Mergers and acquisitions

A general term used to refer to the consolidation of companies. A merger is a combination of two companies to form a new company, while an acquisition is the purchase of one company by another with no new company being formed.

Investopedia Says:
An example of a major merger is the merging of JDS Fitel Inc and Uniphase Corp in 1999 to form JDS Uniphase. An example of a major acquisition is Manulife Financial Corporation's 2004 acquisition of John Hancock Financial Services Inc.

The term M&A also refers to the department at financial institutions that deals with mergers and acquisitions.

Related Links:
Learn what corporate restructuring is, why companies do it and why it sometimes doesn't work. The Basics Of Mergers And Acquisitions
Learn how to invest in companies before, during and after they join together. The Merger - What To Do When Companies Converge
This high-risk strategy attempts to profit from price discrepancies that arise during acquisitions. Trade Takeover Stocks With Merger Arbitrage
When major corporate transactions have a big impact on the currency markets, you can benefit. Mergers And Acquisitions - Another Tool For Traders
Do you want your company to sandbag or greenmail? Welcome to the dramatic world of mergers and acquisitions. The Wacky World of M&As
Learn to profit by following the lead of some of Wall Street's most ruthless investors. Activist Hedge Funds

A merger occurs when one firm assumes all the assets and all the liabilities of another. The acquiring firm retains its identity, while the acquired firm ceases to exist. A majority vote of shareholders is generally required to approve a merger. A merger is just one type of acquisition. One company can acquire another in several other ways, including purchasing some or all of the company's assets or buying up its outstanding shares of stock.

In general, mergers and other types of acquisitions are performed in the hopes of realizing an economic gain. For such a transaction to be justified, the two firms involved must be worth more together than they were apart. Some of the potential advantages of mergers and acquisitions include achieving economies of scale, combining complementary resources, garnering tax advantages, and eliminating inefficiencies. Other reasons for considering growth through acquisitions include obtaining proprietary rights to products or services, increasing market power by purchasing competitors, shoring up weaknesses in key business areas, penetrating new geographic regions, or providing managers with new opportunities for career growth and advancement. Since mergers and acquisitions are so complex, however, it can be very difficult to evaluate the transaction, define the associated costs and benefits, and handle the resulting tax and legal issues.

"In today's global business environment, companies may have to grow to survive, and one of the best ways to grow is by merging with another company or acquiring other companies," consultant Jacalyn Sherriton told Robert McGarvey in an interview for Entrepreneur. "Massive, multibillion-dollar corporations are becoming the norm, leaving an entrepreneur to wonder whether a merger ought to be in his or her plans, too," McGarvey continued.

When a small business owner chooses to merge with or sell out to another company, it is sometimes called "harvesting" the small business. In this situation, the transaction is intended to release the value locked up in the small business for the benefit of its owners and investors. The impetus for a small business owner to pursue a sale or merger may involve estate planning, a need to diversify his or her investments, an inability to finance growth independently, or a simple need for change. In addition, some small businesses find that the best way to grow and compete against larger firms is to merge with or acquire other small businesses.

In principle, the decision to merge with or acquire another firm is a capital budgeting decision much like any other. But mergers differ from ordinary investment decisions in at least five ways. First, the value of a merger may depend on such things as strategic fits that are difficult to measure. Second, the accounting, tax, and legal aspects of a merger can be complex. Third, mergers often involve issues of corporate control and are a means of replacing existing management. Fourth, mergers obviously affect the value of the firm, but they also affect the relative value of the stocks and bonds. Finally, mergers are often "unfriendly."

Types of Acquisitions

In general, acquisitions can be horizontal, vertical, or conglomerate. A horizontal acquisition takes place between two firms in the same line of business. For example, one tool and die company might purchase another. In contrast, a vertical merger entails expanding forward or backward in the chain of distribution, toward the source of raw materials or toward the ultimate consumer. For example, an auto parts manufacturer might purchase a retail auto parts store. A conglomerate is formed through the combination of unrelated businesses.

Another type of combination of two companies is a consolidation. In a consolidation, an entirely new firm is created, and the two previous entities cease to exist. Consolidated financial statements are prepared under the assumption that two or more corporate entities are in actuality only one. The consolidated statements are prepared by combining the account balances of the individual firms after certain adjusting and eliminating entries are made.

Another way to acquire a firm is to buy the voting stock. This can be done by agreement of management or by tender offer. In a tender offer, the acquiring firm makes the offer to buy stock directly to the shareholders, thereby bypassing management. In contrast to a merger, a stock acquisition requires no stockholder voting. Shareholders wishing to keep their stock can simply do so. Also, a minority of shareholders may hold out in a tender offer.

A bidding firm can also buy another simply by purchasing all its assets. This involves a costly legal transfer of title and must be approved by the shareholders of the selling firm. A takeover is the transfer of control from one group to another. Normally, the acquiring firm (the bidder) makes an offer for the target firm. In a proxy contest, a group of dissident shareholders will seek to obtain enough votes to gain control of the board of directors.

Taxable Versus Tax-Free Transactions

Mergers and acquisitions can be either tax-free or taxable events. The tax status of a transaction may affect its value from both the buyer's and the seller's viewpoints. In a taxable acquisition, the assets of the selling firm are revalued or "written up." Therefore, the depreciation deduction will rise (assets are not revalued in a tax-free acquisition). But the selling shareholders will have to pay capital gains taxes and thus will want more for their shares to compensate. This is known as the capital gains effect. The capital gains and write-up effects tend to cancel each other out.

Certain exchanges of stock are considered tax-free reorganizations, which permit the owners of one company to exchange their shares for the stock of the acquirer without paying taxes. There are three basic types of tax-free reorganizations. In order for a transaction to qualify as a type A tax-free reorganization, it must be structured in certain ways. In contrast to a type B reorganization, the type A transaction allows the buyer to use either voting or nonvoting stock. It also permits the buyer to use more cash in the total consideration since the law does not stipulate a maximum amount of cash that can be used. At least 50 percent of the consideration, however, must be stock in the acquiring corporation. In addition, in a type A reorganization, the acquiring corporation may choose not to purchase all the target's assets.

In instances where at least 50 percent of the bidder's stock is used as the consideration—but other considerations such as cash, debt, or nonequity securities are also used—the transaction may be partially taxable. Capital gains taxes must be paid on those shares that were exchanged for nonequity consideration.

A type B reorganization requires that the acquiring corporation use mainly its own voting common stock as the consideration for purchase of the target corporation's common stock. Cash must comprise no more than 20 percent of the total consideration, and at least 80 percent of the target's stock must be paid for by voting stock by the bidder.

Target stockholders who receive the stock of the acquiring corporation in exchange for their common stock are not immediately taxed on the consideration they receive. Taxes will have to be paid only if the stock is eventually sold. If cash is included in the transaction, this cash may be taxed to the extent that it represents a gain on the sale of stock.

In a type C reorganization, the acquiring corporation must purchase 80 percent of the fair market value of the target's assets. In this type of reorganization, a tax liability results when the acquiring corporation purchases the assets of the target using consideration other than stock in the acquiring corporation. The tax liability is measured by comparing the purchase price of the assets with the adjusted basis of these assets.

Financial Accounting for Mergers and Acquisitions

The two principal accounting methods used in mergers and acquisitions are the pooling of interests method and the purchase method. The main difference between them is the value that the combined firm's balance sheet places on the assets of the acquired firm, as well as the depreciation allowances and charges against income following the merger.

