Please help with the Wikimedia strategic planning [Hide]

process! Discuss the Strategy Task Forces' [Help us with

translations!]
recommendations.

Mergers and acquisitions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"Merger" redirects here. For other uses, see Merge.
"Acquisition" redirects here. For other uses, see Acquisition (disambiguation).
For The Sopranos episode see Mergers and Acquisitions (The Sopranos episode)

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
[hide]

• 1 Acquisition
o 1.1 Distinction between mergers and acquisitions
• 2 Business valuation
• 3 Financing M&A
o 3.1 Cash
o 3.2 Financing
o 3.3 Hybrids
o 3.4 Factoring
• 4 Specialist M&A advisory firms
• 5 Motives behind M&A
• 6 Effects on management
• 7 M&A marketplace difficulties
• 8 M&A failure
• 9 The Great Merger Movement
o 9.1 Short-run factors
o 9.2 Long-run factors
o 9.3 Merger waves
• 10 Cross-border M&A
• 11 Major M&A in the 1990s
• 12 Major M&A in the 2000s
• 13 See also
 • 14 References

• 15 Further reading

[edit] Acquisition
Main article: Takeover

An acquisition, also known as a takeover or a buyout or "merger", 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 shown that
50% of acquisitions were unsuccessful.[citation needed] The acquisition process is very
complex, with many dimensions influencing its outcome.[1]

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 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.

[edit] 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 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 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.

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).

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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:

[edit] 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 it tends to lessen 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.

[edit] 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. The
organisation can also opt for issuing of fresh capital in the market to raise the funds.

[edit] Hybrids

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

[edit] Factoring

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.[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]

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.[5] 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.
[edit] 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.[6]

[edit] 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).

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.

[edit] 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. The effect of M&A evolution in a transition economy,
especially where the presence of rent-seeking and relationship-based transactions is
significant, may cause destructive entrepreneurship. From a socio-economic and cultural
views, the degree of positive impacts it may result in for domestic entrepreneurship will
perhaps be the single most important indicator.[7] 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.

. Post-M&A performance is measured by synergy realization, relative performance

(compared to competition), and absolute performance.

[edit] 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, 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]

[edit] 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 that period.[citation needed]

[edit] 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.

[edit] Merger waves

The economic history has been divided into Merger Waves based on the merger activities
in the business world as:

Period Name Facet

1889 - 1904 First Wave Horizontal mergers
1916 - 1929 Second Wave Vertical mergers
1965 - 1989 Third Wave Diversified conglomerate mergers
1992 - 1998 Fourth Wave Congeneric mergers; Hostile takeovers; Corporate Raiding
2000 - Fifth Wave Cross-border mergers

[edit] 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 market for cross border M&A.
In 1997 alone there were over 2333 cross border transactions worth a total of
approximately $298 billion. This rapid increase has taken many M&A firms by surprise
because the majority of them never had to consider acquiring 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.[8]

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 $29
billion dollar merger of Swiss drug makers Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis).

[edit] Major M&A in the 1990s

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

Transaction value (in mil.

Rank Year Purchaser Purchased
USD)
Vodafone Airtouch
1 1999 Mannesmann 183,000
PLC[9]
2 1999 Pfizer[10] Warner-Lambert 90,000
3 1998 Exxon[11][12] Mobil 77,200
4 1998 Citicorp Travelers Group 73,000
5 1999 SBC Communications Ameritech Corporation 63,000
AirTouch
6 1999 Vodafone Group 60,000
Communications
[13]
7 1998 Bell Atlantic GTE 53,360
8 1998 BP[14] Amoco 53,000
9 1999 Qwest Communications US WEST 48,000
10 1997 Worldcom MCI Communications 42,000

[edit] Major M&A in the 2000s

Top 10 M&A deals worldwide by value (in mil. USD) from 2000 to 2009:

Transaction value (in

Rank Year Purchaser Purchased
mil. USD)
1 2000 Fusion: America Online Time Warner 164,747
 Inc. (AOL)[15][16]
SmithKline Beecham
2 2000 Glaxo Wellcome Plc. 75,961
Plc.
Shell Transport &
3 2004 Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. 74,559
Trading Co
[17][18]
4 2006 AT&T Inc. BellSouth Corporation 72,671
AT&T Broadband &
5 2001 Comcast Corporation 72,041
Internet Svcs
6 2009 Pfizer Inc. Wyeth 68,000
Spin-off: Nortel Networks
7 2000 59,974
Corporation
8 2002 Pfizer Inc. Pharmacia Corporation 59,515
[19]
9 2004 JP Morgan Chase & Co Bank One Corp 58,761
Anheuser-Busch
10 2008 Inbev Inc. 52,000
Companies, Inc

