Search results

Recent developments suggest that pharmaceutical companies are acquiring existing products through mergers to improve their business models; however, this paper aims to emphasize R&D as a strategy to boost revenues and counteract the risks of existing products that may be unreliable. In light of Pfizer’s upcoming US$160 billion merger deal with Allergan, the paper’s objective is to illuminate the outcomes of Pfizer’s previous megamergers (>US$10 billion) to indicate what could happen to the company’s economic profits if it only focused on the acquisition of established drugs instead of diversifying and creating new products.

The paper uses a combination of industry studies to make an assessment of the economic implications of conducting a megamerger (highlighting the need for further R&D). The assessment included a review of Pfizer’s M&A outcomes in two of its previous megamergers and an evaluation of a McKinsey study conducted on the economic impact of 17 pharmaceutical megamergers.

The paper provides insights on the negative profit outcomes in Pfizer’s past megamergers. Furthermore, the positive profit outcomes of pharmaceutical megamergers demonstrate that other M&A motives, such as R&D rationalization and product diversification, may be responsible for bringing up the group’s performance. Investing in R&D would be a good strategy for Pfizer to counteract the risk of relying on existing products as revenue generators.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world’s leading organizations.

The paper suggests that Pfizer should place more emphasis on R&D as a revenue generator in face of its upcoming US$160 billion megamerger with Allergan, despite the current industry trends favouring the acquisition of existing products.

Megamergers often do not benefit shareholders, managers, or the public. One does not need to have acquisitions followed by divestiture or dismemberment, followed by more acquisitions. Unless corporate managers learn from a decade of experience, one can expect a continuing parade of profitless megamergers.

This chapter assesses the doctrine of reasonable interchangeability through the lens of the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) successful effort to enjoin the megamerger of two of the largest national insurance companies, Aetna and Humana. The DOJ focused its challenge on the companies’ Medicare Advantage business, arguing that it is a separate product market from original Medicare and the merger would substantially reduce competition in the market for Medicare Advantage in many geographic markets across the country. The case turned on whether there was reasonable interchangeability between original Medicare and Medicare Advantage in the eyes of consumers. The judge relied on both practical indicia of interchangeability, including evidence of how likely Medicare beneficiaries were to switch between Medicare Advantage and Original Medicare, along with econometric evidence. The decision provides a useful roadmap of how a knowledgeable judge reviewing a merger will consider both Brown Shoe factors and econometric evidence in assessing reasonable interchangeability.

The purpose of this study is to broadly examine the role of marketing–finance interface factors for value creation. Specifically, the study investigates the influence of discretionary expenditures such as advertisement on valuation of brands and firms within the framework of risk factors.

To test the model and hypotheses of this study as it has the possibilities of multiple causations among different variables used in the system. Some independent variables are not truly independent and there is a possibility of biased estimation and inconsistent results. Hence a dynamic simultaneous equation model is used including the instrumental variable approach.

The study provides evidence for direct association between brand value and firm value which is represented by the joint impact of both operating and stock market performance. The results establish the direct relationship between brand and firm value and signify the relevance of intangible value creation.

This study addresses the gap in the research which examines the role of marketing decisions on value creation which jointly impacts both operating and stock market performance.

A thick cost frontier methodology is used to estimate pre‐ and postmerger X‐inefficiency in 348 mergers approved by the OCC in 1987/88. Efficiency improved in only a small majority of mergers, and these gains were unrelated to the acquiring bank's efficiency advantage over its target. These results are not consistent with the traditional market for corporate control story, in which well‐managed firms acquire poorly managed firms and subsequently improve their performance. Rather, the results suggest motivations other than cost efficiencies were driving U.S. bank mergers in the late 1980s. Efficiency gains were concentrated in mergers where acquiring banks made frequent acquisitions, suggesting the presence of experience effects.

Strategic investment theory establishes a framework for discussing the benefits of acquisitions. However, these theories do not provide automatic answers to investment questions.

The proliferation of mergers during the 70s and 80s has generated voluminous amounts of research with a primary focus on the impact to the shareholders from both the acquired and the acquiring firms. Relatively little research has been placed on the valuation process itself, especially within the international merger setting. To fill the void, this article details a valuation process based on capital budgeting. This approach is designed for use by foreign firms contemplating mergers or acquisitions across international borders. The framework may also be used to help explain the increasing numbers of non‐US acquisitions of US firms and to make inferences about divestiture and leveraged buy‐out (LBO) activity.

The financial services industry is experiencing rapid consolidation globally. Consolidation has proceeded not only in the same market but also across different market segments and across national boundaries. In this paper, we (a) outline the general trend of the mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and consolidation of the financial service industry in the U.S. and in the global economy; (b) identify and analyze the reasons that contribute to the consolidation of the financial service industry; (c) examine some cases of successful and unsuccessful financial service M&As; and (d) arrive at some strategic implications.

This paper aims to examine value gains to acquirers in large commercial bank mega‐mergers (with transaction values over £1 billion) that occurred in the European Union during the period 1997‐2007, distinguishing between domestic and cross‐border transactions.

Based on a sample of 62 bank mega‐mergers, an event study methodology is employed using a market model to determine cumulative standardised abnormal returns (CSAR) to acquiring banks around the announcement date of merger deals. This is followed by cross‐sectional regression to determine specific characteristics driving acquirers' CSAR.

Cross‐border bank mergers have been more frequent in recent years, reflecting a growing trend of banking sector consolidation in the EU. However, such mergers are found to yield significant negative announcement period acquirer returns, while domestic deals have marginally negative but insignificant returns. The operational cost efficiency and capital strength of acquiring banks are found to be significant in influencing excess returns.

Constraints on data availability limited the scope for sensitivity analysis and incorporation of target characteristics in the cross‐sectional regression of drivers affecting acquirers' CSAR. Further research is aimed to address these issues.

Event study and regression results indicate that potential downside risks are judged by market participants to outweigh the benefits from cross‐border M&As in the retail banking market despite evidence of increased financial sector consolidation in the EU.

The study reflects the recent period of increased cross‐border banking consolidation in the EU and reveals findings that differ in some respects from previous studies on EU bank M&As.