Please help with the Wikimedia strategic planning process! Discuss the Strategy Task Forces' recommendations.

[Hide] [Help us with translations!]

Mergers and acquisitionsFrom 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 Facet1889 - 1904 First Wave Horizontal mergers1916 - 1929 Second Wave Vertical mergers1965 - 1989 Third Wave Diversified conglomerate mergers1992 - 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:

Rank Year Purchaser PurchasedTransaction value (in mil.

USD)

1 1999Vodafone Airtouch PLC [9]

Mannesmann 183,000

2 1999 Pfizer [10] Warner-Lambert 90,0003 1998 Exxon [11] [12] Mobil 77,2004 1998 Citicorp Travelers Group 73,0005 1999 SBC Communications Ameritech Corporation 63,000

6 1999 Vodafone GroupAirTouch Communications

60,000

7 1998 Bell Atlantic [13] GTE 53,3608 1998 BP [14] Amoco 53,0009 1999 Qwest Communications US WEST 48,00010 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:

Rank Year Purchaser PurchasedTransaction value (in

mil. USD)1 2000 Fusion: America Online Time Warner 164,747

Inc. (AOL)[15][16]

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.[17][18] BellSouth Corporation 72,671

5 2001 Comcast CorporationAT&T Broadband & Internet Svcs

72,041

6 2009 Pfizer Inc. Wyeth 68,000

7 2000Spin-off: Nortel Networks Corporation

59,974

8 2002 Pfizer Inc. Pharmacia Corporation 59,5159 2004 JP Morgan Chase & Co[19] Bank One Corp 58,761

10 2008 Inbev Inc.Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc

52,000

[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 Organizations9. ̂ Mannesmann to accept bid - February 3, 200010. ̂ Pfizer and Warner-Lambert agree to $90 billion merger creating the world's

fastest-growing major pharmaceutical company11. ̂ Exxon, Mobil mate for $80B - December 1, 199812. ̂ Finance: Exxon-Mobil Merger Could Poison The Well13. ̂ Fool.com: Bell Atlantic and GTE Agree to Merge (Feature) July 28, 199814. ̂ http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/finance/fdi/ad2000.html15. ̂ Online NewsHour: AOL/Time Warner Merger16. ̂ AOL and Time Warner to merge - January 10, 200017. ̂ AT&T To Buy BellSouth For $67 Billion, Apparent Bid For Total Control Of

Joint Venture Cingular - CBS News18. ̂ AT&T- News Room19. ̂ "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

Capital structure

Senior secured debt · Senior debt · Second lien

debt · Subordinated debt · Mezzanine debt ·

Convertible debt · Exchangeable debt · Preferred

equity · Warrant · Shareholder loan · Common

equity · Pari passu

Transactions(terms / conditions)

Equity offerings

Initial public offering

(IPO) · Secondary

Market Offering

(SEO) · Follow-on

offering · Rights

issue · Private

placement · Spin off ·

Equity carve-out ·

Greenshoe

(Reverse) · Book

building

Mergers andacquisitions

Takeover · Reverse

takeover · Tender

offer · Poison pill ·

Freeze-out merger ·

Tag-along right ·

Drag-along right ·

Control premium ·

Due diligence ·

Divestment ·

Demerger

Leverage

Leveraged buyout ·

Leveraged recap ·

Financial sponsor ·

Private equity · Bond

offering · High-yield

debt · DIP financing

Valuation

Financial modeling · Free cash flow · Business

valuation · Fairness opinion · Stock valuation ·

APV · DCF · Net present value (NPV) · Cost of

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 topicsRetrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions"Categories: Political economy | Corporate finance | Mergers and acquisitionsHidden 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

 

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

Trang chủ    

|   Giới thiệu    |   Dịch vụ    |   Khách hàng    |   Nhà đầu tư    |   Nghề nghiệp    |   Góc báo chí    |   Total Branding    |   Liên hệ    |   English

Chuyên mụcThông tin thương hiệuKiến thức thương hiệuTình huống thương hiệuDownload chuyên đềGiới thiệu Agency,

Thiết kế & Thương hiệuQuảng cáo & Thương hiệuThương hiệu trong phimThương hiệu hàng đầuSách thương hiệuThuật ngữ thương hiệuNhượng quyền thương

Đo lường thương hiệuĐo lường website

  Trang chủ  >  Thuật ngữ thương hiệu >

Merger & Acquisition - Sáp nhập và Mua lại

Cập nhật 29-11-2005 10:20Sáp nhập 2 thương hiệu có nghĩa là tạo thêm giá trị cho 1 thương hiệu và loại bỏ 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 hiệu đó, vì vậy mọi hoạt động bên cạnh việc sáp nhập phải được đánh giá về tài chính, về hoạt động, về pháp lý , pháp nhân, công nghệ và rất nhiều yếu tố khác.