The pooling of interests method assumes that the transaction is simply an exchange of equity securities. Therefore, the capital stock account of the target firm is eliminated, and the acquirer issues new stock to replace it. The two firms' assets and liabilities are combined at their historical book values as of the acquisition date. The end result of a pooling of interests transaction is that the total assets of the combined firm are equal to the sum of the assets of the individual firms. No goodwill is generated, and there are no charges against earnings. A tax-free acquisition would normally be reported as a pooling of interests.

Under the purchase method, assets and liabilities are shown on the merged firm's books at their market (not book) values as of the acquisition date. This method is based on the idea that the resulting values should reflect the market values established during the bargaining process. The total liabilities of the combined firm equal the sum of the two firms' individual liabilities. The equity of the acquiring firm is increased by the amount of the purchase price.

Accounting for the excess of cost over the aggregate of the fair market values of the identifiable net assets acquired applies only in purchase accounting. The excess is called goodwill, an asset which is charged against income and amortized over a period that cannot exceed 40 years. Although the amortization "expense" is deducted from reported income, it cannot be deducted for tax purposes.

Purchase accounting usually results in increased depreciation charges because the book value of most assets is usually less than fair value because of inflation. For tax purposes, however, depreciation does not increase because the tax basis of the assets remains the same. Since depreciation under pooling accounting is based on the old book values of the assets, accounting income is usually higher under the pooling method. The accounting treatment has no cash flow consequences. Thus, value should be unaffected by accounting procedure. However, some firms may dislike the purchase method because of the goodwill created. The reason for this is that goodwill is amortized over a period of years.

How to Value an Acquisition Candidate

Valuing an acquisition candidate is similar to valuing any investment. The analyst estimates the incremental cash flows, determines an appropriate risk-adjusted discount rate, and then computes the net present value (NPV). If firm A is acquiring firm B, for example, then the acquisition makes economic sense if the value of the combined firm is greater than the value of firm A plus the value of firm B. Synergy is said to exist when the cash flow of the combined firm is greater than the sum of the cash flows for the two firms as separate companies. The gain from the merger is the present value of this difference in cash flows.

SOURCES OF GAINS FROM ACQUISITIONS. The gains from an acquisition may result from one or more of the following five categories:1) revenue enhancement, 2) cost reductions, 3) lower taxes, 4) changing capital requirements, or 5) a lower cost of capital. Increased revenues may come from marketing gains, strategic benefits, and market power. Marketing gains arise from more effective advertising, economies of distribution, and a better mix of products. Strategic benefits represent opportunities to enter new lines of business. Finally, a merger may reduce competition, thereby increasing market power. Such mergers, of course, may run afoul of antitrust legislation.

A larger firm may be able to operate more efficiently than two smaller firms, thereby reducing costs. Horizontal mergers may generate economies of scale. This means that the average production cost will fall as production volume increases. A vertical merger may allow a firm to decrease costs by more closely coordinating production and distribution. Finally, economies may be achieved when firms have complementary resources—for example, when one firm has excess production capacity and another has insufficient capacity.

Tax gains in mergers may arise because of unused tax losses, unused debt capacity, surplus funds, and the write-up of depreciable assets. The tax losses of target corporations can be used to offset the acquiring corporation's future income. These tax losses can be used to offset income for a maximum of 15 years or until the tax loss is exhausted. Only tax losses for the previous three years can be used to offset future income.

Tax loss carry-forwards can motivate mergers and acquisitions. A company that has earned profits may find value in the tax losses of a target corporation that can be used to offset the income it plans to earn. A merger may not, however, be structured solely for tax purposes. In addition, the acquirer must continue to operate the pre-acquisition business of the company in a net loss position. The tax benefits may be less than their "face value," not only because of the time value of money, but also because the tax loss carry-forwards might expire without being fully utilized.

Tax advantages can also arise in an acquisition when a target firm carries assets on its books with basis, for tax purposes, below their market value. These assets could be more valuable, for tax purposes, if they were owned by another corporation that could increase their tax basis following the acquisition. The acquirer would then depreciate the assets based on the higher market values, in turn, gaining additional depreciation benefits.

Interest payments on debt are a tax-deductible expense, whereas dividend payments from equity ownership are not. The existence of a tax advantage for debt is an incentive to have greater use of debt, as opposed to equity, as the means of financing merger and acquisition transactions. Also, a firm that borrows much less than it could may be an acquisition target because of its unused debt capacity. While the use of financial leverage produces tax benefits, debt also increases the likelihood of financial distress in the event that the acquiring firm cannot meet its interest payments on the acquisition debt.

Finally, a firm with surplus funds may wish to acquire another firm. The reason is that distributing the money as a dividend or using it to repurchase shares will increase income taxes for shareholders. With an acquisition, no income taxes are paid by shareholders.

Acquiring firms may be able to more efficiently utilize working capital and fixed assets in the target firm, thereby reducing capital requirements and enhancing profitability. This is particularly true if the target firm has redundant assets that may be divested.

The cost of debt can often be reduced when two firms merge. The combined firm will generally have reduced variability in its cash flows. Therefore, there may be circumstances under which one or the other of the firms would have defaulted on its debt, but the combined firm will not. This makes the debt safer, and the cost of borrowing may decline as a result. This is termed the coinsurance effect.

Diversification is often cited as a benefit in mergers. Diversification by itself, however, does not create any value because stockholders can accomplish the same thing as the merger by buying stock in both firms.

VALUATION PROCEDURES. The procedure for valuing an acquisition candidate depends on the source of the estimated gains. Different sources of synergy have different risks. Tax gains can be estimated fairly accurately and should be discounted at the cost of debt. Cost reductions through operating efficiencies can also be determined with some confidence. Such savings should be discounted at a normal weighted average cost of capital. Gains from strategic benefits are difficult to estimate and are often highly uncertain. A discount rate greater than the overall cost of capital would thus be appropriate.

The net present value (NPV) of the acquisition is equal to the gains less the cost of the acquisition. The cost depends on whether cash or stock is used as payment. The cost of an acquisition when cash is used is just the amount paid. The cost of the merger when common stock is used as the consideration (the payment) is equal to the percentage of the new firm that is owned by the previous shareholders in the acquired firm multiplied by the value of the new firm. In a cash merger the benefits go entirely to the acquiring firm, whereas in a stock-for-stock exchange the benefits are shared by the acquiring and acquired firms.

Whether to use cash or stock depends on three considerations. First, if the acquiring firm's management believes that its stock is overvalued, then a stock acquisition may be cheaper. Second, a cash acquisition is usually taxable, which may result in a higher price. Third, the use of stock means that the acquired firm will share in any gains from merger; if the merger has a negative NPV, however, then the acquired firm will share in the loss.

In valuing acquisitions, the following factors should be kept in mind. First, market values must not be ignored. Thus, there is no need to estimate the value of a publicly traded firm as a separate entity. Second, only those cash flows that are incremental are relevant to the analysis. Third, the discount rate used should reflect the risk associated with the incremental cash flows. Therefore, the acquiring firm should not use its own cost of capital to value the cash flows of another firm. Finally, acquisition may involve significant investment banking fees and costs.

Hostile Acquisitions

The replacement of poor management is a potential source of gain from acquisition. Changing technological and competitive factors may lead to a need for corporate restructuring. If incumbent management is unable to adapt, then a hostile acquisition is one method for accomplishing change.

