Search results

When talking about mergers and acquisitions (M&As), few announcements clearly define if the operation will deal with a merger (where firms have an equal-to-equal relation) or acquisition (when one firm is in control of the operation and decides the integration process). Operations are commonly labeled M&A. Nevertheless, mergers remain rare, and the authors see that most of the time, operations designed and integrated with firms as equals end in the control of one of the entities over the other.

The authors investigate how two CEOs and their managers communicate during the due diligence period of a merger. The author describes the project merger of two French companies using longitudinal data.

This in-depth case study provides new insights into the due diligence period and the differences between M&As. The findings highlight how the decision to add an associate from a rival firm to the board ended the merger project as the situation evolved toward an acquisition in CEOs’ minds.

The limitations are those concerning a single case study.

The paper highlights the complexity of merger negotiations and the unexpected events faced by stakeholders. The analysis, thus, contributes to an inclusive and integrative view of the challenges in the due diligence process, whereas first defining the operation as a merger or an acquisition is a first step in identifying the degree to which autonomy and interdependence will be given across firms, and how some strategic decisions will be implemented. This case study highlights two specific items that can be understood by managers as key elements in deal success: defining operations as a merger or an acquisition help internal and external stakeholders in planning the operation; leaving space for adjustment among partners engaged in negotiations during the due diligence period is also useful.

Despite their frequency, merger and acquisition failures remain surprisingly high. This paper explores how stakeholders deal with merger negotiations.

The case provides insights into the due diligence period and the way minor events can impact the planned integration. Theoretical concepts and empirical findings from the literature are combined to present a single consistent picture. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, few studies address insights on strategic decisions made as the negotiation period remains a secret and sensitive stage, especially for a failed deal, but we were able to delve beneath the surface.

Today, with years of corporate experience in managing mergers and acquisitions, there is little excuse for deals that don’t create value. Regrettably failure is the case more often than not. Depending on the industry, a top‐performing merger can increase shareholders’ wealth anywhere from 4 to 65 percent above industry averages. But such rewards only go to companies that understand that merger success is built on two main factors: timing and execution. A.T. Kearney’s findings indicate that a company has just two years to make the deal work. After year two, the window of opportunity on forging merger synergies has all but closed. This article highlights the reasons why timing is so important to merger success, and lays out the seven ground rules‐from selecting leaders quickly, and establishing clear goals, to managing risks and expectations – that leading acquirers abide by to ensure merger success.

Through research and first‐hand experience with more than one hundred nonprofit mergers in the past decade, the firm has developed a variety of tools to help nonprofit organizations determine whether to undertake merger negotiations, how to facilitate these negotiations, and how to integrate organizations post‐merger.

The authors have conducted more than 100 nonprofit mergers. They also interviewed board members and CEOs of nonprofits that have merged.

The critical differences between mergers in for‐profit and nonprofit sectors occur in the negotiations phase, which is where board members often play a key role.

This article addresses the merger process, not the business case. More research is needed on the economic benefits of nonprofit mergers.

The article identifies best practices for nonprofit mergers.

This article alerts volunteer board members from the for‐profit sector to the essential differences they face facilitating mergers in the nonprofit sector and provides them with a step‐by‐step guide to success.

In recent times there has been an explosion in the number and value of mergers and acquisitions. The pressing question that is argued by both managers and academicians relates to the performance of these high value decisions. This paper examines the literature relating to the performance of mergers and acquistions with a view to throwing some light on the question. Criticisms of the existing literature are provided, as also are specific recommendations for future research such as including more longitudinal instead of cross‐sectional studies.

Recent research shows that organisational mergers are distressing for managers. This study compares the perceptions of managers who have undergone an organisational merger with those of managers who have experienced other types of job change. An analysis of psychological responses to work and to the organisation suggests that previous reports of adversity are overstated. Managers′ responses to mergers appear to be similar to experiences of other job changes.

Even though there is a vast body of research on the performance of mergers in the developed markets, many issues are still unresolved. There is almost negligible research in the form of published papers on the performance of merged firms and the strategic factors impacting this performance, in the context of Indian industry. This study aims to address this gap in knowledge.

The study uses a quantitative method and statistically analyses secondary data.

The study finds that merged firms demonstrate better operating performance as compared to both their industries and their pre‐merger performance. Merging firms belonging to unrelated industries appear to be performing better in the long‐term as compared to the related firms. Mergers which witness transfer of corporate control demonstrate a better performance than the ones that do not. Sick acquired firms negatively impact long‐term performance.

The first limitation of the study is that the financial sector has not been included since it follows different accounting norms. The second limitation is that the findings apply broadly across Indian industry and the limited sample size does not facilitate an industry‐specific focus. The study points towards further research using a longer time frame that might help understand longitudinal variations in merged firm performance. It also encourages future finer‐grained studies on each of the factors which impact merged firm performance.

Managers can prudently utilize mergers to improve firm performance in Indian industry. It appears that firms belonging to unrelated industries bestow better long‐term post‐merger cash flow returns. Managers in India do not thus have to constrain themselves to only horizontal mergers. Managers would be well‐advised to improve on their managerial capabilities since this study points towards a developing market for corporate control in the Indian context.

This is probably the first paper of its kind on research on the performance of merged firms in India.

The effect of mergers on the retention and the performance of managers through a comparative analysis of merger and non‐merger job changes is investigated. For the sample of 196 managers surveyed changes in managerial performance during a merger were no different from those occurring during other transitions. The incidence of managerial departures from organisations was significantly greater after mergers than on other occasions. These results which are among the first to document systematically the comparative effects of organisational mergers are discussed in the light of existing anecdotal evidence.

In recent years the retail sector has witnessed a spate of merger activity, partly because some companies have been unable to solve difficult trading problems in any other way, and partly because other companies see acquisitions as the only way to achieve rapid growth. For example, there has been Habitat's acquisition of Mothercare; Argyll Foods' purchase of Allied Suppliers; the sale of Woolworth's in October 1982; and, at the time of writing, bids involving UDS and others. While all this activity has been going on, the Government has been coming under increasing pressure from both businessmen and its own backbenchers to clarify merger policy. In this article Stuart Eliot sets out to review current policy towards retail mergers and considers whether any amendments are desirable.

A survey of three organizations that had been recently acquired was conducted. The three firms were different in size and purpose. Based on the method of carrying out the acquisitions, there were significantly differing results in levels of job satisfaction, reported staying and leaving behavior, and post‐merger productivity. Recommendations concerning Management and, specifically, Human Resources Department interventions are made.

Cross‐border mergers and acquisitions (M&As) are one way in which EC companies are meeting the challenge posed by the competitive threats of the Single European Market. Research in mergers has tended to look at the theoretical and statistical aspects of merger strategies. There is a lack of empirical data on the actual reasons that the companies have for their actions. The present study reports the results of the first empirical investigation into how UK manufacturing firms view their merger strategies. A sample representing 70 per cent (34 companies) of all M&A activity in UK manufacturing companies in 1991 responded to a questionnaire on their respective M&As. The data presented include their reasons and expectations, perceived barriers to Continental M&As, the alternative uses of capital considered and differences between small and large companies (< >£500 million T/O). Also presents M&A preparation times, the significant correlation between merger size and time may be useful in planning future M&As. Finally, discusses the comparison of these companies′ strategies with merger theory, e.g. as regarding synergies, whether these strategies are appropriate long‐term strategies compared with alternatives or are a response to short‐term pressures for growth.