Khi hai thương hiệu lớn cùng về chung sống dưới một mái nhà theo quy tắc “M&A” (Merger & 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.

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. 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

  Tài trợ bởi

  Các chủ đề liên quan

 

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   

Trang chủ

© Copyright 2004 - LANTABRAND - Total Brand Solution™ Giấy phép ICP của Bộ Văn hóa Thông tin số 150/GP-BC.

Vui lòng ghi rõ nguồn lantabrand.com khi bạn phát hành lại thông tin từ website Powered by www.lantabrand.com

 HỆ THỐNG THÔNG TIN TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC   UNIVERSITY INFORMATION SYSTEM

Bảng điểm học tập của sinh viên

Đăng ký địa chỉ email

Đăng ký học

Xem lịch thi cá nhâ

 Mã sinh viên :

CQ503692Họ tên :

Phạm Thị Thu Hà

Khóa : K50Ngành :

Lớp :Tiếng Anh Thương Mại C K50

STT

Mã

học

phần

Tên học phần

Số TCTư

cách

Kiểm tra

ThiTKHP

1 DLNN Dẫn luận ngôn ngữ 3 8 8 6.0 6.6

2 DLQS3 Đường lối quân sự 3 9 7 7.5 7.6

3 TTTD11 Giáo dục thể chất 1 2 8 64.0|5.0

4.8|5.5

4 TTTD12 Giáo dục thể chất 2 2 9 7 7.0 7.2

5KHMA191

Kinh tế vĩ mô 1 4 10 6 6.5 6.8

6NGUAM

Ngữ âm - âm vị học 2 10 8 9.5 9.3

7NGAN1007

Ngữ âm thực hành 2 8 6 6.0 6.2

8NGAN33

Nhập môn khoa học giao tiếp 3 10 7 8.5 8.4

9MLNL01

Những nguyên lý cơ bản của chủ nghĩa Mác - Lênin 1

3 5 3 7.0 6.0

10 QPQS01 Quân sự chung 3 8 8 8.02.4|8.0

11QPTHKT

Thực hành kỹ thuật 3 9 7 5.0 5.8

12TA1DOC

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Đọc 2 9 9 8.0 8.4

13TA1NGHE

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Nghe 2 9 8 7.5 7.9

14 TA1NOITiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Nói 2 10 7 6.5 7.3

15TA1THTH

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Thực hành tổng hợp

4 7 6 8.0 7.4

16TA1VIET

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 1 - Viết 2 10 8 6.5 7.5

17TA2THTH

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Thực hành tổng hợp

8 8 7 7.0 7.2

18TA2DOC

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Đọc 2 10 8 7.0 7.8

19TA2NGHE

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Nghe 2 10 8 7.0 7.8

20 TA2NOITiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Nói 2 9 7 5.5 6.5

21TA2VIET

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 2 - Viết 3 6 6 6.0 6.0

22TA3DOC

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Đọc 2 8 7 7.5 7.5

23 TA3NOITiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Nói 2 9 7 6.5 7.1

24TA3VIET

Tiếng Anh cơ bản 3 - Viết 3 7 6 7.0 6.8

25 TV1 Tiếng Việt 1 3 8 8 8.0 8.0

26TIKT301

Tin học đại cương 4 10 6 7.0 7.1

27TOCB101

Toán cao cấp 4 8 8 6.5 7.0

n

Đăng ký thi

Tra cứu điểm

Kết quả đăng ký học

Chương trình học

Đổi mật khẩu

Thống k

ê đăng ký học

Tin nhắn

Quên mật khẩu

Sinh viên xem và tự cập nhật 1 số thông tin cá nhâ

n

Phạm Thị Thu Hà(CQ503692)_Sinh viên Có 6 tin nhắn mới

Hướng dẫn đăng ký h

ọc

© 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