Hostile acquisitions generally involve poorly performing firms in mature industries, and occur when the board of directors of the target is opposed to the sale of the company. In this case, the acquiring firm has two options to proceed with the acquisition—a tender offer or a proxy fight. A tender offer represents an offer to buy the stock of the target firm either directly from the firm's shareholders or through the secondary market. In a proxy fight, the acquirer solicits the shareholders of the target firm in an attempt to obtain the right to vote their shares. The acquiring firm hopes to secure enough proxies to gain control of the board of directors and, in turn, replace the incumbent management.

Management in target firms will typically resist takeover attempts either to get a higher price for the firm or to protect their own self-interests. This can be done a number of ways. Target companies can decrease the likelihood of a takeover though charter amendments. With the staggered board technique, the board of directors is classified into three groups, with only one group elected each year. Thus, the suitor cannot obtain control of the board immediately even though it may have acquired a majority ownership of the target via a tender offer. Under a supermajority amendment, a higher percentage than 50 percent—generally two-thirds or 80 percent—is required to approve a merger.

Other defensive tactics include poison pills and dual class recapitalizations. With poison pills, existing shareholders are issued rights which, if a bidder acquires a certain percentage of the outstanding shares, can be used to purchase additional shares at a bargain price, usually half the market price. Dual class recapitalizations distribute a new class of equity with superior voting rights. This enables the target firm's managers to obtain majority control even though they do not own a majority of the shares.

Other preventative measures occur after an unsolicited offer is made to the target firm. The target may file suit against the bidder alleging violations of antitrust or securities laws. Alternatively, the target may engage in asset and liability restructuring to make it an unattractive target. With asset restructuring, the target purchases assets that the bidder does not want or that will create antitrust problems, or sells off the assets that the suitor desires to obtain. Liability restructuring maneuvers include issuing shares to a friendly third party to dilute the bidder's ownership position or leveraging up the firm through a leveraged recapitalization making it difficult for the suitor to finance the transaction.

Other postoffer tactics involve targeted share repurchases (often termed "greenmail")—in which the target repurchases the shares of an unfriendly suitor at a premium over the current market price—and golden parachutes—which are lucrative supplemental compensation packages for the target firm's management. These packages are activated in the case of a takeover and the subsequent resignations of the senior executives. Finally, the target may employ an exclusionary self-tender. With this tactic, the target firm offers to buy back its own stock at a premium from everyone except the bidder.

A privately owned firm is not subject to unfriendly takeovers. A publicly traded firm "goes private" when a group, usually involving existing management, buys up all the publicly held stock. Such transactions are typically structured as leveraged buyouts (LBOs). LBOs are financed primarily with debt secured by the assets of the target firm.

Do Acquisitions Benefit Shareholders?

There is substantial empirical evidence that the shareholders in acquired firms benefit substantially. Gains for this group typically amount to 20 percent in mergers and 30 percent in tender offers above the market prices prevailing a month prior to the merger announcement.

The gains to acquiring firms are difficult to measure. The best evidence suggests that shareholders in bidding firms gain little. Losses in value subsequent to merger announcements are not unusual. This seems to suggest that overvaluation by bidding firms is common. Managers may also have incentives to increase firm size at the potential expense of shareholder wealth. If so, merger activity may happen for noneconomic reasons, to the detriment of shareholders.

Further Reading:

Auerbach, Alan J. Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

"Business For Sale: No Sure Thing." Inc. July 1999.

Coffee, John C., Jr., Louis Lowenstein, and Susan Rose-Ackerman. Knights, Raiders, and Targets: The Impact of the Hostile Takeover. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Gaughan, Patrick A. Mergers and Acquisitions. New York: Harper Collins, 1991.

Hoover, Kent. "Bill Would Aid Mergers of Small Businesses." Sacramento Business Journal. July 21, 2000.

Kilpatrick, Christine. "More Owners Put Small Businesses on the Sale Block." San Francisco Business Times. June 9, 2000.

McGarvey, Robert. "Merge Ahead: Before You Go Full-Speed into a Merger, Read This." Entrepreneur. October 1997.

Sherman, Andrew J. Running and Growing Your Business. New York: Random House, 1997.

See also: Leveraged Buyout

Mergers and acquisitions are means by which corporations combine with each other. Mergers occur when two or more corporations become one. To protect shareholders, state law provides procedures for the merger. A vote of the board of directors and then a vote of the shareholders of both corporations is usually required. Following a merger, the two corporations cease to exist as separate entities. In the classic merger, the assets and liabilities of one corporation are automatically transferred to the other. Shareholders of the disappearing company become shareholders in the surviving company or receive compensation for their shares.

Mergers may come as the result of a negotiation between two corporations interested in combining, or when one or more corporations "target" another for acquisition. Combinations that occur with the approval and encouragement of the target company's management are called "friendly" mergers; combinations that occur despite opposition from the target company are called "hostile" mergers or takeovers. In either case, these consolidations can bring together corporations of roughly the same size and market power, or corporations of vastly different sizes and market power.

The term "acquisition" is typically used when one company takes control of another. This can occur through a merger or a number of other methods, such as purchasing the majority of a company's stock or all of its assets. In a purchase of assets, the transaction is one that must be negotiated with the management of the target company. Compared to a merger, an acquisition is treated differently for tax purposes, and the acquiring company does not necessarily assume the liabilities of the target company.

A "tender offer" is a popular way to purchase a majority of shares in another company. The acquiring company makes a public offer to purchase shares from the target company's shareholders, thus bypassing the target company's management. In order to induce the shareholders to sell, or "tender, " their shares, the acquiring company typically offers a purchase price higher than market value, often substantially higher. Certain conditions are often placed on a tender offer, such as requiring the number of shares tendered be sufficient for the acquiring company to gain control of the target. If the tender offer is successful and a sufficient percentage of shares are acquired, control of the target company through the normal methods of shareholder democracy can be taken and thereafter the target company's management replaced. The acquiring company can also use their control of the target company to bring about a merger of the two companies.

Often, a successful tender offer is followed by a "cash-out merger." The target company (now controlled by the acquiring company) is merged into the acquiring company, and the remaining shareholders of the target company have their shares transformed into a right to receive a certain amount of cash.

Another common merger variation is the "triangular" merger, in which a subsidiary of the surviving company is created and then merged with the target. This protects the surviving company from the liabilities of the target by keeping them within the subsidiary rather than the parent. A "reverse triangular merger" has the acquiring company create a subsidiary, which is then merged into the target company. This form preserves the target company as an ongoing legal entity, though its control has passed into the hands of the acquirer.

Reasons for Mergers and Acquisitions

There are a number of reasons why a corporation will merge with, acquire, or be acquired by another corporation. Sometimes, corporations can produce goods or services more efficiently if they combine their efforts and facilities. These efficiency gains may come simply by virtue of the size of the combined company; it may be cheaper to produce goods on a larger scale. Collaborating or sharing expertise may achieve gains in efficiency, or a company might have underutilized assets the other company can better use. Also, a change in management may make the company more profitable. Other reasons for acquisitions have to do more with hubris and power. The management of an acquiring company may be motivated more by the desire to manage ever-larger companies than by any possible gains in efficiency.