[edit] See also

• Mergers and acquisitions in United Kingdom law
• Competition regulator
• Control premium
• Corporate advisory
• Divestiture
• Factoring (finance)
• Fairness opinion
• International Financial Reporting Standards
• IPO
• 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
• Venture capital
• Vermilion Partners Ltd

[edit] References
1. ^ "Mergers and acquisitions explained". http://www.m-and-a-explained.com/.
Retrieved 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. ^ 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.
6. ^ Mergers and Acquisitions Lead to Long-Term Management Turmoil Newswise,
Retrieved on July 14, 2008.
7. ^ "Mergers and Acquisitions in Vietnam's Emerging Market Economy: 1990-
2009". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1503288/. Retrieved
2009-11-10.
8. ^ M&A Agility for Global Organizations
9. ^ Mannesmann to accept bid - February 3, 2000
10. ^ Pfizer and Warner-Lambert agree to $90 billion merger creating the world's
fastest-growing major pharmaceutical company
11. ^ Exxon, Mobil mate for $80B - December 1, 1998
12. ^ Finance: Exxon-Mobil Merger Could Poison The Well
13. ^ Fool.com: Bell Atlantic and GTE Agree to Merge (Feature) July 28, 1998
14. ^ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/fdi/ad2000.html
15. ^ Online NewsHour: AOL/Time Warner Merger
16. ^ AOL and Time Warner to merge - January 10, 2000
17. ^ AT&T To Buy BellSouth For $67 Billion, Apparent Bid For Total Control Of
Joint Venture Cingular - CBS News
18. ^ AT&T- News Room
19. ^ "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/.

[edit] 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 978-3-8350-0844-1.
• Scott, Andy (2008). China Briefing: Mergers and Acquisitions in China (2nd ed.).

[hide]
v•d•e
Corporate finance and investment banking

Senior secured debt · Senior debt · Second lien

debt · Subordinated debt · Mezzanine debt ·
Capital
structure Convertible debt · Exchangeable debt · Preferred
equity · Warrant · Shareholder loan · Common
equity · Pari passu

Transactions Initial public offering

(terms /
conditions) (IPO) · Secondary
Market Offering
(SEO) · Follow-on
offering · Rights
Equity offerings issue · Private
placement · Spin off ·
Equity carve-out ·
Greenshoe
(Reverse) · Book
building

Takeover · Reverse
takeover · Tender
offer · Poison pill ·
Freeze-out merger ·
Mergers and Tag-along right ·
acquisitions Drag-along right ·
Control premium ·
Due diligence ·
Divestment ·
Demerger
 Leveraged buyout ·
Leveraged recap ·
Financial sponsor ·
Leverage
Private equity · Bond
offering · High-yield
debt · DIP financing

Financial modeling · Free cash flow · Business

valuation · Fairness opinion · Stock valuation ·
APV · DCF · Net present value (NPV) · Cost of
Valuation capital (Weighted average) · Comparable
company analysis · Enterprise value · Tax shield ·
Minority interest · EVA · MVA · Terminal value ·
Real options analysis

List of investment banks · List of finance topics

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions"
Categories: Political economy | Corporate finance | Mergers and acquisitions
Hidden categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced
statements from June 2009 | Articles needing additional references from June 2008 | All
articles needing additional references | Articles needing additional references from
December 2007 | Articles with unsourced statements from June 2008

Views

• Article
• Discussion
• Edit this page
• History

Personal tools

• Try Beta
• Log in / create account

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
 • Current events
• Random article

Search

Go Search

Interaction

• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia
• Donate to Wikipedia
• Help

Toolbox

• What links here

• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Languages

• ‫العربية‬
• Català
• Dansk
• Deutsch
• Español
• Français
• 한국어
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Lietuvių
• Nederlands
• 日本語
• Polski
• Português
• Русский
• Slovenčina
• Suomi
• Svenska
• Українська
 • Tiếng Việt
• 中文

• This page was last modified on 22 January 2010 at 14:46.

