Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Firms merge to fulfill certain objectives. The overriding goal for merging is
maximization of the owners wealth as reflected in the acquirers share price.
These motives should be pursued when they lead to owner wealth maximization.
I. Synergy
The primary motivation for most mergers is to increase the value of the
combined enterprise. If Companies A and B merge to form Company C, and if
Cs value exceeds that of A and B taken separately, then synergy is said to exist.
Such a merger should be beneficial to both As and Bs stockholders.2
Synergistic effects can arise from four sources: (1) operating economies, which
result from economies of scale in management, marketing, production, or
distribution; (2) financial economies, including lower transactions costs and
better coverage by security analysts; (3) differential efficiency, which implies
that the management of one firm is more efficient and that the weaker firms
assets will be more productive after the merger; and (4) increased market
power due to reduced competition. Operating and financial economies are
socially desirable, as are mergers that increase managerial efficiency; but
mergers that reduce competition are socially undesirable and often illegal.
Expected synergies are not always realized. For example, when AOL
acquired Time Warner, it believed that Time Warners extensive content library
could be sold to AOLs Internet subscribers and that AOL subscribers could be
shifted over to Time Warners cable system. When the merger was announced,
the new management estimated that such synergies would increase operating
income by $1 billion per year. However, things didnt work out as expected, and
in 2002 Time Warner had to write off about $100 billion in lost value associated
with the merger. Merrill Lynch (ML) was facing bankruptcy in late 2008, so
federal officials encouraged Bank of America (BoA) to save ML from bankruptcy
by acquiring it, creating one of the worlds largest (if not the largest) financial
conglomerate. But BoA tried to back out of the deal as it learned more about
MLs situation. Under pressure from the government, BoA went through with the
merger and almost immediately reported over $21 billion in associated losses. As
these examples illustrate, often it is blemishes and not synergies that materialize
after a merger.
IV. Diversification
Managers often cite diversification as a reason for mergers. They contend
that diversification helps stabilize a firms earnings and thus benefits its owners.
Stabilization of earnings is certainly beneficial to employees, suppliers, and
customers; but its value is less certain from the standpoint of stockholders. Why
should Firm A acquire Firm B to stabilize earnings when stockholders can simply
buy the stock of both firms? Indeed, research of U.S. firms suggests that in most
cases, diversification does not increase the firms value. To the contrary, many
studies find that diversified firms are worth significantly less than the sum of their
individual parts.
Of course, if you were the owner-manager of a closely held firm, it might
be nearly impossible to sell part of your stock to diversify. Also, selling your stock
would probably lead to a large capital gains tax. So, a diversification merger
might be the best way to achieve personal diversification for a privately held
firm.
The merger of two small firms or of a small and a larger firm may provide
the owners of the small firm(s) with greater liquidity. This is due to the higher
marketability associated with the shares of larger firms. Instead of holding shares
in a small firm that has a very thin market, the owners will receive shares that
are traded in a broader market and can thus be liquidated more readily. Also,
owning shares for which market price quotations are readily available provides
owners with a better sense of the value of their holdings. Especially in the case of
small, closely held firms, the improved liquidity of ownership obtainable through
merger with an acceptable firm may have considerable appeal.
Occasionally, a firm will have good potential that it finds itself unable to
develop fully because of deficiencies in certain areas of management or an
absence of needed product or production technology. If the firm cannot hire
the management or develop the technology it needs, it might combine with a
compatible firm that has the needed managerial personnel or technical
expertise. Of course, any merger should contribute to maximizing the owners
wealth.