Regulation of Mergers and Acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions are governed by both state and federal laws. State law sets the procedures for the approval of mergers and establishes judicial oversight for the terms of mergers to ensure shareholders of the target company receive fair value. State law also governs the extent to which the management of a target company can protect itself from a hostile takeover through various financial and legal defenses. Generally, state law tends to be deferential to defenses as long as the target company is not acting primarily to preserve its own positions. Courts tend to be skeptical of defenses if the management of a target company has already decided to sell the company or to bring about a change of control. Because of the fear that mergers will negatively affect employees or other company stakeholders, most states allow directors at target companies to defend against acquisitions. Because of the number of state defenses now available, the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions are friendly, negotiated transactions.

The federal government oversees corporate consolidations to ensure that the combined size of the new corporation does not have such monopolistic power as to be unlawful under the Sherman Antitrust Act. The federal government also regulates tender offers through the Williams Act, which requires anyone purchasing more than 5 percent of a company's shares to identify herself and make certain public disclosures, including an announcement of the purpose of the share purchase and of any terms of a tender offer. The act also requires that an acquirer who raises his or her price during the term of a tender offer, raise it for any stock already tendered, that acquirers hold tender offers open for twenty business days, and that acquirers not commit fraud.

History

Merger and acquisition activity in the United States has typically run in cycles, with peaks coinciding with periods of strong business growth. U.S. merger activity has been marked by five prominent waves: one around the turn of the twentieth century, the second peaking in 1929, the third in the latter half of the 1960s, the fourth in the first half of the 1980s, and the fifth in the latter half of the 1990s.

This last peak, in the final years of the twentieth century, brought very high levels of merger activity. Bolstered by a strong stock market, businesses merged at an unprecedented rate. The total dollar volume of mergers increased throughout the 1990s, setting new records each year from 1994 to 1999. Many of the acquisitions involved huge companies and enormous dollar amounts. Disney acquired ABC Capital Cities for $19 billion, Bell Atlantic acquired Nynex for $22 billion, WorldCom acquired MCI for $41.9 billion, SBC Communications acquired Ameritech for $56.6 billion, Traveler's acquired Citicorp for $72.6 billion, Nation Bank acquired Bank of America for $61.6 billion, Daimler-Benz acquired Chrysler for $39.5 billion, and Exxon acquired Mobil for $77.2 billion.

Bibliography

Carney, William J. Mergers and Acquisitions. New York: Foundation Press, 2000.

Scherer, F. M., and David Ross. Industrial Market Structure and Market Performance. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970.

Methods by which corporations legally unify ownership of assets formerly subject to separate controls.

A merger or acquisition is a combination of two companies where one corporation is completely absorbed by another corporation. The less important company loses its identity and becomes part of the more important corporation, which retains its identity. A merger extinguishes the merged corporation, and the sur- viving corporation assumes all the rights, privileges, and liabilities of the merged corporation. A merger is not the same as a consolidation, in which two corporations lose their separate identities and unite to form a completely new corporation.

Federal and state laws regulate mergers and acquisitions. Regulation is based on the concern that mergers inevitably eliminate competition between the merging firms. This concern is most acute where the participants are direct rivals, because courts often presume that such arrangements are more prone to restrict output and increase prices. The fear that mergers and acquisitions reduce competition has meant that the government carefully scrutinizes proposed mergers. On the other hand, since the 1980s the federal government has become less aggressive in seeking the prevention of mergers.

Despite concerns about a lessening of competition, U.S. law has left firms relatively free to buy or sell entire companies or specific parts of a company. Mergers and acquisitions often result in a number of social benefits. Mergers can bring better management or technical skill to bear on underused assets. Mergers can also produce economies of scale and scope that reduce costs, improve quality, and increase output. The possibility of a takeover can discourage company managers from behaving in ways that fail to maximize profits. A merger can enable a business owner to sell the firm to someone who is already familiar with the industry and who would be in a better position to pay the highest price. The prospect of a lucrative sale induces entrepreneurs to form new firms. Finally, many mergers pose few risks to competition.

Antitrust merger law seeks to prohibit transactions whose probable anticompetitive consequences outweigh their likely benefits. The critical time for review usually is when the merger is first proposed. This requires enforcement agencies and courts to forecast market trends and future effects. Merger cases examine past events or periods to understand each merging party's position in its market and to predict the merger's competitive impact.

Types of Mergers

There are three types of mergers, based on the competitive relationships between the merging parties. In a horizontal merger, one firm acquires another firm that produces and sells an identical or similar product in the same geographic area and thereby eliminates competition between the two firms. In a vertical merger, one firm acquires either a customer or a supplier. Conglomerate mergers encompass all other acquisitions, including pure conglomerate transactions where the merging parties have no evident relationship (a shoe producer buys an appliance manufacturer), geographic extension mergers, where the buyer makes the same product as the target firm but does so in a different geographic market (a baker in Chicago buys a bakery in Miami), and product extension mergers, where a firm producing one product buys a firm that makes a different product that requires the application of similar manufacturing or marketing techniques (a producer of household detergents buys a producer of liquid bleach).

Corporate Merger Procedures

State statutes establish procedures to accomplish corporate mergers. Generally, the board of directors for each corporation must initially pass a resolution adopting a plan of merger that specifies the names of the corporations that are involved, the name of the proposed merged company, the manner of converting shares of both corporations, and any other legal provision to which the corporations agree. Each corporation notifies all its shareholders that a meeting will be held to approve the merger. If the proper number of shareholders approves the plan, the directors sign the papers and file them with the state. The secretary of state issues a certificate of merger to authorize the new corporation.

Some statutes permit the directors to abandon the plan at any point up to the filing of the final papers. States with the most liberal corporation laws permit a surviving corporation to absorb another company by merger without submitting the plan to its shareholders for approval unless otherwise required in its certificate of incorporation.

Statutes often provide that corporations formed in two different states must follow the rules in their respective states for a merger to be effective. Some corporation statutes require the surviving corporation to purchase the shares of stockholders who voted against the merger.

Competitive Concerns

Horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers each raise distinctive competitive concerns.

Horizontal Mergers

Horizontal mergers raise three basic competitive problems. The first is the elimination of competition between the merging firms, which, depending on their size, may be significant. The second is that the unification of the merging firms' operations may create substantial market power and could enable the merged entity to raise prices by reducing output unilaterally. The third problem is that, by increasing concentration in the relevant market, the transaction may strengthen the ability of the market's remaining participants to coordinate their pricing and output decisions. The fear is not that the entities will engage in secret collaboration but that the reduction in the number of industry members will enhance tacit coordination of behavior.

Vertical Mergers

Vertical mergers take two basic forms: forward integration, by which a firm buys a customer, and backward integration, by which a firm acquires a supplier. Replacing market exchanges with internal transfers can offer at least two major benefits. First, the vertical merger internalizes all transactions between manufacturer and its supplier or dealer, thus converting a potentially adversarial relationship into something more like a partnership. Second, internalization can give management more effective ways to monitor and improve performance.

Vertical integration by merger does not reduce the total number of economic entities operating at one level of the market, but it may change patterns of industry behavior. Whether a forward or backward integration, the newly acquired firm may decide to deal only with the acquiring firm, thereby altering competition among the acquiring firm's suppliers, customers, or competitors. Suppliers may lose a market for their goods, retail outlets may be deprived of supplies, or competitors may find that both supplies and outlets are blocked. This raises the concern that vertical integration will foreclose competitors by limiting their access to sources of supply or to customers. Vertical mergers may also be anticompetitive because their entrenched market power may impede new businesses from entering the market.