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;
additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-
profit organization.
• Contact us
• Privacy policy
• About Wikipedia
• Disclaimers

rang Dịch Khách Góc báo Total

| Giới thiệu | | | Nhà đầu tư | Nghề nghiệp | | | Liên hệ | Englis
hủ vụ hàng chí Branding
mục Trang chủ > Thuật ngữ thương hiệu > Tài trợ
thương hiệu
thương hiệu Merger & Acquisition - Sáp nhập và Mua lại
ng thương hiệu Cập nhật 29-11-2005 10:20
d chuyên đề Sáp nhập 2 thương hiệu có nghĩa là tạo thêm giá trị cho 1 thương hiệu và loại bỏ
u Agency, giá trị của 1 thương hiệu khác. Sau khi sáp nhập thì thông thường chỉ còn 1 thương
hiệu được tồn tại. Vì mục đích của sáp nhập là làm tăng tổng giá trị của thương Các ch
& Thương hiệu hiệu đó, vì vậy mọi hoạt động bên cạnh việc sáp nhập phải được đánh giá về tài
o & Thương hiệu chính, về hoạt động, về pháp lý , pháp nhân, công nghệ và rất nhiều yếu tố khác.
iệu trong phim
iệu hàng đầu Khi hai thương hiệu lớn cùng về chung sống dưới một mái nhà theo quy tắc “M&A” (Merger &
ơng hiệu Acquisition - sáp nhập và mua lại), cả hai đôi lúc lại vô tình quên mất đi những khách hàng trung
thành - “mối tình đầu” của họ.
ữ thương hiệu
quyền thương Nghe thì có vẻ khó tin nhưng lắm khi đó là sự thật. Công ty sáp nhập có thể mạnh hơn, lớn hơn
nhưng điều đó không có nghĩa gì nếu sự kỳ vọng của khách hàng không được đáp lại.
thương hiệu
website Năm 2005 được xem là năm của những cuộc sáp nhập đình đám, trước hết là việc SBC tiếp
quản AT&T với giá 16 tỉ USD, tiếp theo là số tiền 57 tỉ USD do P&G chi ra để có được Gillette.
Theo CNN đây là năm thứ 4 diễn ra các vụ sáp nhập với tổng số tiền lên đến hơn 1 trăm tỉ USD.

Khi các tài sản vô hình góp phần không nhỏ trong giá trị của các tập đoàn ở thế kỷ 21, việc định
giá của thương hiệu, đặc biệt là khi đánh giá tài sản thương hiệu như “tài sản vô hình” trên giấy
tờ là một trong những yếu tố rất quan trọng trong “hợp đồng hôn nhân” M&A. Nhưng cũng thật
không may khi phần lớn tất cả những gì thuộc về thương hiệu đều là vô hình do đó không có
một cách nào rõ ràng để định giá một thương hiệu.

Điều quan trọng trước hết đối với các bên tham gia, theo ý kiến của Suzanne Hogan, công ty tư
vấn thương hiệu Lippicott Mercer, là nắm được chiến lựơc thương hiệu của tập đoàn trước khi
bắt tay vào ký kết bất kỳ hợp đồng M&A, vì nếu không nắm được đích xác giá trị thương hiệu,
họ có thể “hét giá” thương hiệu lên đến tận mây xanh trong khi thực tế thì không phải như vậy.

Những sự kiện quan trọng cùng với tài sản thương hiệu đáng nể của AT&T có thể được xem
như trường hợp điển hình của một công việc kinh doanh không còn thành đạt nhưng lại giữ
được cho mình một thương hiệu cực kỳ đáng giá. Khoan bàn đến việc thương hiệu AT&T có
được định quá cao quá mức hay không, hiện đã có thông báo rằng trong tương lai cái tên AT&T
chắc hẳn sẽ còn xuất hiện dài dài sau khi sáp nhập vào SBC.

Trong xây dựng thương hiệu, điều quan trọng khác cần ghi nhớ chính là nắm được điểm mạnh
cũng như điểm yếu của thương hiệu được sáp nhập, để từ đó có thể đánh giá được mức độ
tương thích của thương hiệu này với chiến lược của thương hiệu đứng ra mua lại. Chỉ khi đánh
giá đúng “thực lực” mới có thể vẽ ra chính xách “kiến trúc thương hiệu” (một từ giới chuyên môn
dùng để nói về thương hiệu và cách các thương hiệu ăn khớp với nhau ra sao) và kế hoạch
truyền thông.

Tuy nhiên, mặc dù có rất rất nhiều vụ sáp nhập và mua lại thương hiệu diễn ra (con số này đã
tăng gấp rưỡi trong năm 2005), thế nhưng con số những công ty coi nhẹ việc mua lại vẫn còn
cao đến đáng kinh ngạc. Chỉ khi có nguy cơ gặp khủng hoảng đang đe doạ đến các thương
hiệu trong danh mục hoặc đang lăm le gây khó khăn cho việc truyền thông thương hiệu cốt lõi
của họ. Thông thường các chuyên viên tư vấn thương hiệu chỉ được viện đến chỉ để dàn xếp
mớ bòng bong các thương hiệu sau các vụ mua lại lớn nhỏ.

