Quotes About Mergers

Wal-Mart does not do big mergers, though it will buy much smaller competitors in so-called 'tuck-in acquisitions.'

Leaders of large businesses sometimes make huge bets in expensive mergers and acquisitions, acting on the mistaken belief that they can manage the assets of another company better than its current owners do.

First, a total-market index fund is an ideal "core" equity holding in a taxable account, because of its "tax efficiency." The Russell 3000 and the Wilshire 5000 have essentially no turnover. Stocks may leave the index via mergers and acquisitions, but these are often not taxable events. The only way a stock truly leaves these portfolios is feet first, by going bankrupt, in which case you don't have to worry about capital gains.

I always said that mega-mergers were for megalomaniacs.

A CEO To increase global presence, product mix, and market share to improve and maintain shareholder earnings and value Mergers and acquisitions Reengineering and change management International corporate leadership experience Visionary strategist; identify and pursue new growth opportunities Board member and shareholder relations management Developer of world-class teams to achieve world-class results MBA from Oxford in international business Skilled in raising capital for growth and expansion

most mergers—some estimates are 70 percent or more—fail to deliver their intended benefits and destroy economic value in the process. A recent analysis of 93 studies covering more than 200,000 mergers published in peer-reviewed journals showed that, on average, the negative effects of a merger on shareholder value become evident less than a month after a merger is announced and persist thereafter.2

We need to pressure lawmakers to hold hearings on pending mergers, and pressure federal and state enforcers to use their full powers.

What if the slowdown in merger activity isn't cyclical, but secular? What if corporations have learned the lessons of so many companies before them that the odds of a successful merger are no better than 50-50 and probably less? Is it possible that the biggest deals have already been done?

Whereas Jimmy Carter had aggressively pursued anti-merger activity - the imbecilic case against AT&T was prosecuted under President Carter - Mr. Reagan understood the virtue of allowing companies to exploit the synergies of mergers to gain efficiency and lower costs.

Companies only have to be "big enough," which rarely means they have to dominate. Often "big enough" is just 10 percent of the market. Yet companies under the influence of winner-takes-all thinking tend to pursue illusory scale advantages. In doing so, they are likely to damage their own performance by cutting price to gain volume, by overextending themselves to serve all market segments, and by pursuing overpriced mergers and acquisitions.

The whole financial industry is consolidating in the United States.

Mergers are like marriages. They are the bringing together of two individuals. If you wouldn't marry someone for the 'operational efficiencies' they offer in the running of a household, then why would you combine two companies with unique cultures and identities for that reason?

Most corporate name changes are the result of mergers and acquisitions. But these tend to be unimaginative.

Something out of the ordinary course of business is taking place that creates an investment opportunity. The list of corporate events that can result in big profits for you runs the gamut—spinoffs, mergers, restructurings, rights offerings, bankruptcies, liquidations, asset sales, distributions.

We knew from theoretical models that mergers of massive, gas-rich galaxies were more frequent in the past. Now we've found that these mergers are responsible for producing both the nearby obscured quasar population and their distant cousins.

Economic globalization creates wealth, but only for the elite who benefit from the surge of consolidations, mergers, global scale technology, and financial activity.

We generally acquire a company every three to four weeks on average. And so it's a rare month that there's not a company being bought. We typically buy for technology and really great people.

M&A guidelines need to be liberal.

I believe there are and will be major opportunities to enhance Time Warner's value in future combinations.

For acquiring companies, the excitement is almost always about where they are going - that is, their strategy for gaining greater growth and productivity. But when mergers fail, it's often because no one focused on who they are - that is, their culture, which is critical to successfully bringing different groups of people together.

The merger mania which goes on and on and on is the sign of the disappearance of competition. As we deregulate, the mergers increase, which means there's less and less competition. At the national level, at the regional level, but also at the international level.

We read the financial papers and there's a ton of tech and media mergers and acquisitions we're likely to take inspiration from.

M&A is always an opportunistic tool to grow a company.

Divestitures have long been the preferred remedy for horizontal mergers, where there's an overlap between the two companies. Airlines, for example, may have to sell routes or airport gates where the two airlines compete; cable operators may have to sell operations in cities where both companies operate.