Conglomerate Mergers

Conglomerate transactions take many forms, ranging from short-term joint ventures to complete mergers. Whether a conglomerate merger is pure, geographical, or a product line extension, it involves firms that operate in separate markets. Therefore, a conglomerate transaction ordinarily has no direct effect on competition. There is no reduction or other change in the number of firms in either the acquiring or acquired firm's market.

Conglomerate mergers can supply a market or "demand" for firms, thus giving entrepreneurs liquidity at an open market price and with a key inducement to form new enterprises. The threat of takeover may force existing managers to increase efficiency in competitive markets. Conglomerate mergers also provide opportunities for firms to reduce capital costs and overhead and achieve other efficiencies.

Conglomerate mergers, however, may lessen future competition by eliminating the possibility that the acquiring firm would have entered the acquired firm's market independently. A conglomerate merger also may convert a large firm into a dominant company with a decisive competitive advantage or otherwise make it difficult for other companies to enter the market. This type of merger may also reduce the number of smaller firms and increase the merged firm's political power, thereby impairing the social and political goals of retaining independent decision-making centers, guaranteeing small business opportunities, and preserving democratic processes.

Federal Antitrust Regulation

Since the late nineteenth century, the federal government has challenged business practices and mergers that create or may create a monopoly in a particular market. Federal legislation has varied in effectiveness in preventing anticompetitive mergers.

Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890

The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) was the first federal antitrust statute. Its application to mergers and acquisitions has varied, depending on its interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 24 S. Ct. 436, 48 L. Ed. 679 (1904), the Court ruled that all mergers between directly competing firms constituted a combination in restraint of trade and therefore violated section 1 of the Sherman Act. This decision hindered the creation of new monopolies through horizontal mergers.

In Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619 (1911), however, the Court adopted a less stringent "rule of reason test" to evaluate mergers. This rule meant that the courts must examine whether the merger would yield monopoly control to the merged entity. In practice this resulted in the approval of many mergers that approached but did not achieve monopoly power.

Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914

Congress passed the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.) in response to the Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey decision, which it feared would undermine the Sherman Act's ban against trade restraints and monopolization. Among the provisions of the Clayton Act was section 7, which barred anticompetitive stock acquisitions.

The original section 7 was a weak antimerger safeguard because it banned only purchases of stock. Businesses soon realized that they could evade this measure simply by buying the target firm's assets. The Supreme Court, in Thatcher Manufacturing Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 272 U.S. 554, 47 S. Ct. 175, 71 L. Ed. 405 (1926), further undermined section 7 by allowing a firm to escape liability if it bought a controlling interest in a rival firm's stock and used this control to transfer to itself the target's assets before the government filed a complaint. Thus, a firm could circumvent section 7 by quickly converting a stock acquisition into a purchase of assets.

By the 1930s section 7 was eviscerated. Between the passage of the Clayton Act in 1914 and 1950, only fifteen mergers were overturned under the antitrust laws, and ten of these dissolutions were based on the Sherman Act. In 1950 Congress responded to post-World War II concerns that a wave of corporate acquisitions was threatening to undermine U.S. society by passing the Celler-Kefauver Antimerger Act, which amended section 7 of the Clayton Act to close the assets loophole. Section 7 now prohibited a business from purchasing the stock or assets of another entity if "the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly."

Congress intended the amended section to reach vertical and conglomerate mergers, as well as horizontal mergers. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 82 S. Ct. 1502, 8 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1962), interpreted the amended law as a congressional attempt to retain local control over industry and to protect small business. The Court concluded that it must look at the merger's actual and likely effect on competition. In general, however, the Court relied almost entirely on market share and concentration figures in evaluating whether a merger was likely to be anticompetitive. Nevertheless, the general presumption was that mergers were suspect.

In United States v. General Dynamics, 415 U.S. 486, 94 S. Ct. 1186, 39 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1974), the Court changed direction. It rejected any antitrust analysis that focused exclusively on market share statistics, cautioning that although statistical data can be of great significance, they are "not conclusive indicators of anticompetitive effects." A merger must be viewed in the context of its particular industry. Therefore, the Court held that "only a further examination of the particular market — its structure, history, and probable future — can provide the appropriate setting for judging the probable anticompetitive effect of the merger." This totality-of-the-circumstances approach has remained the standard for conducting an antitrust analysis of a proposed merger.

Federal Trade Commission Act of 1975

\E Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 45), prohibits "unfair method[s] of competition" and gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) independent jurisdiction to enforce the antitrust laws. The law provides no criminal penalties and limits the FTC to issuing prospective decrees. The Justice Department and the FTC share enforcement of the Clayton Act. Congress gave this authority to the FTC because it thought an administrative body would be more responsive to congressional goals than the courts.

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976

The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR) (15 U.S.C.A. § 18a) established a mandatory premerger notification procedure for firms that are parties to certain mergers. The HSR process requires the merging parties to notify the FTC and the Justice Department before completing certain transactions. In general, an HSR premerger filing is required when (a) one of the parties to the transaction has annual net sales (or revenues) or total assets exceeding $100 million and the other party has annual net sales (or revenues) or total assets exceeding $10 million, and (b) the acquisition price or value of the acquired assets or entity exceeds $15 million. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in the rescission of completed transactions and can be punished by a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day.

HSR also established mandatory waiting periods during which the parties may not "close" the proposed transaction and begin joint operations. In transactions other than cash tender offers, the initial waiting period is thirty days after the merging parties have made the requisite premerger notification filings with the federal agencies. For cash tender offers, the waiting period is fifteen days after the premerger filings. Before the initial waiting periods expire, the federal agency responsible for reviewing the transaction can request the parties to supply additional information relating to the proposed merger. These "second requests" often include extensive interrogatories (lists of questions to be answered) and broad demands for the production of documents. A request for further information can be made once, and the issuance of a second request extends the waiting period for ten days for cash tender offers and twenty days for all other transactions. These extensions of the waiting period do not begin until the merging parties are in "substantial compliance" with the government agency's request for additional information.

If the federal government decides not to challenge a merger before the HSR waiting period expires, a federal agency is highly unlikely to sue at a late date to dissolve the transaction under section 7 of the Clayton Act. The federal government is not legally barred from bringing such a lawsuit, but the desire of the federal agencies to increase predictability for business planners has made the HSR process the critical period for federal review. However, the decision of a federal agency not to attack a merger during the HSR waiting period does not preclude a lawsuit by a state government or a private entity. To facilitate analysis by the state attorneys general, the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) has issued a Voluntary Pre-Merger Disclosure Compact under which the merging parties can submit copies of their federal HSR filings and the responses to second requests with NAAG for circulation among states that have adopted the compact.

Merger Guidelines

In the vast majority of antitrust challenges to mergers and acquisitions, the matters have been resolved by consent order or decree. The Justice Department and the FTC have sought to clarify how they analyze mergers through merger guidelines issued May 5, 1992 (4 Trade Reg. Rep. [CCH] ¶ 13,104). These guidelines are not "law" but enforcement policy statements. Nevertheless, the antitrust enforcement agencies will use them to analyze proposed transactions.

The 1992 merger guidelines state that most horizontal mergers and acquisitions aid competition and are beneficial to consumers. The intent of issuing the guidelines is to "avoid unnecessary interference with the larger universe of mergers that are either competitively beneficial or neutral."