Ngoài nhiệm vụ làm đầy túi của các nhân vật lãnh đạo chủ chốt và những ông chủ ngân hàng,
lợi ích chính của việc mua lại và sáp nhập thương hiệu là làm tăng thêm giá trị cho những cổ
đông. Và trong khi lợi ích thật sự của các vụ ngoặc tay này đối với khách hàng sau cùng còn là
vấn đề đáng bàn cãi thì nhiều người trong ngành vẫn tin rằng khách hàng/người tiêu dùng
không phải là đối tượng quan tâm chính trong các hợp đồng M&A.

Theo nhận xét của Ken Fenyo, trung tâm tư vấn quản lý và xây dựng thương hiệu Prophet:
“Những nhà lãnh đạo thường quá quan tâm đến hợp đồng mua lại cùng với tất cả chi phí mà họ
phải trả…đến nỗi người lãnh nhận bất kỳ hậu quả nào sau đó lại chính là khách hàng. Chỉ cần
nghiên cứu những hợp đồng sáp nhập thành công và thất bại, ta dễ dàng thấy rằng điểm khác
biệt giữa cả hai chính là một bên biết thật sự quan tâm đến lợi ích khách hàng, còn một bên chỉ
biết chăm chăm lo cho lợi ích riêng tư của tập đoàn và của bản thân họ.”

Thông thường khi thông báo của những sự kiện M&A thường mang vẻ hứa hẹn một cuộc sống
chung “hạnh phúc đến đầu bạc răng long” của các thương hiệu. Mục đích cốt lõi nhất của M&A
là để thể hiện sự đồng bộ giữa hai doanh nghiệp và cho mọi người thấy rằng, “một cây làm
chẳng nên non, hai (hoặc nhiều) cây chụm lại nên hòn núi cao”, hay nói theo cách của Fenyo là
“phải chứng tỏ rằng 1+1 >2”. Cuộc hôn nhân giữa Cingular và AT&T Wireless là nhằm mục đích
mưu cầu hạnh phúc như trên.

M&A cũng giúp loại bỏ những thương hiệu kém cỏi và khiến thương hiệu cốt lõi trở nên mạnh
hơn, hay theo cách nói của David Harding và Charles Tillen của Bain & Co., “thu nhỏ để phát
triển”. Cho dù là bán một phần nhỏ trong doanh nghiệp cho người ngoài hay gạt bỏ đi những
thương hiệu không còn phù hợp với chiến lược phát triển chung nhưng tất cả đều góp phần
trong việc củng cố sức mạnh của thương hiệu cốt lõi.

Một thăm dò trên 250 nhà lãnh đạo có trực tiếp tham gia vào những hợp đồng M&A do công ty
tư vấn Bain & Co. thực hiện cho thấy lý do khiến cho có những vụ lục đục xảy ra sau “hôn nhân”
là do “bỏ qua những thách thức khi sáp nhập” hoặc “đánh giá cao quá mức khả năng hoà hợp”.

Trong trường hợp M&A của Kmart và Sears diễn ra năm 2004, nhiều người đã xem rằng đây
không khác gì một hợp đồng bất động sản và cá cược với nhau xem một trong hai cái tên Kmart
và Sears, tên nào sẽ sớm bỏ cuộc chơi. Giá trị của hợp đồng được ước tính lên đến 12.3 tỉ USD
và đã đẩy giá cổ phiếu của Sears lên 22% và Kmart lên 16% không lâu sau khi việc sáp nhập
được công bố. Và kể từ ngày Kmart tự đứng dậy sau khi phá sản từ tháng 5/2003, giá cổ phiếu
của Kmart đã tăng đến 700% tính đến mùa xuân 2005.

Những con số vừa nêu nghe có vẻ rất ấn tượng, thế nhưng tên tuổi Kmart vẫn còn ít nhiều bị
hoen ố trên thị trường. Với kế hoạch bán các dòng sản phẩm của Kmart cùng với dòng sản
phẩm của Sears, phần đông mọi người vẫn tiên đoán rằng sớm muộn gì thì cái tên Kmart cũng
sẽ biến mất khi hệ thống nhận diện thương hiệu của cả hai được nhập chung lại.

Một số trường hợp rút lui cũng đã được tiên đoán trước. Không muốn sản phẩm của mình bị
xếp vào hàng “bèo” ở Kmart, Nike đã nhanh chóng kết thúc hợp đồng với Kmart và chỉ tiếp tục
cho các mặt hàng của mình tại Sears cho đến mùa thu 2005.

