Why Merger and Acquisition Fail

1335 Words6 Pages
WHY MERGERS AND ACQUISTIONS FAIL In July last year, the world woke up to a $35 billion merger announcement of US based advertising giant Omnicom and its French counterpart Publicis, initiated to cope with an evolving advertising industry dominated by tech giants like Google and Facebook. The merger deal was expected to dethrone WPP as the world’s largest advertising agency, heralded as a merger of equals. Close to one year later, the biggest acquisition deal in the advertising industry was called off last week. Merger or Acquisition deals have always been frenzied as a guarantee of tapping into various growth opportunities such as acquiring new products and expansion into new geographical areas or access to new customers. This is in addition to motives as improving profitability and the company’s strategic capabilities and positioning in the market. Analysts had predicted the 50-50 ownership deal between the two ginormous advertising holding companies as a union would provide scale and capital to cope with technological forces reshaping the industry. But research indicates that Mergers and Acquisitions have an overall success rate of about 50% only, that’s in the post-takeover period which is the integration process. The deals always look good on spreadsheets but few organizations pay proper attention to the integration process. This can be attributed to the misleading notion in Finance and Economics field that Mergers or Acquisitions are a clear roadmap to increased market share. Researchers from these areas have always measured the success of a merger by the change in the stock rates in the first few days after announcement of the merger. The basic assumption is that the stock value reflects the company’s value in an objective manner based on all the existing public information. The idea is that the immediate change in the stock price reflects changed

More about Why Merger and Acquisition Fail

Open Document