The guidelines prescribe five questions for identifying hazards in proposed horizontal mergers: Does the merger cause a significant increase in concentration and produce a concentrated market? Does the merger appear likely to cause adverse competitive effects? Would entry sufficient to frustrate anticompetitive conduct be timely and likely to occur? Will the merger generate efficiencies that the parties could not reasonably achieve through other means? Is either party likely to fail, and will its assets leave the market if the merger does not occur?

The guidelines essentially ask which products or firms are now available to buyers and where could buyers turn for supplies if relative prices increased by five percent (the measure for assessing a merger-generated price increase). The guidelines redraw market boundaries to cover more products and a greater area, which tends to yield lower concentration increases than Supreme Court merger decisions of the 1960s.

The Future of Mergers and Acquisitions

Beginning in 1980, with President Ronald Reagan's administration, the federal government has adjusted its policies to allow more horizontal mergers and acquisitions. The states have responded by invoking their antitrust laws to scrutinize these types of transactions. Nevertheless, mergers and acquisitions have increased throughout the U.S. economy, including the health care industry, electric utilities, telecommunications corporations, and national defense contractors.

See: Antitrust Law; Golden Parachute; Junk Bond; Restraint of Trade; Scorched-Earth Plan; Sherman Anti-Trust Act; Unfair Competition.

"Merger" redirects here. For other uses, see Merge.

"Acquisition" redirects here. For other uses, see Acquisition (disambiguation).

The phrase mergers and acquisitions (abbreviated M&A) refers to the aspect of corporate strategy, corporate finance and management dealing with the buying, selling and combining of different companies that can aid, finance, or help a growing company in a given industry grow rapidly without having to create another business entity.

Contents 1 Acquisition 1.1 Types of acquisition 2 Merger 2.1 Classifications of mergers 2.2 Distinction between Mergers and Acquisitions 3 Business valuation 4 Financing M&A 4.1 Cash 4.2 Financing 4.3 Hybrids 4.4 Factoring 5 Specialist M&A advisory firms 6 Motives behind M&A 7 Effects on management 8 M&A marketplace difficulties 9 M&A failure 10 The Great Merger Movement 10.1 Short-run factors 10.2 Long-run factors 11 Cross-border M&A 12 Major M&A in the 1990s 13 Major M&A from 2000 to present 14 See also 15 References 16 Further reading

Acquisition

Main article: Takeover

An acquisition, also known as a takeover or a buyout, is the buying of one company (the ‘target’) by another. An acquisition may be friendly or hostile. In the former case, the companies cooperate in negotiations; in the latter case, the takeover target is unwilling to be bought or the target's board has no prior knowledge of the offer. 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 or longer established company and keep its name for the combined entity. This is known as a reverse takeover. Another type of acquisition is reverse merger, a deal that enables a private company to get publicly listed in a short time period. A reverse merger occurs when a private company that has strong prospects and is eager to raise financing buys a publicly listed shell company, usually one with no business and limited assets. Achieving acquisition success has proven to be very difficult, while various studies have showed that 50% of acquisitions were unsuccessful.^{[citation needed]} The acquisition process is very complex, with many dimensions influencing its outcome.^[1]

Types of acquisition

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)

• 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 business, 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 butts, generating a second company separately listed on a stock exchange.

Merger

In business or economics a merger is a combination of two companies into one larger company. Such actions are commonly voluntary and involve stock swap or cash payment to the target. Stock swap is often used as it allows the shareholders of the two companies to share the risk involved in the deal. A merger can resemble a takeover but result in a new company name (often combining the names of the original companies) and in new branding; in some cases, terming the combination a "merger" rather than an acquisition is done purely for political or marketing reasons.

Classifications of mergers

Horizontal merger - Two companies that are in direct competition and share similar product lines and markets.

Vertical merger - A customer and company or a supplier and company. Think of a cone supplier merging with an ice cream maker.

Market-extension merger - Two companies that sell the same products in different markets.

Product-extension merger - Two companies selling different but related products in the same market.

Conglomeration - Two companies that have no common business areas.

• Congeneric merger/concentric mergers occur where two merging firms are in the same general industry, but they have no mutual buyer/customer or supplier relationship, such as a merger between a bank and a leasing company. Example: Prudential's acquisition of Bache & Company.

There are two types of mergers that are distinguished by how the merger is financed. Each has certain implications for the companies involved and for investors:

Purchase Mergers - As the name suggests, this kind of merger occurs when one company purchases another. The purchase is made with cash or through the issue of some kind of debt instrument; the sale is taxable.

Acquiring companies often prefer this type of merger because it can provide them with a tax benefit. Acquired assets can be written-up to the actual purchase price, and the difference between the book value and the purchase price of the assets can depreciate annually, reducing taxes payable by the acquiring company.

Consolidation Mergers - With this merger, a brand new company is formed and both companies are bought and combined under the new entity. The tax terms are the same as those of a purchase merger.

A unique type of merger called a reverse merger is used as a way of going public without the expense and time required by an IPO.

The contract vehicle for achieving a merger is a "merger sub".

The occurrence of a merger often raises concerns in antitrust circles. Devices such as the Herfindahl index can analyze the impact of a merger on a market and what, if any, action could prevent it. Regulatory bodies such as the European Commission, the United States Department of Justice and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission may investigate anti-trust cases for monopolies dangers, and have the power to block mergers.

Accretive mergers are those in which an acquiring company's earnings per share (EPS) increase. An alternative way of calculating this is if a company with a high price to earnings ratio (P/E) acquires one with a low P/E.

Dilutive mergers are the opposite of above, whereby a company's EPS decreases. The company will be one with a low P/E acquiring one with a high P/E.

The completion of a merger does not ensure the success of the resulting organization; indeed, many mergers (in some industries, the majority) result in a net loss of value due to problems. Correcting problems caused by incompatibility—whether of technology, equipment, or corporate culture— diverts resources away from new investment, and these problems may be exacerbated by inadequate research or by concealment of losses or liabilities by one of the partners. Overlapping subsidiaries or redundant staff may be allowed to continue, creating inefficiency, and conversely the new management may cut too many operations or personnel, losing expertise and disrupting employee culture. These problems are similar to those encountered in takeovers. For the merger not to be considered a failure, it must increase shareholder value faster than if the companies were separate, or prevent the deterioration of shareholder value more than if the companies were separate. A Merger company is always limited.

Distinction between Mergers and Acquisitions

Although they are often uttered in the same breath and used as though they were synonymous, the terms merger and acquisition mean slightly different things. ^[2]

When one company takes over another and clearly established 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, often of about the same size, 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". 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 refered to in the time, and is still now, as a merger of the two corporations.

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. This is challengeable. An acquisition can be either friendly or hostile. An example of a recent friendly takeover was when Microsoft bought Fast Search and Transfer (OSE Stock Exchange, Ticker FAST). CEO of the acquired company (FAST) revealed that they had been working with Microsoft for more than 6 months to get the deal which was announced in January, 2008.

Whether a purchase is considered a merger or an acquisition really depends on whether the purchase is friendly or hostile and how it is announced. In other words, the real difference lies in how the purchase is communicated to and received by the target company's board of directors, employees and shareholders. It is quite normal though for M&A deal communications to take place in a so called 'confidentiality bubble' whereby information flows are restricted due to confidentiality agreements (Harwood, 2005).