Sắp tới đây là những dự định khai trương Sears Essentials với sự kết hợp nhiều thương hiệu
khác nhau từ Sears và Kmart cùng với những sản phẩm cao cấp hơn. Theo tờ Chicago Sun
Times, Sears đang nhắm đến việc đặt cơ sở tại những khu đô thị giàu có hơn để chuyển các
cửa hàng thuộc hệ thống Kmart sang Sears Essentials và nhắm đến những khách hàng có thu
nhập hàng năm vào khoảng 80,000USD trở lên (khách hàng của Kmart có thu nhập vào khoảng
40,000USD/năm).

Tóm lại, khi cùng nhau ký vào “hợp đồng hôn nhân”, đôi bên phải nắm được tài sản thương hiệu
và biết cách dung hoà cũng như loại bỏ những khía cạnh hoặc yếu tố bất lợi, có như vậy cuộc
các thương hiiệu mới có thể sống chung hoà thuận dưới cùng một mái nhà.
 Alycia de Mesa (An Nhiên - Công ty Thương Hiệu LANTABRAND - sưu tập và lược dịch)

Các tin khác

Corporate brand – Thương hiệu tập đoàn
Brand sponsorship - Xây dựng thương hiệu thông qua tài trợ
Brand story: Câu chuyện thương hiệu
Branding: xây dựng thương hiệu
Positioning Statement: tuyên ngôn định vị
Franchising: nhượng quyền thương hiệu
Brand Valuation: Định giá thương hiệu
Brand Measurement: Đo lường thương hiệu
Perceived value: Giá trị cảm nhận
Packaging Design: Thiết kế bao bì

Tra
LANTABRAND - Total Brand Solution™ Giấy phép ICP của Bộ Văn hóa Thôn
n lantabrand.com khi bạn phát hành lại thông tin từ website Powered by w

HỆ THỐNG THÔNG TIN TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC

UNIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM

Bảng điểm học tập của sinh viên

 Mã sinh Họ tên
CQ503692 Phạm Thị Thu Hà
viên : :
Ngành
Khóa : K50
Đăng ký địa chỉ email :
Đăng ký học Lớp : Tiếng Anh Thương Mại C K50
Xem lịch thi cá nhân

Đăng ký thi
Tra cứu điểm
Kết quả đăng ký học
Chương trình học
Đổi mật khẩu

Thống kê đăng ký học

Tin nhắn
Quên mật khẩu
Sinh viên xem và tự cập
nhật 1 số thông tin cá
nhân
P
h
ạ
m
T
hị
T
h
u
H
à(
C
Q
5
0
3
6
9
2)
_
Si
n
h
vi
ê
n
 Mã
Kiể
học Tên học Tư
Số TC m
phầ phần cách
tra
n
1 DLNN Dẫn luận ngôn ngữ 3 8 8
2 DLQS3 Đường lối quân sự 3 9 7
3 TTTD11 Giáo dục thể chất 1 2 8 6
4 TTTD12 Giáo dục thể chất 2 2 9 7
5 KHMA191 Kinh tế vĩ mô 1 4 10 6
6 NGUAM Ngữ âm - âm vị học 2 10 8
7 NGAN1007 Ngữ âm thực hành 2 8 6
8 NGAN33 Nhập môn khoa học giao tiếp 3 10 7
9 MLNL01 Những nguyên lý cơ bản của chủ nghĩa Mác - Lênin 13 5 3
10 QPQS01 Quân sự chung 3 8 8
11 QPTHKT Thực hành kỹ thuật 3 9 7
12 TA1DOC Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Đọc 2 9 9
13 TA1NGHE Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Nghe 2 9 8
14 TA1NOI Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Nói 2 10 7
15 TA1THTH Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Thực hành tổng hợp 4 7 6
16 TA1VIET Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Viết 2 10 8
17 TA2THTH Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Thực hành tổng hợp 8 8 7
18 TA2DOC Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Đọc 2 10 8
19 TA2NGHE Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Nghe 2 10 8
20 TA2NOI Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Nói 2 9 7
21 TA2VIET Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Viết 3 6 6
22 TA3DOC Tiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Đọc 2 8 7
23 TA3NOI Tiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Nói 2 9 7
24 TA3VIET Tiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Viết 3 7 6
25 TV1 Tiếng Việt 1 3 8 8
26 TIKT301 Tin học đại cương 4 10 6
27 TOCB101 Toán cao cấp 4 8 8

© Bản quyền của CMC-Soft.

Phiên bản 1.2 (cập nhật 01/04/2006).

Sinh viên đăng ký thi lại

Kết quả đăng ký thi lại
Thống kê số sinh viên đăng ký
Thống kê danh sách sinh viên
đăng ký
Quá trình đăng ký học
Tạo tin nhắn
Hộp tin nhắn