
^ Finance: Exxon-Mobil Merger Could Poison The Well
^ Fool.com: Bell Atlantic and GTE Agree to Merge (Feature) July 28, 1998
^ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/fdi/ad2000.html
^ Online NewsHour: AOL/Time Warner Merger
^ "AOL and Time Warner to merge - January 10, 2000". CNN. January 10, 2000.
^ "AT&T To Buy BellSouth For $67 Billion". CBS News. March 5, 2006.
^ AT&T- News Room
^ "J.P. Morgan to buy Bank One for $58 billion". CNNMoney.com. 2004-01-15.
Further reading
DePamphilis, Donald (2008). Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Restructuring Activities. New York: Elsevier, Academic Press. pp. 740. ISBN 978-0-12-374012-0.
Cartwright, Susan; Schoenberg, Richard (2006). "Thirty Years of Mergers and Acquisitions Research: Recent Advances and Future Opportunities". British Journal of Management 17 (S1): S1–S5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00475.x.
Harwood, I. A. (2006). "Confidentiality constraints within mergers and acquisitions: gaining insights through a 'bubble' metaphor". British Journal of Management 17 (4): 347–359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00440.x.
Rosenbaum, Joshua; Joshua Pearl (2009). Investment Banking: Valuation, Leveraged Buyouts, and Mergers & Acquisitions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-470-44220-4.
Fleuriet, Michel (2008). Investment Banking explained: An insider's guide to the industry. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-149733-6.
Straub, Thomas (2007). Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A comprehensive analysis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag (DUV), Gabler Edition Wissenschaft. ISBN 978-3-8350-0844-1.
Scott, Andy (2008). China Briefing: Mergers and Acquisitions in China (2nd ed.).
Aharon, D.Y., I. Gavious and R. Yosef, 2010. Stock market bubble effects on mergers and acquisitions. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 50(4): p. 456-470.