The distinction between "merger" and "acquisition" is described this way t F. Ducoulombier, Candesic Analysis Which slightly differs from the above: Corporate Restructuring is all activities involving expansion or contraction of a firm's operations or changes in its assets or financial structure. Merger: A transaction in which at least one firm ceases to exist and the assets of that firm are transferred to a surviving firm so that only one separate legal entity remains. Acquisition: A transaction in which both firms in the transaction survive but the acquirer increases its percentage ownership in the target. Consolidation: The combination of two or more firms to form a completely new corporation

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. These values are determined for the most part by looking at a company's balance sheet and/or income statement and withdrawing the appropriate information. 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. These reports generally get more detailed and expensive as the size of a company increases, however, 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 alone.

A cash deal would make more sense during a downward trend in the interest rates. Another advantage of using cash for an acquisition is that there tends to lesser chances of EPS dilution for the acquiring company. But a caveat in using cash is that it places constraints on the cash flow of the company.

Financing

Financing capital may be borrowed from a bank, or raised by an issue of bonds. Alternatively, the acquirer's stock may be offered as consideration. Acquisitions financed through debt are known as leveraged buyouts if they take the target private, and the debt will often be moved down onto the balance sheet of the acquired company.

Hybrids

An acquisition can involve a combination of cash and debt or of cash and stock of the purchasing entity.

Factoring

Factoring can provide the extra to make a merger or sale work. Hybrid can work as ad e-denit.

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." To perform these services in the US, an advisor must be a licensed broker dealer, and subject to SEC (FINRA) regulation. More information on M&A advisory firms is provided at corporate advisory.

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:

• Synergy: 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.
• 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.
• Economy of scale: 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.^[3]
• 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 upstream firm's output to the competitive level. This increases profits and consumer surplus. A merger that creates a vertically integrated firm can be profitable.^[4]

Vertical integration may also be driven by reduction of transaction costs (particularly credit related) and risk mitigation ^[5] [1]

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.^[6] 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.
• 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); although some empirical studies show that compensation is linked to profitability rather than mere profits of the company.

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.^[7]

M&A marketplace difficulties

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)

In many states, no marketplace currently exists for the mergers and acquisitions of privately owned small to mid-sized companies. Market participants often wish to maintain a level of secrecy about their efforts to buy or sell such companies. Their concern for secrecy usually arises from the possible negative reactions a company's employees, bankers, suppliers, customers and others might have if the effort or interest to seek a transaction were to become known. This need for secrecy has thus far thwarted the emergence of a public forum or marketplace to serve as a clearinghouse for this large volume of business. In some states, a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) of small businesses for sale is maintained by organizations such as Business Brokers of Florida (BBF). Another MLS is maintained by International Business Brokers Association (IBBA).

At present, the process by which a company is bought or sold can prove difficult, slow and expensive. A transaction typically requires six to nine months and involves many steps. Locating parties with whom to conduct a transaction forms one step in the overall process and perhaps the most difficult one. Qualified and interested buyers of multimillion dollar corporations are hard to find. Even more difficulties attend bringing a number of potential buyers forward simultaneously during negotiations. Potential acquirers in an industry simply cannot effectively "monitor" the economy at large for acquisition opportunities even though some may fit well within their company's operations or plans.

An industry of professional "middlemen" (known variously as intermediaries, business brokers, and investment bankers) exists to facilitate M&A transactions. These professionals do not provide their services cheaply and generally resort to previously-established personal contacts, direct-calling campaigns, and placing advertisements in various media. In servicing their clients they attempt to create a one-time market for a one-time transaction. Stock purchase or merger transactions involve securities and require that these "middlemen" be licensed broker dealers under FINRA (SEC) in order to be compensated as a % of the deal. Generally speaking, an unlicensed middleman may be compensated on an asset purchase without being licensed. Many, but not all, transactions use intermediaries on one or both sides. Despite best intentions, intermediaries can operate inefficiently because of the slow and limiting nature of having to rely heavily on telephone communications. Many phone calls fail to contact with the intended party. Busy executives tend to be impatient when dealing with sales calls concerning opportunities in which they have no interest. These marketing problems typify any private negotiated markets. Due to these problems and other problems like these, brokers who deal with small to mid-sized companies often deal with much more strenuous conditions than other business brokers. Mid-sized business brokers have an average life-span of only 12–18 months and usually never grow beyond 1 or 2 employees. Exceptions to this are few and far between. Some of these exceptions include The Sundial Group, Geneva Business Services, Corporate Finance Associates and Robbinex.

The market inefficiencies can prove detrimental for this important sector of the economy. Beyond the intermediaries' high fees, the current process for mergers and acquisitions has the effect of causing private companies to initially sell their shares at a significant discount relative to what the same company might sell for were it already publicly traded. An important and large sector of the entire economy is held back by the difficulty in conducting corporate M&A (and also in raising equity or debt capital). Furthermore, it is likely that since privately held companies are so difficult to sell they are not sold as often as they might or should be.

Previous attempts to streamline the M&A process through computers have failed to succeed on a large scale because they have provided mere "bulletin boards" - static information that advertises one firm's opportunities. Users must still seek other sources for opportunities just as if the bulletin board were not electronic. A multiple listings service concept was previously not used due to the need for confidentiality but there are currently several in operation. The most significant of these are run by the California Association of Business Brokers (CABB) and the International Business Brokers Association (IBBA) These organizations have effectivily created a type of virtual market without compromising the confidentiality of parties involved and without the unauthorized release of information.

One part of the M&A process which can be improved significantly using networked computers is the improved access to "data rooms" during the due diligence process however only for larger transactions. For the purposes of small-medium sized business, these datarooms serve no purpose and are generally not used.

M&A failure

Reasons for frequent failure of M&A were analyzed by Thomas Straub in "Reasons for frequent failure in mergers and acquisitions - a comprehensive analysis", DUV Gabler Edition, 2007. 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. The literature therefore lacks a more comprehensive framework that includes different perspectives.Using four statistical methods, Thomas Straub shows that M&A performance is a multi-dimensional function. For a successful deal, the following key success factors should be taken into account:� Strategic logic which is reflected by six determinants: market similarities, market complementarities, operational similarities, operational complementarities, market power, and purchasing power.� Organizational integration which is reflected by three determinants: acquisition experience, relative size, cultural compatibility.� Financial / price perspective which is reflected by three determinants: acquisition premium, bidding process, and due diligence.All 12 variables are presumed to affect performance either positively or negatively. Post-M&A performance is measured by synergy realization, relative performance (compared to competition), and absolute performance.

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. To truly understand how large this movement was—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. Organizations that commanded the greatest share of the market in 1905 saw that command disintegrate by 1929 as smaller competitors joined forces with each other. However, there were companies that merged during this time such as DuPont, Nabisco, US Steel, and General Electric that have been able to keep their dominance in their respected sectors today due to growing technological advances of their products, patents, and brand recognition by their customers. The companies that merged were mass producers of homogeneous goods that could exploit the efficiencies of large volume production. 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 in The Great Merger Movement was the desire to keep prices high. That is, with many firms in a market, supply of the product remains high. During the panic of 1893, the demand declined. When demand for the good falls, as illustrated by the classic supply and demand model, prices are driven down. To avoid this decline in prices, firms found it profitable to collude and manipulate supply to counter any changes in demand for the good. This type of cooperation led to widespread horizontal integration amongst firms of the era. Focusing on mass production allowed firms to reduce unit costs to a much lower rate. These firms usually were capital-intensive and had high fixed costs. Because new machines were mostly financed through bonds, interest payments on bonds were high followed by the panic of 1893, yet no firm was willing to accept quantity reduction during this period.^{[citation needed]}

Long-run factors

In the long run, due to the 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. This resulted in shipment directly to market from this one location. 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 U.S. versus Addyston Pipe and Steel Co., 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.

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 acquirer's. For every $1-billion deal, the currency of the target corporation increased in value by 0.5%. More specifically, the report found that in the period immediately after the deal is announced, there is generally a strong upward movement in the target corporation's domestic currency (relative to the acquirer's currency). Fifty days after the announcement, the target currency is then, on average, 1% stronger.^[8]

The rise of globalization has exponentially increased the market for cross border M&A. In 1996 alone there were over 2000 cross border transactions worth a total of approximately $256 billion. This rapid increase has taken many M&A firms by surprise because the majority of them never had to consider acquiring the capabilities or skills required to effectively handle this kind of transaction. In the past, the market's lack of significance and a more strictly national mindset prevented the vast majority of small and mid-sized companies from considering cross border intermediation as an option which left M&A firms inexperienced in this field. This same reason also prevented the development of any extensive academic works on the subject.

Due to the complicated nature of cross border M&A, the vast majority of cross border actions have unsuccessful results. Cross border intermediation has many more levels of complexity to it then regular intermediation seeing as corporate governance, the power of the average employee, company regulations, political factors customer expectations, and countries' culture are all crucial factors that could spoil the transaction.^[9][10] However, with the weak dollar in the U.S. and soft economies in a number of countries around the world, we are seeing more cross-border bargain hunting as top companies seek to expand their global footprint and become more agile at creating high-performing businesses and cultures across national boundaries.^[11]

Even mergers of companies with headquarters in the same country are very much of this type (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 $27 billion dollar merger of Swiss drug makers Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis).

Major M&A in the 1990s

Top 10 M&A deals worldwide by value (in mil. USD) from 1990 to 1999:

Rank	Year	Purchaser	Purchased	Transaction value (in mil. USD)
1	1999	Vodafone Airtouch PLC[12]	Mannesmann	183,000
2	1999	Pfizer[13]	Warner-Lambert	90,000
3	1998	Exxon[14][15]	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[16]	GTE	53,360
8	1998	BP[17]	Amoco	53,000
9	1999	Qwest Communications	US WEST	48,000
10	1997	Worldcom	MCI Communications	42,000

Major M&A from 2000 to present

Top 9 M&A deals worldwide by value (in mil. USD) since 2000:^[18]

Rank	Year	Purchaser	Purchased	Transaction value (in mil. USD)
1	2000	Fusion: America Online Inc. (AOL)[19][20]	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.[21][22]	BellSouth Corporation	72,671
5	2001	Comcast Corporation	AT&T Broadband & Internet Svcs	72,041
6	2004	Sanofi-Synthelabo SA	Aventis SA	60,243
7	2000	Spin-off: Nortel Networks Corporation		59,974
8	2002	Pfizer Inc.	Pharmacia Corporation	59,515
9	2004	JP Morgan Chase & Co[23]	Bank One Corp	58,761

See also

• Mergers and acquisitions in United Kingdom law
• Competition regulator
• Control premium
• Corporate advisory
• Divestiture
• Factoring (finance)
• Fairness opinion
• International Financial Reporting Standards
• List of bank mergers in United States
• Management control
• Management due diligence
• Merger control
• Merger integration
• Merger simulation
• Second request
• Shakeout
• Tulane Corporate Law Institute

References

1. ^ "Mergers and acquisitions explained". http://www.m-and-a-explained.com/. Retrieved on 2009-06-30. 
2. ^ DePamphilis, D. Understanding Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Corporate Restructuring Terminology
3. ^ 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. 
4. ^ Maddigan, Ruth; Zaima, Janis (1985). "The Profitability of Vertical Integration". Managerial and Decision Economics 6 (3): 178–179. doi:10.1002/mde.4090060310. 
5. ^ Zax, Igor (2009). "Distressed M&A: Some Strategic and Financial Trends and Considerations". International Corporate Rescue 6 (2): 84–87. 
6. ^ 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. 
7. ^ Mergers and Acquisitions Lead to Long-Term Management Turmoil Newswise, Retrieved on July 14, 2008.
8. ^ Lien, Kathy (2005-10-12). "Mergers And Acquisitions - Another Tool For Traders". Investopedia. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/05/MA.asp. Retrieved on 2007-06-17. 
9. ^ Finklestein, Sydney. "Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions". Dartmouth College. http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/syd.finkelstein/articles/Cross_Border.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-08-09. 
10. ^ Platt, Gordon. "Cross-Border Mergers Show Rising Trend As Global Economy Expands". findarticles.com. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3715/is_200412/ai_n9466795. Retrieved on 2007-08-09. 
11. ^ M&A Agility for Global Organizations
12. ^ Mannesmann to accept bid - February 3, 2000
13. ^ Pfizer and Warner-Lambert agree to $90 billion merger creating the world's fastest-growing major pharmaceutical company
14. ^ Exxon, Mobil mate for $80B - December 1, 1998
15. ^ Finance: Exxon-Mobil Merger Could Poison The Well
16. ^ Fool.com: Bell Atlantic and GTE Agree to Merge (Feature) July 28, 1998
17. ^ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/fdi/ad2000.html
18. ^ "Top Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) Deals". Institute of Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances (MANDA). http://www.manda-institute.org/en/statistics-top-m&a-deals-transactions.htm. Retrieved on 2007-06-17. 
19. ^ Online NewsHour: AOL/Time Warner Merger
20. ^ AOL and Time Warner to merge - January 10, 2000
21. ^ AT&T To Buy BellSouth For $67 Billion, Apparent Bid For Total Control Of Joint Venture Cingular - CBS News
22. ^ AT&T- News Room
23. ^ "J.P. Morgan to buy Bank One for $58 billion". CNNMoney.com. 2004-01-15. http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/14/news/deals/jpmorgan_bankone/. 

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. 
• Straub, Thomas (2007). Reasons for frequent failure in Mergers and Acquisitions: A comprehensive analysis. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag. ISBN 9783835008441. 
• Scott, Andy (2008). China Briefing: Mergers and Acquisitions in China (2nd ed.). 

v • d • e Corporate finance and investment banking Capital structure Senior secured debt · Senior debt · Second lien debt · Subordinated debt · Mezzanine debt · Convertible debt · Exchangeable debt · Preferred equity · Shareholder loan · Common equity · Pari passu Transactions (terms / conditions) Equity offerings Initial public offering (IPO) · Secondary Market Offering (SEO) · Follow-on offering · Greenshoe (Reverse) · Book building Mergers and acquisitions Takeover · Reverse takeover · Tender offer · Poison pill · Freeze-out merger · Tag-along right · Drag-along right · Control premium · Divestment · Demerger Leverage Leveraged buyout · Leveraged recap · Financial sponsor · Private equity · Bond offering · High-yield debt · DIP financing Valuation Financial modeling · APV · DCF · Net present value (NPV) · Cost of capital (Weighted average) · Comparable company analysis · Enterprise value · Tax shield · Minority interest · EVA · MVA List of investment banks · List of finance topics

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)